What Is Necesssary For Salvation?

[ironmonk]

amniotic fluid Please... just stop now, I can't laugh any harder.

well...duh... this is the funniest twist I've ever heard about something in Scripture.

I got one for ya... Unless a man be born of amniotic fluid he won't be born.


It's truly sad when people think that they are dead on when they are not.

[quote][b]The Didache[/b] (teaching of the twelve apostles)

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

[b]Justin Martyr[/b]


"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

 
[b]Irenaeus[/b]


"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

 
[b]Tertullian[/b]


"[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’" (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

[b]Cyprian of Carthage[/b]


"[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).


[b]Cyril of Jerusalem[/b]


"Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul. . . . When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, ‘Unless a man be born again,’ and he adds the words ‘of water and of the Spirit,’ ‘he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it" (Catechetical Lectures 3:4 [A.D. 350]).


[b]Basil the Great[/b]

"This then is what it means to be ‘born again of water and Spirit’: Just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit’s presence there" (The Holy Spirit 15:35 [A.D. 375]).


[b]Ambrose of Milan[/b]

"Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God" (The Holy Spirit 1:6[75–76] [A.D. 381]).

"The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11–12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.
. . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (Abraham 2:11:79–84 [A.D. 387]).

"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (The Mysteries 4:20 [A.D. 390]).


[b]John Chrysostom[/b]

"[N]o one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]" (The Priesthood 3:5–6 [A.D. 387]).


[b]The Apostolic Constitutions[/b]


"Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13]. . . . [H]e that out of contempt will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, ‘Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ And again, ‘He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned’" [Mark 16:16] (Apostolic Constitutions 6:3:15 [A.D. 400]).

 
[b]Augustine[/b] (Bishop, who helped put together the Canon of the NT)


"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]).

"Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,’ made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’" [Matt. 10:32] (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]). [/quote]



Unless people listen to the trustworthy men which the Apostles trusted to teach others, then there is no hope for them to get the One Faith right.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 2 2004, 09:58 PM'] The use of modern terms, most notably Holy Spirit instead of Holy Ghost and "you" instead of "Thee", while being used in the New Mass, contradict every tradition and custom of the English-speaking world. Further, the Mass itself contradicts itself. The Mass uses "you" to refer to God rather than "Thee" and says Holy Spirit rather than Holy Ghost. The problem with this is that for one part of the Mass, the Pater Noster, the Mass reverts to the traditional English structure. The Pater of the New Mass is as follows: "Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo." The translation given by the ICEL for English Masses is: "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." This is interesting to say the least. In modern English, the Pater would be translated as follows: "Our Father, you (who) are in heaven, hallowed be your name; your kingdom come; your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil." (considering that individual words are not translated to have a different meaning) This simply illustrates a contradiction within the English version of the New Mass.


Other common examples of modern English translations of Latin are as follows: If a prayer begins in Latin, e.g., the Collect or the Postcommunion, is written "Deus, qui es bonus", it would be translated "God, you are good" whereas in traditional English it would be translationed "O God, Who art good". In Latin, like the Romance languages which come from it, the pronouns are not necessary. One could say "Ego sum" to mean "I am" or just "Sum" to mean the same thing. In the example given, "Deus, qui es bonus" it would literally be translated "[O] God, thou who art good" (or "God, you who are good"). Most often, in modern English, "qui es" or "qui ordinis" ("Thou Who ordainest") or "qui [insert any verb in the second person singular, i.e., the 'you' form]" these phrases are translated simply as "you [insert verb in second person, singular conjugation]", i.e., "you are (in heaven)". This translation ignores the word "qui" (who). In traditional English the translation incorporates the English to match the Latin, i.e., in Latin the prayer reads "qui[second person singular without the pronoun being used, e.g., 'es']" and in traditional English it reads "Who [second person singular without the pronoun being used, e.g., 'art' or 'are' rather than 'is' which would be the correct noun-verb agreement between the word 'who' and the verb 'to be']".


