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).

My faith is a gift from God. I have inherited it through my Baptism in Christ. Like any inheritance, I can choose to throw it away, to reject it through neglect.

I'm not assured of maintaining faith until my dying breath, and thus I am not assured of salvation until I stand before Christ and hear my judgment. Works do not merit me salvation, but they make me a caretaker of my faith and a co-operater with Christ in helping others to their own salvations. Jesus will not preserve our faith if we don't want it. We receive grace through good works and reception of the sacraments. As much grace as we can receive, the stronger our faith. When we reject opportunities of grace, that gift of faith begins to shrink. If we're not careful (working out our salvation in fear and trembling) that faith could be gone without us even knowing it.

Please stop just saying fornicators and adulterers. The verse is much more constraining than that. Other parallel verses include those who cause division, or are merely disobedient to their parents. You stated that:

"He makes no exceptions for fornicators and idolaters who declare themselves to be Christians and claim to 'take Jesus as their personal savior'"

but the statement "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" would beg to differ. Again, I contend that if the verse is read the way you wish to read it, no one who has gotten drunk after becoming a Christian can possibly go to heaven. There is no provision for that in the statement. No Christian, including Paul, ever completely mastered his or her flesh before death. Paul argued that we are to conform our actions to the citizen of heaven that we ARE. One does not achieve justification as Paul refers to by promising never to sin again, but through Faith.

Despite your "???Huh?" the concept of positional sanctification and being clothed with Christ's righteousness is very biblical:

"More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."

I am saved because God looks at me, and sees one who was washed in the Blood of the Lamb, saved by Grace. The same Grace that saved me will secure me. The same Spirit who sealed me, will empower me to walk in a way pleasing to the Lord's sight (Gal 3:1-10).

Anyway, I hope you have a pleasant weekend. I have to log off and go home :) Got a lot of gutters to clear.

God Bless.

"I probably should have said not "merely imputed." The righteousness is real, not a judicial fiction."

What if the thing you call "judicial fiction" is actually God's chosen way of making men righteous in his sight?

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

SD, how much time did the thief on the cross have to become righteous before he entered paradise? Not much. But he BELIEVED and was saved.

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

As I have posted elswhere - "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life,"

Does that seem presumptious to you?

In a lot of ways, this has become a semantical battle between Catholics and Protestants.

Protestants say "a man needs an engine to drive a car". That's a true statement.

Catholics say, "a man needs gasoline to drive a car". This is also true. The engine (faith) may be the instrument that moves the car, but fuel (works) is what makes the engine an engine in the first place.

What I'm saying is this: we cooperate with our faith. That faith, however, thrives as a result of our efforts to live as Christ - as Christians. If that faith does not thrive - if that faith is starved by a rejection of doing good works, then we cannot cooperate with God using that nominal faith. It's still faith given to us. But it becomes faith neglected by us, and therefore, renders us impotent as vessels of God.

I don't think you realize it, but just coming here and discussing Christ with us Catholics is a good work on your part. It will bolster your faith and lead you to truth. Not necessarily because you hear something specific from one of us, but because, as Christ said, "those who seek shall find, knock and the door will be opened to you".

Your goal (I assume) is to come closer to Christ and spread the Gospel. My friend, you are doing so! If you seek truth, you will find the truth.

I have not refused to answer anything. Please forgive If I can't answer as quickly as you would like. I have other things That I must do like earn a living.

An Infant Is Not Subject To Bible Baptism

An infant is not a subject of Bible baptism. The teaching of the Bible in regard to baptism eliminates the infant. Jesus said, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matt. 28:18-20). Again Christ said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:15-16). Peter commanded, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . ." (Acts 2:38). One must also be able to confess his faith in Christ (Matt. 10:32; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:10).

An infant is not a subject of Bible baptism for a subject of Bible baptism has to be capable of being: (1) taught, (2) believing, (3) repenting of sins, (4) confessing his faith in Christ and (5) submitting to immersion.

