Are Catholics Born Again?

Catholic Educators ^ | Mark Brumley

[NYer]

“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.”

"BORN AGAIN" THE BIBLE WAY

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.

OTHER VIEWS OF "BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT"

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.

THE CATHOLIC VIEW OF BEING "BORN AGAIN"

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.

A "BORN AGAIN" CHRISTIAN?

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).

[JohnnyM]

if you beleive Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour, that He died for your sins, and was raised on the 3rd day, then you are born again, irregardless of what church you attend.

JM

[HarleyD]

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.

Golly. In grammar school I was always taught that “and” meant there were TWO things.

[starfish923]

Perfect description of the Reformation. Not even their admiters deny that Luther and Calvin were angry men. although they would say thast the anger was totally justified. But maybe Judas was angry with Jesus, that HE was not the messiah whom Judas (and perhaps the other members of the Twelve) expected.

Anger: interesting way to deal with faith. Not a great way to start one's own religious movement. Not the foundation on which Jesus founded His.

[x5452]

That's where you run into problems this was all translated from GREEK the finer points of conjuctions are useless because the entire way conjunctions work different in greek.

[NYer]

Yes

If you believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, then you must also know that only an ordained priest (Catholic or Orthodox) can confect transubstantiation, right?

[wmfights]

"Without the Catholic Church being established by Jesus in 33 A.D.....Christianity, The Bible, and Born Again Christians of any faith would not exist."
__________________________________

If you mean the Universal Church with Jesus as its head not the Pope, I would agree with you. However, if when you say Catholic (universal) Church you mean the Roman Catholic Church you should recognize that Peter was only one of 13 apostles (if you include Paul) and that the Roman branch did not rise in prominence for hundreds of years after Pentecost. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has no more of a monopoly on the faith in Jesus Christ today than Peter had a monopoly interrupting doctrine after Pentecost.

[SoothingDave]

Golly. In grammar school I was always taught that “and” meant there were TWO things.

Yes, it does. It also means they are joined together in a conjunction junction. Baptism has water and the spirit in one union, as the sign signifys the spiritual actuality. That's what sacraments do. They are signs that are also a reflection of a deeper reality.

SD

[Dark Skies]

No. Of course, I don't. If I did, I would be Catholic.

[all4one]

I mean Jesus as the head of the Church. To me the Pope is a representative of the apostles who followed Jesus and spread the word, and the faith.

[x5452]

The apostolic church established by Christ apostles is the church of the Orthodox and Catholics (though of course the Orthodox reject the notion of papal supremacy, and that the church must be cenetered in Rome).

The church of Martin Luther and the church of the King of England, etc, are not the church Christ started, they forget all the traditions of the apostles for the firt 150 years, the years the new testament was still being put to paper.

[NYer]

If you mean the Universal Church with Jesus as its head not the Pope, I would agree with you.

Is there to be only one Church or many?  According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23).  We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5).  There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many.  For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many.  Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (the sin of polygamy)?  NO, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many).

you should recognize that Peter was only one of 13 apostles (if you include Paul)

One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St. John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times. After John, in descending order, the frequency of the other Apostles being mentioned by name trails off rapidly.

When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first. Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s traitor, is always listed last (cf. Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). Sometimes Scripture speaks simply of “Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (cf. Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7; Acts 2:37), showing that he had a special role that represented the entire apostolic college. Often, Scripture shows Simon Peter as spokesman for the entire apostolic college, as if he were the voice of the Church (cf. Mat. 18:21; Mark 8:29; Luke 8:45; Luke 12:41; John 6:68-69).

PRIMACY OF PETER

Scripture 101

[Jaded]

mark

[jcb8199]

First of all, how wonderful that you can speak for Christ in saying that Catholics aren't born again! Tell me, am I going to heaven? I mean, you obviously have insight into such matters...

Secondly, please point to where in the New Testament we are given specific instructions on baptism. Quote Romans 6 all you want, but I want to see a verse that says "you must completely immerse yourself in the water, being buried and reborn." And mention baptizo and I will also point out that it can be something as simple as "washing up," not "immersing' (Luke 11:38 uses the word baptizo). Also notice that, on Pentecost, Peter says "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38) No water is mentioned--it is a spiritual baptism (a "rebirth," as it were). Acts goes on to say that 3,000 people were baptized in Jerusalem following his sermon--do you really suppose all were immersed in a water supply that could scarcely support it, let alone among people who would not likely applaud the idea of having 3,000 people in their water supply? And how about those people who are physically unable to be immersed? I suppose, even if non-Catholic, they are not "born again" because they weren't immersed?

Even further, a quick review of the writings of early Christians (such as the Didache) will reveal that they had no problem with pouring or sprinkling--and they were only a few years removed from Christ himself, and His apostles.

A charge often leveled against Catholicism is its "un-Biblical practices" (all of which can be found in the Bible...). So I find it interesting that "born-agains" espouse a DOCTRINE that is not found in the Bible itself...

[jcb8199]

PAPIST!!!!

</ignorance>

[NYer]

No. Of course, I don't. If I did, I would be Catholic.