All in all, modern English omits the word "who" while inserting the second person singular pronoun (you) and using the second person singular form of the verb (are). Old English maintains the use of the word "who" while combining the second person singular pronoun and verb into one statement using only the verb "art" (the Old English form of 'are'). In addition to this difference, modern English has done away with the traditional endings to words, e.g., rather than saying "Who hath made heaven and earth", modern English would say "Who has made heaven and earth". Instead of saying "Thou Who bringest all things to completion", modern English says "You bring all things to completion." The differences I have listed are the major discrepancies between modern English and Old English. Even if modern English were translated consistently without contradictions, the translation is inferior to the Old English which can more fully incorporate the words of the prayer from its original form into our language.


Other than all of these things, Old English simply sounds better and much more sacred than modern English. Rather than the bland "Through Jesus Christ our Lord who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen.", Old English says "Through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen." This is essentially what some of the "High" Anglicans will do for their (invalid) services. Some of the more 'traditional' Anglicans will use the Traditional Latin Mass but they will simply do everything in English. Instead of chanting "Asperges me Domine, hyssopo, et mundabor; lavabis me et super nivem dealbabor", they chant "Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, [O Lord, and I shall be cleansed]; Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow" N.B., the part in brackets is omitted because it cannot match the music (they use the same music as would be heard at a Traditional Latin Mass). The Asperges has been deleted from the New Mass, but it was the sprinkling of the people with Holy Water before High Mass on Sundays.

Another thing about using Holy Ghost rather than Holy Spirit, the Latin reads, as cmom said, "Spiritus Sanctus" which literally translates as "Sacred Spirit" (if you take the latinized English terms, since both of these are now English words--sacred and spirit) but, in traditional English diction, translates "Holy Ghost". If one wishes to use the modern English (which I disagree with doing), one must say "Sacred Spirit", not "Holy Spirit" or "Sacred Ghost" in order to maintain consistency. This is just another example of the inconsistent and contradictory translations of many prayers into English.

Until I hear "Hail Mary, full of grace (or, "highly favored one" :mad: ), the Lord is with you; you are blessed among women, and the fruit of your womb, Jesus, is blessed; holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen." or "Our Father, you (who) are in heaven, hallowed be your name; your kingdom come; your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.", then the 'arguments' for modern English should not be made. [/quote]
I am not arguing, I am simply pointing out the term used by the CHURCH

[amarkich]

Cmom, I understand that. You are correct in saying that this is the approved ICEL translation. I was just in the mood for writing about the benefits of traditional English

Aloysius, English is a germanic language. There are latinized forms of English words which are derived immediately from other Romance languages (like French) and remotely from the original Latin (from which French has its roots). Spirit has not been in the English language as long as ghost. The language of the germanic tribe the Angles is called English. It has been modernized several times and has constantly taken on different words from other languages. I believe that Webster's Dictionary adds a maximum of five new words into the language per year (I may be incorrect). The word ghost when used in a religious concept has no meaning of "Casper". This word was used from the beginning of the conversion of the English to describe the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost. It would be more correct to say that the word spirit is 'tainted' by false connotations, for this word is used to describe enigmatic concepts, e.g., the "spirit" of the gathering, the "spirit" of Vatican II, the "spirit" of (some group or event). The word 'spirit' has a more transcendental(ist) connotation whereas the word 'ghost' has a more practical, real (but still reverent) meaning. In any event, the ICEL uses the word 'spirit'. I wish this would be changed, but if it were in Latin there would not be a need for this discussion. The tradition of using ghost is enough to keep it in the liturgy. I do not think the connotation of the word simply switched in 1965 (or some time shortly before that; some missals before Vatican II used the word Spirit as well as the word Ghost for the Third Person of the Trinity). The point is that spirit has not been in the language as long as ghost. It is a latinized synonym for ghost which was added later in modern English. God bless.

