Are Catholics Born Again?

“Have you been born again?” the Fundamentalist at the door asks the unsuspecting Catholic. The question is usually a segue into a vast doctrinal campaign that leads many ill-instructed Catholics out of the Catholic Church. How? By making them think there is a conflict between the Bible and the Catholic Church over being “born again.”

To be honest, most Catholics probably do not understand the expression “born again.” Yes, they believe in Jesus. And yes, they try to live Christian lives. They probably have some vague awareness that Fundamentalists think being “born again” involves a religious experience or “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.” Many cradle Catholics, too, have had their moments of closeness to God, even of joy over God's love and mercy. They may even have had “conversion experiences” of sorts, committing themselves to take their faith seriously and to live more faithfully as disciples of Jesus. But the cradle Catholic probably cannot pinpoint any particular moment in his life when he dropped to his knees and “accepted Jesus” for the first time. As far back as he can recall, he has believed, trusted and loved Jesus as Savior and Lord. Does that prove he has never been “born again”?

Not “the Bible way,” says the Fundamentalist. But the Fundamentalist is wrong there. He misunderstands what the Bible says about being “born again.” Unfortunately, few Catholics understand the biblical use of the term, either. As a result, pastors, deacons, catechists, parents and others responsible for religious education have their work cut out for them. It would be helpful, then, to review the biblical — and Catholic — meaning of the term “born again.”

The only biblical use of the term “born again” occurs in John 3:3-5 — although, as we shall see, similar and related expressions such as “new birth” and ,regeneration” occur elsewhere in Scripture (Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 1:3, 23). In John 3:3, Jesus tells Nicodemus, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The Greek expression translated “born again” (gennathei anothen) also means “born from above.” Jesus, it seems, makes a play on words with Nicodemus, contrasting earthly life, or what theologians would later dub natural life (“what is born of flesh”), with the new life of heaven, or what they would later call supernatural life (“what is born of Spirit”).

Nicodemus' reply: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” (John 3:4). Does he simply mistake Jesus to be speaking literally or is Nicodemus himself answering figuratively, meaning, “How can an old man learn new ways as if he were a child again?” We cannot say for sure, but in any case Jesus answers, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born again.”' (John 3:5-7).

Here Jesus equates “born again” or “born from above” with “born of water and the Spirit.” If, as the Catholic Church has always held, being “born of water and the Spirit” refers to baptism, then it follows that being “born again” or “born from above” means being baptized.

Clearly, the context implies that born of “water and the Spirit” refers to baptism. The Evangelist tells us that immediately after talking with Nicodemus, Jesus took his disciples into the wilderness where they baptized people (John 3:22). Furthermore, water is closely linked to the Spirit throughout John's Gospel (for instance, in Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:9-13) and in the Johannine tradition (cf. 1 John 5:7). It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that John the Evangelist understands Jesus' words about being “born again” and “born of water and the Spirit” to have a sacramental, baptismal meaning.

Fundamentalists who reject baptismal regeneration usually deny that “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 refers to baptism. Some argue that “water” refers to the “water of childbirth.” On this view, Jesus means that unless one is born of water (at his physical birth) and again of the Spirit (in a spiritual birth), he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

A major problem with this argument, however, is that while Jesus does contrast physical and spiritual life, he clearly uses the term “flesh” for the former, in contrast to “Spirit” for the latter. Jesus might say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of flesh and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” — though it would be obvious and absurdly redundant to say that one must be born (i.e., born of flesh) in order to be born again (i.e., born of the Spirit). But using “born of water and the Spirit” to mean “born of the flesh and then of the Spirit” would only confuse things by introducing the term “water” from out of nowhere, without any obvious link to the term “flesh.” Moreover, while the flesh is clearly opposed to the Spirit and the Spirit clearly opposed to the flesh in this passage, the expression “born of water and the Spirit” implies no such opposition. It is not “water” vs. “the Spirit,” but “water and the Spirit.”

Furthermore, the Greek of the text suggests that “born of water and the Spirit” (literally “born of water and spirit”) refers to a single, supernatural birth over against natural birth (“born of the flesh”). The phrase “of water and the Spirit” (Greek, ek hudatos kai pneumatos) is a single linguistical unit. It refers to being “born of water and the Spirit,” not “born of water” on the one hand and “born of the Spirit” on the other.