Scripturally considered, the necessity of a special priesthood with the power of validly consecrating is derived from the fact that Christ did not address the words, "Do this", to the whole mass of the laity, but exclusively to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood; hence the latter alone can validly consecrate.

I need to run errands but will be back later to follow this discussion.

[jcb8199]

The weren't Catholics, they were proto-Christians! The Catholic Church didn't exist until 476! That is when "real Christianity" was polluted!!!

Oh yeah, and ignore all of the early writings that detail the worship style of the early Christians (like Justin Martyr), who practiced essentially the same mass that is practiced today in Catholic Churches...

[57chevypreterist]

did they use the Baltimore Catechism in Religion Class, when you attended Catholic elementary school?

Nope, I'm post Vatican II.

I will say, however, having reviewed the Baltimore Catechism (along with the greater catechism of the Catholic Church), one of my chief problems with the teachings of the Catholic Church is its obfuscation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

"I tell you the truth: anyone who will not receive God's kingdom like a little child will never enter it." Mark 10:15

Blessings!

[opticks]

"I grew up Catholic, spent 16 years in Catholic school and university, and was proudly Catholic for 32 years. NOT ONCE in all that time, did anyone ever explain to me how I could FOR SURE have eternal life."

Probably because you can't know for sure. But then again, that calls for pious living and going to confession often. Evangelism explaining away sin and "being saved" no matter what is wishful thinking IMO.

[Nihil Obstat]

Good point. I was just reading this. This is about the Martyrs of Abitene who were murdered under Emporer Diocletian. The record comes from the Roman military. Sounds like a mass to me, in the year 303.

"We Cannot Live without Sunday!"


Benedict XVI will make known to the world the message left by the martyrs of Abitene: "We cannot live without Sunday."

Martyred in 303, the Christians lived in Abitene, a city of the Roman province called "Africa Proconsularis," today's Tunis. They were victims of Emperor Diocletian's persecution, initiated after years of relative calm.

The emperor ordered that "the sacred texts and holy testaments of the Lord and the divine Scriptures be found, so that they could be burnt; the Lord's basilicas were to be pulled down; and the celebration of sacred rites and holy reunions of the Lord were to be prohibited" (Acts of the Martyrs, I), explained the organizers of the eucharistic congress.

Disobeying the emperor's orders, a group of 49 Christians of Abitene (among them Senator Dativus, the priest Saturninus, the virgin Victoria, and the reader Emeritus) gathered weekly in one of their homes to celebrate Sunday Mass.

Taken by surprise during one of the meetings in Ottavio Felice's home, they were arrested and taken to Carthage to Proconsul Anulinus to be interrogated.

When the Proconsul asked them if they kept the Scriptures in their homes, the martyrs answered courageously that "they kept them in their hearts," revealing that they did not wish to separate faith from life.

"I implore you, Christ, hear me," "I thank you, O God," "I implore you, Christ, have mercy" were exclamations uttered by the martyrs during their torment. Along with their prayers they offered their lives and asked that their executioners be forgiven.

Among the testimonies, is that of Emeritus, who affirmed fearlessly that he received Christians for the celebration. The Proconsul asked him: "Why have you received Christians in your home, transgressing the imperial dispositions?"

"Sine dominico non possumus" ("We cannot live without Sunday"), answered Emeritus.

"The term 'dominicum' has a triple meaning. It indicates the Lord's day, but also refers to what constitutes its content -- his resurrection and presence in the eucharistic event," explained the congress' organizers.

The motive of martyrdom "must not be sought in the sole observance of a 'precept,'" as "in that period the Church had not yet established in a formal way the Sunday precept," noted Monsignor Vito Angiuli, pro-vicar of the Archdiocese of Bari-Bitonto, in last Sunday's edition of the Vatican daily newspaper L'Osservatore Romano.

"Deep down was the conviction that Sunday Mass is a constitutive element of one's Christian identity and that there is no Christian life without Sunday and without the Eucharist," he stressed.

This is clearly appreciated, he said, in the "commentary that the writer of the Acts of the Martyrs made to the question posed by the Proconsul to martyr Felice: 'I am not asking you if you are a Christian, but if you have taken part in the assembly or if you have a book of the Scriptures," he stressed.

"O foolish and ridiculous question of the judge!" states the commentary of the acts. "As if a Christian could be without the Sunday Eucharist, or the Sunday Eucharist could be celebrated without there being a Christian! Don't you know, Satan, that it is the Sunday Eucharist which makes the Christian and the Christian that makes the Sunday Eucharist, so that one cannot subsist without the other, and vice versa?"

"When you hear someone say 'Christian,' know that there is an assembly that celebrates the Lord; and when you hear someone say 'assembly,' know that a Christian is there," concludes the quotation.

[HarleyD]

Joh 3:5-6 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Gal 4:29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1Pe 1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

1Jo 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.

1Jo 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.

1Jo 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

1Jo 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.

1Jo 5:18 We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

Seems like the apostles seem to think that you need to be BORN of God and it has nothing to do with water.