tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post114597363251265831..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Back to the Bread of LifeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1146048918565581622006-04-26T06:55:00.000-04:002006-04-26T06:55:00.000-04:00Hello said:"I don't know, that still sounds like a...Hello said:<BR/><BR/>"I don't know, that still sounds like a stretch. Just one more comment on the original argument of this post: It doesn't matter that Jesus was speaking anachronistically. He could still have meant baptism, since he often used anachronisms and expected people to know what he meant, anyway. Remember, he told the Jews He would tear down the temple and rebuilt it in 3 days. This was an anachronism, but, like Jn 3:5, it signified a future fulfillment."<BR/><BR/>The issue isn't how the text could <I>possibly</I> be read, but rather how to make the most sense of it. We know that Jesus is referring to His body in John 2:19 because John tells us so in 2:21. We have no such statement about the water of John 3. Since we can explain the water without including baptism, and since we know that Jesus repeatedly told people that they were justified before or without baptism, it makes more sense to see the water of John 3 as something defined by the Old Testament and by John's gospel (John 7:38-39), not by later sacramentalism. In the immediate context of John 3, Jesus goes on to mention faith three times (verses 15, 16, and 18) without mentioning baptism at all. We see the same thing in John 6, where Jesus repeatedly mentions faith, but says nothing of the eucharist. Baptism and the eucharist aren't needed to explain these passages, so why should we accept your appeal to anachronism? You refer to "future fulfillment" of John 3:5, but nothing in the text or context suggests that being born of water is something that will only occur in the future. To the contrary, Jesus criticizes Nicodemus, as a teacher of Israel, for not understanding Him, and He's discussing how to see the kingdom of God in the present, not in the future. To try to place baptism into the text is unnatural. It makes less sense of the text and context. The same is true with regard to the eucharist in John 6. Both passages make sense, and make <I>better</I> sense, without including sacraments. Why include the sacraments, then?<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind what I said earlier about the salvation theme of John's gospel (John 20:31). If something like baptism or the eucharist was to later be added to faith as a means of attaining eternal life, then why would John emphasize Jesus' <I>pre-resurrection</I> comments on salvation (John 3:16, 5:24, 6:40, 11:25, etc.) in order to teach his <I>post-resurrection</I> readers about how to be saved? If people were saved differently after the resurrection than they were before it (if baptism was added as a requirement, for example), then why would John write a gospel emphasizing pre-resurrection teaching on how to be saved? You could argue that Jesus' pre-resurrection statements are meant to teach us the necessity of faith, even though faith is insufficient without having baptism added to it. But, then, why would John never even once explain to his readers that Jesus' statements are no longer applicable to us, and that baptism has since that time been added as a requirement? It makes more sense to conclude that John emphasizes Jesus' statements about the sufficiency of faith because faith continued to be sufficient. People today are justified the same way they were prior to the resurrection, through faith alone. Jesus' statements about justification through faith are just as relevant and complete today as they were when He spoke them.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1146010604228807652006-04-25T20:16:00.000-04:002006-04-25T20:16:00.000-04:00Steve has made a lot of good points, and I want to...Steve has made a lot of good points, and I want to add some comments of my own.<BR/><BR/>The best explanation we have for the identity of the eating and drinking in John 6 is verse 35. Early on in His comments, Jesus makes a reference to the significance of faith in verse 29, and He repeatedly mentions faith thereafter (verses 35, 40, 47, 64), without mentioning the eucharist even once. John wrote his gospel with salvation in view (John 20:31), and we see John including many of Jesus' "believe and be saved" statements (John 3:16, 5:24, 6:35, 7:38, 11:25, 12:36, etc.). Interpreting the eating and drinking as references to coming to Christ and believing in Him is consistent with verse 35, explains the repeated references to faith without any references to the eucharist, and is consistent with the salvation through faith theme of John's gospel.