Another argument used by opponents of baptismal regeneration: “born of water and the Spirit” refers, correspondingly, to the baptism of John (being “born of water”) and the baptism of the Spirit (being “born of ... the Spirit”), which John promised the coming Messiah would effect. Thus, on this view, Jesus says, “Unless a man is born of water through John's baptism and of the Spirit through my baptism, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

We have already seen that, according to the Greek, “born of water and the Spirit” refers to a single thing, a single spiritual birth. Thus, the first half of the phrase cannot apply to one thing (John's baptism) and the second half to something else entirely (Jesus' baptism). But even apart from the linguistical argument, if “born of water” refers to John's baptism, then Jesus is saying that in order to be “born again” or “born from above” one must receive John's baptism of water (“born of water ...”) and the Messiah's baptism of the Spirit (“. . . and Spirit”). That would mean only those who have been baptized by John could enter the kingdom of God—which would drastically reduce the population of heaven. In fact, no one holds that people must receive John's baptism in order to enter the Kingdom — something now impossible. Therefore being “born of water . . .” cannot refer to John's baptism.

The most reasonable explanation for “born of water and the Spirit,” then, is that it refers to baptism. This is reinforced by many New Testament texts linking baptism, the Holy Spirit and regeneration. At Jesus' baptism, the Holy Spirit descends upon him as He comes up out of the water (cf. John 1:25-34; Matt 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22). Furthermore, what distinguishes John's baptism of repentance in anticipation of the Messiah from Christian baptism, is that the latter is a baptism with the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:31; Acts 1:4-5).

Consequently, on Pentecost, Peter calls the Jews to “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins” and promises that they will “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38), thus fulfilling the promise of John. Peter clearly teaches here that the “water baptism,” to which he directs the soon-to-be converts, forgives sins and bestows the Holy Spirit. Christian baptism, then, is no mere external, repentance-ritual with water, but entails an inner transformation or regeneration by the Holy Spirit of the New Covenant; it is a “new birth,” a being “born again” or “born from above.”

In Romans 6:3, Paul says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (RNAB). Baptism, says Paul, effects union with the death and resurrection of Christ, so that through it we die and rise to new life, a form of “regeneration.”

According to Titus 3:5, God “saved us through the washing of regeneration (paliggenesias) and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” Opponents of baptismal regeneration argue that the text refers only to the “washing (loutrou) of regeneration” rather than the “baptism of regeneration.” But baptism is certainly a form of washing and elsewhere in the New Testament it is described as a “washing away of sin.” For example, in Acts 22:16, Ananias tells Paul, “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling upon his name.” The Greek word used for the “washing away of sins” in baptism here is apolousai, essentially the same term used in Titus 3:5. Furthermore, since “washing” and “regeneration” are not ordinarily related terms, a specific kind of washing — one that regenerates — must be in view. The most obvious kind of washing which the reader would understand would be baptism, a point even many Baptist scholars, such as G.R. Beasley-Murray, admit. (See his book Baptism in the New Testament.)

In 1 Peter 1:3, it is stated that God has given Christians “a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” The term “new birth” (Gk, anagennasas, “having regenerated”) appears synonymous with “born again” or “regeneration.” According to 1 Peter 1:23, Christians “have been born anew (Gk, anagegennamenoi, “having been regenerated”) not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and abiding word of God.” From the word of the Gospel, in other words.

Opponents of baptismal regeneration argue that since the “new birth” mentioned in 1 Peter 1:3 and 23 is said to come about through the Word of God, being “born again” means accepting the Gospel message, not being baptized. This argument overlooks the fact that elsewhere in the New Testament accepting the gospel message and being baptized are seen as two parts of the one act of commitment to Christ.