[amarkich]

Bump to Aloysius.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 3 2004, 03:08 PM'] Cmom, I understand that. You are correct in saying that this is the approved ICEL translation. I was just in the mood for writing about the benefits of traditional English

Aloysius, English is a germanic language. There are latinized forms of English words which are derived immediately from other Romance languages (like French) and remotely from the original Latin (from which French has its roots). Spirit has not been in the English language as long as ghost. The language of the germanic tribe the Angles is called English. It has been modernized several times and has constantly taken on different words from other languages. I believe that Webster's Dictionary adds a maximum of five new words into the language per year (I may be incorrect). The word ghost when used in a religious concept has no meaning of "Casper". This word was used from the beginning of the conversion of the English to describe the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost. It would be more correct to say that the word spirit is 'tainted' by false connotations, for this word is used to describe enigmatic concepts, e.g., the "spirit" of the gathering, the "spirit" of Vatican II, the "spirit" of (some group or event). The word 'spirit' has a more transcendental(ist) connotation whereas the word 'ghost' has a more practical, real (but still reverent) meaning. In any event, the ICEL uses the word 'spirit'. I wish this would be changed, but if it were in Latin there would not be a need for this discussion. The tradition of using ghost is enough to keep it in the liturgy. I do not think the connotation of the word simply switched in 1965 (or some time shortly before that; some missals before Vatican II used the word Spirit as well as the word Ghost for the Third Person of the Trinity). The point is that spirit has not been in the language as long as ghost. It is a latinized synonym for ghost which was added later in modern English. God bless. [/quote]
I would disagree, the word ghost conjures up visions of spooks. The word spirit does not.
It is a far better term to use in todays halloweenized [ like my new word? ] society.

I still use Thee and Thou. they are more formal and have not been vulgarized.

[amarkich]

Do you actually think of Casper when you say Ghost? I always say Holy Ghost, and I never think of this (even though I was brought up saying Holy Spirit). If the Church still used Holy Ghost, I do not think Catholics (at least practicing Catholics) would think of Casper when they hear the word ghost. By the way, do you use older terms or modern english (liveth and reigneth vs. lives and reigns)? God bless.

[phatcatholic]

is their any chance of returning to the original topic of this debate?

[amarkich]

Sure, do you mean amniotic fluid or the real topic? In any event, what are your comments on it?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 3 2004, 09:49 PM']Sure, do you mean amniotic fluid    or the real topic? In any event, what are your comments on it?[/quote]
i'm referring to the necessity of being baptized with water

also, i'm still waiting on Spriles or Ichus to respond to my post regarding the greek used for "water" in the NT.

until then, would anyone else like to make an argument for the true meaning of John 3:3 and 3:5?

i found the following points in an article at Catholic Answers:

[quote]The term "born again" may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated "born again" (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the Bible—John 3:3 and 3:7—and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated "again," but in the New Testament, it most often means "from above." In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated "again" are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering.
. . . .
These different ways of talking about being "born again" describe effects of baptism, which Christ speaks of in John 3:5 as being "born of water and the Spirit." In Greek, this phrase is, literally, "born of water and Spirit," indicating one birth of water-and-Spirit, rather than "born of water and of the Spirit," as though it meant two different births—one birth of water and one birth of the Spirit.

[b]from [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Are_Catholics_Born_Again.asp"][i]Are Catholics Born Again?[/b][/i][/url][/quote]

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[amarkich]

What are your comments on the necessity of Baptism (or lack thereof; N.B., when I say "Baptism" I am referring to the Sacrament)?

In any event, I disagree with Keating's claim to an extent. He is incorrect to say that "born from above" is a better (or the correct translation) rather than "born again". Our Lord says that one must be "born again", but this birth is a supernatural birth (as is indicated by "born from above"). It is true that Our Lord implies that by being born again of water and the Holy Ghost is the same as being "born from above" by water and the Holy Ghost, but the commentary on that is ridiculous because it offers no proof that the Aramaic word for 'anothen' has the same double meaning as it does in Greek (therefore, there is no reason for the Nicodemus to be confused). Further, Saint Jerome uses the Latin for "born again" ([i]renatus[/i]: reborn) not the word for "from above", further illustrating that he viewed this Greek phrase to mean "again" and not "from above". This is probably the most important fact to disprove Keating's opinion on this issue. In any event, the fact still remains that it is a supernatural rebirth and not a physical rebirth, as Our Lord indicates by saying "with water and the Holy Ghost". God bless.

[ICTHUS]

Okay, I'm returning this thread to the amniotic fluid discussion.

