León XIV Offers the Key to Evangelization: an “Intimate Relationship” with Jesus [Ecumenical thread]

The strength to never give up and to continue spreading the message of hope, love, and peace comes from “a deep relationship” with Jesus, the Pope said during this Sunday’s Angelus. This also enables us to face hostility and persecution, just as the early Christians did.

On a hot Sunday in Rome, as in other parts of the world, Pope Leo XIX commented during the Angelus on the Gospel (https://www.omnesmag.com/en/resources-2/gospel/sunday-readings-12th-sunday-in-ordinary-time-part-a/) the part of the Mass in which Jesus sends the disciples out on their mission (Mt 10,26-33).

the Holy Father said in the Angelus, we should not think of “contemplation” as “an exclusive experience, reserved for a few saints or for monks and hermits. We can all do it by making an effort, amid our daily commitments, to set aside moments of stillness to remain in silence before God, listen to his voice, entrust our joys and concerns to him, and reflect on our lives with him.”.

“This makes us, more and more, people of solid and conscious faith,” he emphasized, and “therefore credible and free apostles—men and women capable of reflecting the light of the Gospel in every setting and in every situation of life, bearing witness to it even where its value is neither understood nor accepted.”.

Both today and yesterday, “it is difficult to remain faithful to Jesus” teachings and proclaim his Word: to respond to hatred with love, to arrogance with gentleness, and to discouragement with perseverance.”.

For this reason, the Pope urges, “we must delve deeper into the roots of our faith and our mission through an intense relationship with Him”

The Successor of Peter extended a special greeting to the members of the International Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, as well as to the faithful of Rome and pilgrims from various countries,

John 15:15: "I no longer call you servants... instead, I have called you friends." This serves as the foundation for the Pope's call to move beyond ritualism into a living, personal relationship.

The Pope invites all believers—not just monks or saints—to set aside moments of daily silence to "remain before God," listen to His voice, and entrust Him with their lives. This internal life fosters a "solid and conscious faith," which transforms believers into credible apostles who can reflect the light of the Gospel in any situation.

John 15:5: "I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing." This reinforces the article's point that effective evangelization depends on staying connected to the "roots" of the faith.

1 Peter 3:15: "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence."

Matthew 28:19–20: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

The strength to never give up and to continue spreading the message of hope, love, and peace comes from “a deep relationship” with Jesus,

(Jer 31:31) “The day is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.

(Jer 31:33) “But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the LORD. “I will put My instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be My people.

Heb_8:10 But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be My people.

Heb_10:16 “This is the new covenant I will make with My people on that day, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”

The new covenant is a deep personal relationship with God not the church. Are you born again? Does the Spirit live in you. Do you crave his Word like you do pizza?

As you, Peterprinciple, of course I am born again as Jesus defined it — He explicitly clarifies that being born again means being “born of water and the Spirit,” (John 3:3-5) - Jesus linked being born of water AND spirit together in a single, concurrent action - the sacrament of Baptism. he very first thing Jesus does after explaining how to be “born again” to Nicodemus is go out into the land of Judea with His disciples and baptize people (John 3:22). John 1 shows us this when Jesus as a example to us, is baptised.

The Bible never defines being “born again” as a subjective, emotional moment where you pray a sinner’s prayer or “accept Jesus into your heart.” It refers to the physical and spiritual reality of Baptism—the “washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5) where God cleanses us, opens the heavens, and fills us with His Holy Spirit

Now let me ask you — Are you born again the Bible way, or just the modernist way?

Remember that St. Peter explicitly stated, “Baptism... now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21), and that Ananias commanded Paul, “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16).

Do note that the New Covenant isn’t a choice between a relationship with God or a relationship with the Church; the Church is the body of the New Covenant. In Ephesians 5:31-32, St. Paul quotes Genesis regarding marriage—the ultimate “deep personal relationship”—and explicitly states: “‘The two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

it is not either/or but AND...

St. Paul explicitly states that Christ loved the Church and “gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25), calling the Church the very Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27) — so we have to have a deep personal relationship with Christ AND with His body.

God made a covenant with a visible assembly (the Ekklesia). Jesus gathered twelve men, established a visible hierarchy, and said, “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16).

Water baptism is just a sign. You seem to be stuck on the emotional event. That is you.