In Mark 16:16, for instance, Jesus says, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” “Believing”, i.e., accepting the Gospel, entails accepting baptism, which is the means by which one “puts on Christ” (Gal. 3:27) and is buried and raised with him to new life (Rom 6:3-5; Gal 2:12). Acts 2:41 says of the Jewish crowd on Pentecost, “Those who accepted his message were baptized . . .” It seems reasonable to conclude that those whom 1 Peter 1:23 describes as “having been born anew” or regenerated through the “living and abiding word of God” were also those who had been baptized. Thus, being “born of water and the Spirit” and being “born anew” through “the living and abiding word of God” describe different aspects of one thing — being regenerated in Christ. Being “born again” (or “from above”) in “water and the Spirit” refers to the external act of receiving baptism, while being “born anew” refers to the internal reception in faith of the Gospel (being “born anew” through “the living and abiding word of God”).

Moreover, baptism involves a proclamation of the Word, which is part of what constitutes it (i.e., “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”). To accept baptism is to accept the Word of God. There is no need, then, to see the operation of the Word of God in regeneration as something opposed to or separated from baptism.

Some Fundamentalists also object that being “born again” through baptismal regeneration contradicts the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace through faith. Implicit here is the idea that Christian baptism is a mere “human work” done to earn favor before God. In fact, Christian baptism is something that is done to one (one is baptized — passive), not something one does for oneself. The one who baptizes, according to the Bible, is Jesus Himself by the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 1:33). It makes no more sense to oppose baptism and faith in Christ to one another as means of regeneration than it does to oppose faith in Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit to one another. There is no either/or here; it is both/and.

Following the New Testament use of the term, the Catholic Church links regeneration or being “born again” in the life of the Spirit to the sacrament of baptism (CCC, nos. 1215,1265-1266). Baptism is not a mere human “work” one does to “earn” regeneration and divine sonship; it is the work of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, which, by grace, washes away sin and makes us children of God. It is central to the Catholic understanding of justification by grace. For justification is, as the Council of Trent taught, “a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ” (Session 6, chapter 4). Baptism is an instrumental means by which God graciously justifies — that is, regenerates — sinners through faith in Jesus Christ and makes them children of God.

Catholic teaching is not opposed to a “religious experience” of conversion accompanying baptism (of adults) — far from it. But such an “experience” is not required. What is required for baptism to be fruitful (for an adult) is repentance from sin and faith in Christ, of which baptism is the sacrament (CCC, no. 1253). These are grace-enabled acts of the will that are not necessarily accompanied by feelings of being “born again.” Regeneration rests on the divinely established fact of incorporation and regeneration in Christ, not on feelings one way or the other.

This point can be driven home to Evangelicals by drawing on a point they often emphasize in a related context. Evangelicals often say that the act of having accepted Christ as “personal Savior and Lord” is the important thing, not whether feelings accompany that act. It is, they say, faith that matters, not feelings. Believe by faith that Christ is the Savior and the appropriate feelings, they say, will eventually follow. But even if they do not, what counts is the fact of having taken Christ as Savior.

Catholics can say something similar regarding baptism. The man who is baptized may not “feel” any different after baptism than before. But once he is baptized, he has received the Holy Spirit in a special way. He has been regenerated and made a child of God through the divine sonship of Jesus Christ in which he shares. He has been buried with Christ and raised to new life with Him. He has objectively and publicly identified himself with Jesus' death and resurrection. If the newly baptized man meditates on these things, he may or may not “feel” them, in the sense of some subjective religious experience. Nevertheless, he will believe them to be true by faith. And he will have the benefits of baptism into Christ nonetheless.

When Fundamentalists call themselves “born again Christians,” they want to stress an experience of having entered into a genuine spiritual relationship with Christ as Savior and Lord, in contradistinction to unbelief or a mere nominal Christianity. As we have seen, though, the term “born again” and its parallel terms “new birth” and “regeneration” are used by Jesus and the New Testament writers to refer to the forgiveness of sins and inner renewal of the Holy Spirit signified and brought about by Christ through baptism.

How, then, should a Catholic answer the question, “Have you been born again?” An accurate answer would be, “Yes, I was born again in baptism.” Yet leaving it at that may generate even more confusion. Most Fundamentalists would probably understand the Catholic to mean, “I'm going to heaven simply because I'm baptized.” In other words, the Fundamentalist would think the Catholic is “trusting in his baptism” rather than Christ, whereas the informed Catholic knows it means trusting in Christ with whom he is united in baptism.