Phatcatholic, your demonstration of the Greek doesn't prove anything, the word 'hudatos' could be used metaphorically, just like saying 'the moon was a pizza' doesn't change the meaning of the word 'pizza', it only makes a comparison of the moon to a pizza without using the terms 'like' or 'as'

[carrdero]

Salvation comes from within the individual who desires to be saved. Nobody can validate salvation for you. This is called responsibility. If it was that easy and everyone was giving it to so freely it would put the focus off of the Being who desires to BE saved.

[Aloysius]

oh brother, pelagianism

Pelagius lived at Kardanoel
And taught a doctrine there
How, whether you went to heaven or to hell
It was your own affair.
It had nothing to do with the Church, my boy,
But was your own affair.

No, he didn't believe
In Adam and Eve
He put no faith therein!
His doubts began
With the Fall of Man
And he laughed at Original Sin.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
He laughed at original sin.

Then came the bishop of old Auxerre
Germanus was his name
He tore great handfuls out of his hair
And he called Pelagius shame.
And with his stout Episcopal staff
So thoroughly whacked and banged
The heretics all, both short and tall --
They rather had been hanged.

Oh he whacked them hard, and he banged them long
Upon each and all occasions
Till they bellowed in chorus, loud and strong
Their orthodox persuasions.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Their orthodox persuasions.

Now the faith is old and the Devil bold
Exceedingly bold indeed.
And the masses of doubt that are floating about
Would smother a mortal creed.
But we that sit in a sturdy youth
And still can drink strong ale
Let us put it away to infallible truth
That always shall prevail.

And thank the Lord
For the temporal sword
And howling heretics too.
And all good things
Our Christendom brings
But especially barley brew!
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Especially barley brew!

-- Hillaire Belloc

Salvation comes from God, not from within yourself. God works through His Church.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 2 2004, 04:08 PM'] change the question to "what is [i][b]normatively [/b][/i]necessary" and i choose the first option [/quote]
OK, I'll bring this back to its actual purpose... what would you say if the question is posed as is--what is necessary, period, not the norm. Of course, I would expect a reason for what it is you believe, which, I'm sure you would have supplied anyway.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 4 2004, 07:11 PM'] Okay, I'm returning this thread to the amniotic fluid discussion.

Phatcatholic, your demonstration of the Greek doesn't prove anything, the word 'hudatos' could be used metaphorically, just like saying 'the moon was a pizza' doesn't change the meaning of the word 'pizza', it only makes a comparison of the moon to a pizza without using the terms 'like' or 'as' [/quote]
icthus,

before i comment, i just want to say that it truly saddens me to debate this topic w/ you, considering that only weeks ago we were in communion w/ each other and were the truest of brothers in Christ. how could you possibly take this to mean "amniotic fluid" when for so long in your life you were convicted that John was referring to the waters of baptism? search you heart and ask yourself honestly why you have really adopted this new interpretation. could it be that you are now doing everything possible to reject your old faith--even accepting rather illogical conclusions--so as to validate w/in yourself this recent change of heart? this is not a good reason to intepret Scripture in such a way, and it pains me to see you engaging in this exercise.

that said, your example "the moon was a pizza" is not metaphorical language. the words "like" or "as" must be used. w/o these words, you are stating that something IS something else, instead of saying that it is similar to something else.

secondly, John 3:5 does not employ metaphorical language either:

--Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

where is it even implied here that the water is meant to be a metaphor for something else? also, your contention is that the water here IS amniotic fluid, not that it is a metaphor for amniotic fluid, so this whole talk of metaphor is rather out of place.

so, since we are speaking of what the water in fact is, we are resigned to the definitions of the greek for water in order to determine what the greek is in fact referring to. none of the definitions for "hudor"--the transliteration of the Greek used for "water" in John 3:5--denote amniotic fluid as a possible intention of the word. here are the definitions of hudor:

1. water[list]
[*]a. of water in rivers, in fountains, in pools
b. of the water of the deluge
c. of water in any of the earth's repositories
d. of water as the primary element, out of and through which the world that was before the deluge, arose and was compacted
e. of the waves of the sea
f. fig. used of many peoples
[/list]you simply cannot escape the Greek of this passage, bro.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited August 5, 2004 by phatcatholic