Are you baptized in the Spirit? Does God’s Word speak to you. Does God reveal more to you when you read his Word with the Holy Spirit.

Paul in Ephesus
Act 19:1 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior regions until he reached Ephesus, on the coast, where he found several believers.
Act 19:2 “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” he asked them. “No,” they replied, “we haven’t even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
Act 19:3 “Then what baptism did you experience?” he asked. And they replied, “The baptism of John.”

The Holy Spirit is not speaking in tongues, nor just an emotional event. The Holy Spirit is a deep relationship with God. You will know it when it is there.

9Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?”

10Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

11“Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.

12“If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

13“No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

14“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

21“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

John 3:9-21 NASB 95

*****

John records Jesus and this interaction with Nicodemus.

Several things stand out.

First, the necessity of believing in Him. This is a consistent them throughout the gospel of John, and the NT, and is the key to having eternal life.

The astute reader will also note for the one believing in Him, He promises eternal life.

It is also interesting to note what He didn't tell Nicodemus he had to do for eternal life.

This would have been the perfect opportunity to lay out conditions but He didn't. He noted the simple, yet confusing, act of believing in Him. And for the one who does he gains eternal life.

You can bank on it. Why? Because He said so.

“Does the Spirit live in you”

Yes - the Holy Spirit absolutely lives in me. He took up residence at my Baptism, where the Scriptures promise we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), which is the “bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). The Holy Spirit continues to guide and conform me into the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18) through the Sacraments He established to nourish our souls.

Does the Spirit live in you? Do you let Him nourish you and grow you in grace through the physical means He chose as in John 6, 1 Corinthians 10:16, Philippians 2:12, John 20:22-23, 2 Peter 3:18, as Christ told us to grow and bear fruit in john 15:4-5 and Matthew 7:19

Do you let the Holy Spirit live in you as in Acts 19:5-6; Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7 - the Apostles showed us the way with the Spirit as the driving force animating physical water, physical oil, physical bread, and physical hands.

Jesus actually did establish a foundational, objective condition for entering the Kingdom just a few verses earlier, which sets the stage for everything that follows:

John 3:3: Jesus tells him, "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
John 3:5: When Nicodemus asks how, Jesus is explicitly concrete: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

If we keep reading the very passage you cited to the end, Jesus explains what authentic belief looks like in practice:

John 3:21: "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

And following your principle—that we can bank on eternal life because Jesus said so—we must also look at the other explicit promises Jesus makes regarding eternal life in this exact same Gospel:

John 6:54: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day."
John 14:15: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

To truly "believe in Him" means to accept everything He said: to be born of water and the Spirit, to eat His flesh and drink His blood, and to walk in His commandments.

It is a lifelong covenant of grace, completely unearned, yet fully lived out.

Eagleone,

Let’s talk about context, because accusing someone of eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) requires that your own reading stands up to literary scrutiny and yet yours does not.

You claim Jesus “left that out” when talking to Nicodemus.

But Nicodemus didn’t walk into the middle of the conversation at verse 16. The dialogue is a single, continuous literary unit.

1. The Immediate Context of John 3

To say Jesus “left out” water and the Spirit in verse 16 ignores the fact that He explicitly commanded it eleven verses earlier in verse 5: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Why would Jesus need to restate the exact mechanism of rebirth in verse 16 when He just defined it to the very same man in verse 5? In any logical conversation, when a speaker defines a term (”born again” = “water and Spirit”), they do not repeat the full definition every time they refer back to the concept. Verse 16 tells us *why* God made this path available (His love); verse 5 tells us *what* that path actually is.

Ignoring verse 5 to isolate verse 16 is the literal definition of losing the context.

2. The Native Literary Context of John’s Gospel

If we look at the broader context of how John structured his Gospel, the themes of “water,” “spirit,” and “belief” are tightly woven together, not separated into isolated theological silos:

- John 1:12-13: John introduces the concept of becoming children of God (not of blood or the will of the flesh, but of God).

- John 3: Jesus explains this occurs by being born of water and the Spirit.

- John 4: Jesus meets the woman at the well and offers her living water.

- John 7:37-39: Jesus stands up and cries out, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink,” and John explicitly notes, “He said this in reference to the Spirit.”

To a reader practicing sound hermeneutics, John is making a cohesive point. Belief in Jesus is intrinsically tied to the water and the Spirit.