The Catholic, then, should do more than simply point to his baptism; he should discuss his living faith, trust and love of Christ; his desire to grow in sanctity and conformity to Christ; and his total dependence on Christ for salvation. These are integral to the new life of the Holy Spirit that baptism bestows. When the Fundamentalist sees the link between baptism and the Holy Spirit in the life of his Catholic neighbor, he may begin to see that St. Paul was more than figurative when he wrote, “You were buried with Christ in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col 2:12).

with even the slightest understanding of the holy word one can quickly see that the church in the new testament and the roman catholic church are not the same

That's precisely the problem. "The slightest understanding of the holy word" is not sufficient to arrive at any worthwhile truth at all; the Bible is miles deep and miles wide, and you can spend a lifetime studying it and still not understand it completely.

Any conclusion you come to with only the "slightest understanding of the holy word" is likely wrong, just as this one is.

Prickly as ever I see! Where have you been? I've missed seeing you. :)

I've taken a little holiday from arguing religion. And I can remember why. :-)

"Not just "imputed" to be righteous. My God is strong enough to actually transform us."

I trust that by including "just" you are recognizing the reality of imputed righteousness.

I probably should have said not "merely imputed." The righteousness is real, not a judicial fiction. At some point God sets upon the path to make us righteous. I suppose you could say that He has made up His mind to make us righteous at that point. You might call this an imputation.

But the point is that we will become actually righteous bfore we enter God's Presence. It can be no other way.

But we don't believe that is the end of the story. Justification (imputed righteousness) leads to Sanctification (Christ's righteousness made real in us by the Holy Spirit) resulting in Glorification (when we are transformed into His image and shgare in His eternal glory.

I don't have any real problem with this, other than the usual stuff about the sin of presumption.

I respectfully submit that you are taking 1 Cor 9:24-10:12 out of context. Paul is referring to the use of the liberty that we have in Grace, as well as the path of believers toward Spiritual Maturity. In fact, the Corinthians were an awfully immoral group of believers, for which Paul scolds them many times. Yet he starts off the letter by referring to them as Saints who will be declared blameless in the last days. Never during his rants about their licentious behavior does he call their eternal position into question. He does however call into question their Earthly usefulness and focus. The confusion is between a believer's practical, Earthly walk, and their eternal position in Christ which Paul describes at length to be secure.

I believe (again, respectfully) that you are making the same error in your interpretation of Phil 3:12-14.

"Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus."

This indicates a desire for Paul on Earth to press on practically to the perfection that he already has, positionally and in the eternal realm, in Christ. Notice the reciprocal relationship. He wants to lay hold of that for which Christ HAS ALREADY laid hold of him. This is what Paul calls "working-out" your salvation. This is his call to act as one who is a citizen of heaven, as any believer is, and not act as though we were still enemies of God. Paul clearly states that a saint can "act" as if he were not.

Obviously, the contention for eternal security of the believer requires a more thorough analysis, including Hebrews, Ephesians, Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, just to begin. It is an argument that is even intra-protestant. I would like to discuss this further with you, but I have kind of gotten weary of the Catholic/Protestant war on FR that doesn't really change anything and is more an opportunity to cause division among the followers of Christ than anything else. That being said, I do believe that the seal that I was given (the down-payment of my eternal inheritance in Christ) is stronger than any man's actions, including my own. For He is in fact a member of the Godhead, my Comforter, the Holy Spirit, and I am convinced that nothing can separate me from the Grace and Love of Christ. I do not presume to frustrate the grace of God by claiming that there is some sin in my life for which Christ's substitutionary atonement was not satisfactory, or somehow causes God to say "oops" and erase my name from the book of Life and break the very seal of the Holy Spirit.

"In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were SEALED in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory."

Yep. Pretty much fall into the category of illustrations, sometimes very cherished, but we know exactly what they are. And not a whole lot of difference than most people of faith have in their study materials. Illustrations.

I look through pics of my family members, and may see one of my mother, who has passed away, and feel overcome, and say, "O Momma, I wish you could see...." That certainly doesn't mean that I think that picture is HER, or that I am performing ancestor worship.