Infants Are Not Sinners

An infant is not a sinner. We are often told that an infant has "original sin" on its soul. The Bible does not teach that! Jesus said concerning little children, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for such is the kingdom of God" (Mk. 10:14). Again Christ said, "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 18:3). A person has to commit sin in order to become a sinner. "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (1 Jn. 3:4). There is a period in the life of a child, "before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good . . ." (Isa. 7:16). "God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (Eccl. 7:29). Ezekiel said, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezek. 18:20).

"Infant Baptism" Not Practiced in The Bible

"Infant baptism" was not practiced by the apostles and the early church: All eleven cases of conversion in the book of Acts show that men heard the gospel preached, believed and were baptized. There is no record in the New Testament of an infant ever being baptized, or having water poured or sprinkled on him!

"Infant Baptism" Robs The Child

It robs the child of freedom of choice. Each is to do his own choosing as to whether he wants to obey God or disobey (Josh. 24:15, Rev. 22:17). It may rob the child of salvation. Many times a child, when he grows older, refuses to be baptized, saying, "My parents had me baptized when I was a baby." Thus, the child refuses to obey God (Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8-9). I would not want to base my salvation on the testimony of another

What if the thing you call "judicial fiction" is actually God's chosen way of making men righteous in his sight?

Of what use is this judicial fiction to a God who is eternal?

If I am going to end up righteous and in God's Presence, He has no need to imagine that. He can see that "time" right now. No fiction, no "imputed" righteousness.

SD, how much time did the thief on the cross have to become righteous before he entered paradise? Not much. But he BELIEVED and was saved.

There's always Purgatory.

In any event, arguing from extreme situations is not an argument for how we should regard normal situations.

As I have posted elswhere - "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life," Does that seem presumptious to you?

It is not presumptuous if you do all those things that John writes about. Catholics are not in the dark. We know if we are in a state of grace we can fairly well know that we have eternal life.

We also know if we are not in a state of grace. The problem comes when some want to take that one sentence out of context and pretend it is an absolute assurance granted to all who read it without any conditions. John does say "these things I have written..." doesn't he? Maybe "those things" need to be taken into acount as well?

"Not us to judge the hearts of our fellows. In fact, that could get us into serious spiritual trouble. Better to be like Barnabas, and encourage our fellows in their walk with God. "

Listen to this:

I was on a mission trip with a bunch of other Christians. One of the guys I was staying with was rather gruff - didn't seem to have the slightest interest in spiritual things. I was concerned for him.

So I was praying for him in my prayer time - and (as subjective as this sounds) I felt a slight rebuke from the Lord. After prayer I opened my Bible, looked down and these word jumped off the page at me...

Romans 14:4
"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand."

And you know what... later in the week that guy blossomed right out! Really got on fire for the Lord - as we would say.

Boy did I feel stupid. But the Lord can make you feel stupid in the nicest way!

"Ah! I pray you are never my neighbor, for you could rape my wife and rob me blind without any accountability before God! It sounds so darn... well... like people that blow themselves up because they believe they are assured salvation... for instance"
______________________________

The sinner who would do this was never saved to begin with. If you've been saved the Holy Spirit will transform you and you become a new man. Do you stop sinning? No, but you will be convicted of your sin and over time you will seek to change and become more "Christlike".

The beauty of being "Born Again" is that I have the blessed assurance that "once saved" "always saved".

If I understand RCC doctrine correctly, you may not be in a state of grace if you haven't followed the sacraments correctly. It's got to be awfully tough to be on that ferris wheel.

The sinner who would do this was never saved to begin with.

Ah. Yes. The wonders of 20/20 hindsight. Supposing he walked around believing he was saved before this theoretical crime, you're saying it's not enough to tell people you're saved unless your actions reflect that?

The beauty of being "Born Again" is that I have the blessed assurance that "once saved" "always saved".

If you've been saved the Holy Spirit will transform you and you become a new man.

So once you are saved, you are infallible? You cannot commit a sin? How do you KNOW you are saved if you can't state here and now that you are infallible?

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.