3. The Culmination of John 3

You mentioned that Jesus noted the “simple act of believing.” Yet, look at how John wraps up this entire third chapter. The very final verse of the chapter provides the ultimate contextual key to what “belief” means to the author:

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

Notice the parallel John sets up. The opposite of *believing* isn’t simply “disbelieving”—it is disobeying.

Holding that “belief” excludes the necessity of keeping His commandments or receiving His sacraments runs directly aground of John 3:36.

It isn’t eisegesis to read John 3 as a unified message; it is basic reading comprehension. We don’t have to choose between believing in Him and obeying Him, because John clearly shows they are two sides of the exact same coin.

You simply cannot help your compulsive need to lie and fabricate what people posted.

Now, compare to what I posted.

It is also interesting to note what He didn't tell Nicodemus he had to do for eternal life.

This would have been the perfect opportunity to lay out conditions but He didn't. He noted the simple, yet confusing, act of believing in Him. And for the one who does he gains eternal life.

*****

And here again you have to fabricate and lie.

You mentioned that Jesus noted the “simple act of believing.

Now compare to what I actually posted.

He noted the simple, yet confusing, act of believing in Him.

And here you again miss the point.

Notice the parallel John sets up. The opposite of *believing* isn’t simply “disbelieving”—it is disobeying.

18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

*****

You have a serious problem with the truth, cronos. I honestly cannot remember anyone on the entire forum who lies like you do. The sad part is I don't even think you realize you're doing it as it seems to be a part of your psyche.

You do realize this is an ecumenical thread where Christians discuss respectfully. If you can't abide by that, perhaps stay away?

Now let's expose your gaslighting to the forum.

Paraphrasing your words is not "lying," and calling names doesn't erase the text on the page.

On John 3:5: You argue that because Jesus didn’t reiterate "water and Spirit" within verses 16–18, those verses stand alone as a complete formula for salvation. You then accuse me of a strawman ("lying") because I pointed out that Jesus did say it to Nicodemus earlier in the exact same conversation..

you call this a "fabrication" because you want to isolate verses 9–21 from verses 1–8, whereas i say we ought to be treating the chapter as a single conversation.
On the "Simple Act": You are splitting hairs over my summarizing your phrase as "the simple act of believing," whereas you wrote "the simple, yet confusing, act of believing in Him." You are then using this minor truncation to launch a personal attack on my character as you can't answer the text.

Dropping the modifier "yet confusing" in a paraphrase is not a "lie" or a "fabrication"—it is standard conversational shorthand. It did not alter the core of your argument that you view belief as a singular, non-conditional event. Leaving out "yet confusing" was an economy of words, not a fabrication.
On John 3:18 vs. 3:36: You quote verse 18 ("he who does not believe has been judged already") to counter my use of verse 36 ("whoever does not obey... shall not see life"). You reject the idea that John treats "belief" and "obedience" as inseparable concepts.

The Greek word used in John 3:36 for "does not obey" is apeitheo, which explicitly means to disbelieve or refuse orientation to a command. I highlighted a legitimate biblical parallel; you simply ignored it by reverting back to verse 18.

Nicodemus didn't walk into the room at verse 16. It is a single conversation. In verse 5, Jesus explicitly tells Nicodemus that entering the Kingdom requires being "born of water and the Spirit." For you to claim Jesus "left conditions out" requires you to completely ignore the first half of the chapter.

Furthermore, it is John himself—not Rome—who equates belief with obedience. Look at the conclusion of this exact chapter: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life" (John 3:36).

When the scriptural argument fails, the personal attacks usually begin. Dropping "yet confusing" from a paraphrase of your sentence isn't a lie—it's an economy of words, and it changes absolutely nothing about your argument.

The real deflection here is your refusal to look at the text as a whole. You are shouting "fabrication" because you cannot answer a simple literary fact: John 3:36 explicitly contrasts belief with disobedience.

You want to isolate verse 16 from verse 5 and verse 18 from verse 36 because the complete context of John’s Gospel completely dismantles your theology. If pointing out the verses you are choosing to ignore makes me a "liar" in your eyes, then your issue isn't with me—it's with the Apostle John.

Are you ready to address why John 3:36 defines the opposite of belief as disobedience, or are we going to have more deflections from you?