<BR/><BR/>If we want further evidence of what Jesus meant, we can look at what He told individuals about their salvation. Jesus never tells anybody that he must wait for baptism or the eucharist before being justified. Rather, people are repeatedly told that they're justified before or without being baptized or participating in the eucharist (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, 18:10-14, etc.). Advocates of baptismal justification sometimes attempt to explain these passages by arguing that baptism didn't become the normative means of attaining justification until after Jesus' resurrection. In addition to the arbitrary and unproveable nature of that argument, notice the inconsistency of some of the people who use it. On the one hand, we're told that Jesus was telling Nicodemus that he must be baptized in order to be justified. On the other hand, we're told that baptism wasn't yet the means of attaining justification when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus. This inconsistency is seen in Tertullian, who wrote the earliest treatise on baptism and was an advocate of baptismal justification:<BR/><BR/>"And thus it was with the selfsame 'baptism of John' that His disciples used to baptize, as ministers, with which John before had baptized as forerunner. Let none think it was with some other, because no other exists, except that of Christ subsequently; which at that time, of course, could not be given by His disciples, inasmuch as the glory of the Lord had not yet been fully attained, nor the efficacy of the font established through the passion and the resurrection; because neither can our death see dissolution except by the Lord's passion, nor our life be restored without His resurrection....Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added with the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed" (On Baptism, 11, 13)<BR/><BR/>Tertullian is telling us that baptismal justification didn't go into effect until after Jesus' resurrection. Yet, Tertullian tells us that the "chief" reason for accepting baptismal justification is John 3:<BR/><BR/>"When, however, the prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none' (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, 'Unless one be born of water, he hath not life'), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some" (On Baptism, 12)<BR/><BR/>So, baptismal justification didn't go into effect until after Jesus' resurrection, but the <I>pre-resurrection</I> discussion in John 3, in which Jesus tells Nicodemus about the <I>current</I> requirements for justification at that time, is cited as the primary evidence for justification through baptism. Elsewhere in his treatise, Tertullian contradicts the New Testament further by dismissing Abraham as not being representative of how people are justified today, since Abraham wasn't baptized (On Baptism, 13). Yet, Paul describes the Galatians as justified "by hearing with faith" (Galatians 3:2), which surely isn't a reference to being baptized, and he goes on to cite Genesis 15:6 as an illustration (Galatians 3:6-9).<BR/><BR/>That's one of the problems with the sacramental reading of John 3. It isn't consistent with what Jesus and the apostles taught about justification through faith. Even if we were to grant the gratuitous assertion that doing the work involved in participating in a sacrament isn't to be considered work, the fact remains that sacraments are something other than faith. If they're neither faith nor works, then they're a third category. But adding a third category to faith doesn't give you faith. It gives you faith <I>and</I> participation in sacraments, whether you call that participation "work" or something else.<BR/><BR/>As Steve said, one of the most significant steps in coming to a right understanding of John 3 and John 6 is to look at the context. Jesus was addressing Jews who had no New Testament, and He addressed them at a time when He was repeatedly telling people that they were justified as soon as they believe, without any baptism or participation in the eucharist.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1146000342560380942006-04-25T17:25:00.000-04:002006-04-25T17:25:00.000-04:00The water would be a literary allusion to some OT ...The water would be a literary allusion to some OT rite or event, but it wouldn't be tied to that referent.<BR/><BR/>We need to distinguish between sign and significate. Different signs can share a common significate.<BR/><BR/>It wouldn't be that we're born of water from the rock, but rather, that whatever water from the rock signifies (or other suchlike) is what baptism signifies.<BR/><BR/>It's not the sign that's reproduced, but the significate.<BR/><BR/>In Jn 3:5, it signifies the new birth. However, that is also a metaphor.<BR/><BR/>Natural metaphors are open-textured. There can be a one-many relation between the metaphor and what it signifies.<BR/><BR/>There's also a question of whether baptism carries a uniform import throughout the NT. Does every NT writer use it to signify the very same thing?<BR/><BR/>These questions can only be answered on a contextual, case-by-case basis.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1145995434548176702006-04-25T16:03:00.000-04:002006-04-25T16:03:00.000-04:00P.S. -- in the Greek, water and spirit refers to O...P.S. -- in the Greek, water and spirit refers to ONE thing. So you can not argue that it refers to natural birth and a later spiritual birth. Water here means something that confers the Spirit. Explain zat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1145995162307220692006-04-25T15:59:00.000-04:002006-04-25T15:59:00.000-04:00If you deny the sacramental readin of John 3:5, wh...If you deny the sacramental readin of John 3:5, what's left? You'd have to argue that "water" means some Old Testament symbol, like the water from the rock or the water of the Red Sea. But that wouldn't make sense in the sentance: Is Jesus saying we must be born of the Red Sea and the Holy Spirit?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com