I look at my pics of Jesus, because it helps me think of him as the man-god who walked the earth 33 or so years, instead of just a vague idea.

I like my picture of St. Jean Vianney, because it reminds me of a very loving man who worked very, very hard for the glory of God.

Sometimes these are ways to illustrate particular concepts, like Jesus as the Sacred Heart, which emphasises the great love Jesus has for the whole world.

They are no more idols than the illustrations in many Bible study books for kids, or illustrated plates in Bibles, or Christian identity logos, like the icthys.

I have yet to read a response from a Protestant in any thread as to what Paul is talking about when he claims he is "working out his salvation in fear and trembling".

Wouldn't the ultimate evangelic saint have shared the slam-dunk joy and content of present-day Protestants who are assured their salvation? I don't understand. I'm confused.

Why would Paul have to work anything out? Can someone explain why he's working out his salvation if he already has it? And why is he so scared? I wouldn't be scared if I was assured of salvation. If all it takes is to have faith, it doesn't sound like St. Paul had any faith!

But there weren't any images in the Tabernacle or the Temple.

Sure there were! Anyone who's read much of the Old Testament will probably recognize the phrase "golden calf". Aaron set up a golden calf and told Israel "This is your God who brought you out of Egypt!" In later generations, Israel's default design for an idol was a bull or calf. This was an image that had strong resonance for them - this is what a god "looked like" to their religious sensibilities. (For comparison, see all the Assyrian and Babylonian images of "cherubim" i.e. human-headed, winged bulls.) Prophets cried out against the worship of the golden calves; God pronounced judgments on those who set up these images for worship.

So what would you say if I told you these images were set up in the Temple - with God's approval?

It may be startling (to say the least) to read in 1 Kings 7:25 that the brazen sea - the huge 15-foot diameter basin in the courts of the Temple - was made with graven images of twelve bulls prominently displayed. This should tell us, if nothing else, that God is not displeased by the presence of pictorial representations in holy places. Even when, as in this case, they are graven images identical to those the Israelites periodically worshipped!

Of course those weren't the only graven images in the Temple. You'll also find:

Two fifteen-foot-tall cherubim in the Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:23-28)
All the Temple's inside walls were covered with carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. (1 Kings 6:29)
The doors of the sanctuary and of the inner sanctuary were carved gold-overlaid images of cherubim, palm trees, and flowers (1 Kings 6:32,34)
On the Temple carts, images of bulls and lions. (1 Kings 7:29,36)
and of course the two cherubs on top of the Ark itself!
God sees the difference between graven images in general, and graven images to which one gives worship. Hopefully we can too.

In fact, God has commissioned a number of icons. He commanded Moses to display an icon in Numbers 21:8,9 - God healed the Israelites from snakebite when they looked to the icon of the snake. It was not until a later generation, when the people had named this icon Nehushtan and worshipped it as a god, that it was necessary to destroy it (2 Kings 18:4). At another time, God specifically commanded Ezekiel to paint an icon of the city of Jerusalem and to treat the icon as a symbol of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4:1ff).

We certainly can't theorize that images are foreign to Biblical prayer and piety. Modern iconoclasm was not a feature of ancient Judaism, nor are images automatically idols. (Which is not to say that abuses never occur, as with the divinely-appointed icon that later became Nehushtan.)

So all the passages about Jesus sitting at the right hand as Judge of all, the living and the dead, don't apply to you because you know already how he will judge you?

"Welcoming arms" is the posture of a Judge who judges you to be among the sheep. Your very words convict you--you do in fact believe you will face him as a Judge. It's just that you are convinced that he will judge you not condemned. The question is whether you have a solid basis for that presumption. I think not, you think you do. But you will face him as your Judge, for sure.

In fact, the Corinthians were an awfully immoral group of believers, for which Paul scolds them many times. Yet he starts off the letter by referring to them as Saints who will be declared blameless in the last days. Never during his rants about their licentious behavior does he call their eternal position into question.

Elsewhere he says very clearly that fornicators and idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. (It's in Galatians and elsewhere.) He makes no exceptions for fornicators and idolaters who declare themselves to be Christians and claim to "take Jesus as their personal savior".

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.