Eagleone -- your appealing to "ecumenical honesty" while completely abandoning the Scriptures to launch a character assassination is the ultimate double standard. For you, a pattern is - when the scriptural argument fails, the personal attacks from ealgeone usually begin. Dropping "yet confusing" from a paraphrase of your sentence isn't a lie—it's an economy of words, and it changes absolutely nothing about your argument.

If you want an honest discussion, then let's have one on the actual text. You claimed my paraphrase altered your point, yet you still haven't addressed the elephant in the room: John 3:36 explicitly defines the opposite of belief as disobedience.

You want to isolate verse 16 from verse 5 and verse 18 from verse 36 because the complete context of John’s Gospel completely dismantles your theology. If pointing out the verses you are choosing to ignore makes me a "liar" in your eyes, then your issue isn't with me—it's with the Apostle John.

I haven't lied about a single thing. I have simply refused to let you isolate John 3:16 from the rest of the chapter. You are focusing heavily on my vocabulary because you cannot face John's vocabulary.

Whenever you are ready to put the personal grievances aside and explain why the Apostle John links eternal life to obedience at the end of that very continuous conversation, I am right here. Until then, your accusations are just a smokescreen to avoid the page.

Remember - it is John himself—not Rome—who equates belief with obedience. Look at the conclusion of this exact chapter: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life" (John 3:36).

Eagleone -- your appealing to "ecumenical honesty" while completely abandoning the Scriptures to launch a character assassination is the ultimate double standard.

Again...here is what I actually posted: "Yes it is ecumenical...which means there should be honesty in the discussion."

And here is where you go into your automatic dishonesty by wrongly accusing me of "...completely abandoning the Scriptures..." when it was I who posted from the gospel and offered commentary on the verses as a whole.

You want to isolate verse 16 from verse 5 and verse 18 from verse 36 because the complete context of John’s Gospel completely dismantles your theology.

Again, another fabrication from you. No where have I said we're to isolate any verse from another.

You see, cronos...when you make these false assertions it makes to be a liar, someone who doesn't deal honestly in conversations.

As I said previously...IF this had been our first interaction I might not think anything about it.

But with you it's an established pattern.

If you want an honest discussion, then let's have one on the actual text. You claimed my paraphrase altered your point...

Which it did.

Again...what you posted: You mentioned that Jesus noted the “simple act of believing.

What I actually posted: This would have been the perfect opportunity to lay out conditions but He didn't. He noted the simple, yet confusing, act of believing in Him. And for the one who does he gains eternal life.

It's really to the point of impossibility to have an honest conversation with you until you cease with your lies and fabrications. A lot of folks on these forums note this with you.

Have you been to confession?

cronos your appealing to "ecumenical honesty" while completely abandoning the Scriptures to launch a character assassination is the ultimate double standard. "

ealgeone "Again...here is what I actually posted: "Yes it is ecumenical...which means there should be honesty in the discussion.""

Eagleone, arguing over the specific nuance of how I paraphrased your call for "honesty" is just another way to avoid addressing the text. Whether you demand "ecumenical honesty" or "honesty in the discussion," the result is the same: you are refusing to engage with teh scripture

You spent your last three replies attacking my character and my quoting habits, yet you have yet to explain how your theology survives John 3:36, where the Apostle John explicitly equates the lack of belief with disobedience. If you truly want an "honest discussion," stop critiquing my summary of your words and start explaining why the Bible contrasts belief with obedience.

The invitation to explain that verse—without resorting to personal attacks—remains open.

Sigh, ealgeone - as we well know, when you are stymied by scripture, you resort to attempts at ad hominem insults.

that fails, you know - our fellow freepers can see you enter each time into a state of logical paralysis - flooding the conversation with accusations of dishonesty regarding minor paraphrasing to avoid addressing your central theological contradiction (John 3:36).

answer the questions instead of deviating:

1. Does John 3:36 define the opposite of belief as disobedience, or does it not?

2. If we look at John 3, 6, and 14 as a whole, how do you personally reconcile the call to 'believe' with the explicit commands to be baptized and 'keep my commandments'?

These questions are about what the first-century Apostles actually taught. If the early Church—the very ones who walked with the Apostles—all understood 'belief' to involve Baptism and the Eucharist as a matter of historical fact, why would you disagree with them?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.