Posted on 02/07/2014 4:44:09 AM PST by GonzoII
|
Have you been born again, my friend?” Thousands of Catholics have been asked this question by well-meaning Fundamentalists or Evangelicals. Of course, by “born again” the Protestant usually means: “Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior through the recitation of ‘the sinner’s prayer?’” How is a Catholic to respond? The simple Catholic response is: “Yes, I have been born again—when I was baptized.” In fact, Jesus’ famous “born again” discourse of John 3:3-5, which is where we find the words “born again” (or “born anew”) in Scripture, teaches us about the essential nature of baptism: Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” At this point, a Fundamentalist or Evangelical will respond almost predictably: “Baptism does not save you, brother; John 3:5 says we must be born of water and the Spirit.” The Catholic will then be told the “water” of John 3:5 has nothing to do with baptism. Depending on the preference of the one to whom the Catholic is speaking, the “water” will either be interpreted as man’s natural birth (the “water” being amniotic fluid), and “the Spirit” would then represent the new birth, or the water would represent the word of God through which one is born again when he accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior. Amniotic Fluid vs. Baptismal Water To claim the “water” of John 3:5 is amniotic fluid is to stretch the context just a smidgen! When we consider the actual words and surrounding context of John 3, the waters of baptism seem to be the more reasonable—and biblical—interpretation. Consider these surrounding texts: John 1:31-34: Jesus was baptized. If you compare the parallel passage in St. Matthew’s gospel (3:16), you find that when Jesus was baptized, “the heavens were opened” and the Spirit descended upon him. Obviously, this was not because Jesus needed to be baptized. In fact, St. John the Baptist noted that he needed to be baptized by Jesus (see Matthew 3:14)! Jesus was baptized in order “fulfill all righteousness” and “to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins,” according to Scripture (cf. Matt. 3:15; Luke 1:77). In other words, Jesus demonstrably showed us the way the heavens would be opened to us so that the Holy Spirit would descend upon us… through baptism. John 2:1-11: Jesus performed his first miracle. He transformed water into wine. Notice, Jesus used water from “six stone jars … for the Jewish rites of purification.” According to the Septuagint as well as the New Testament these purification waters were called baptismoi (see LXX, Numbers 19:9-19; cf. Mark 7:4). We know that Old Testament rites, sacrifices, etc. were only “a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). They could never take away sins. This may well be why “six” stone jars are specified by St. John—to denote imperfection, or “a human number” (cf. Rev. 13:18). It is interesting to note that Jesus transformed these Old Testament baptismal waters into wine—a symbol of New Covenant perfection (see Joel 3:18; Matthew 9:17). John 3:22: Immediately after Jesus’ “born again” discourse to Nicodemus, what does He do? “… Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.” It appears he baptized folks. This is the only time in Scripture we find Jesus apparently actually baptizing. John 4:1-2: Jesus’ disciples then begin to baptize at Jesus’ command. It appears from the text, Jesus most likely only baptized his disciples and then they baptized everyone else. In summary, Jesus was baptized, transformed the “baptismal” waters, and then gave his famous “born again” discourse. He then baptized before commissioning the apostles to go out and baptize. To deny Jesus was teaching us about baptism in John 3:3-5 is to ignore the clear biblical context. Moreover, John 3:5 is not describing two events; it describes one event. The text does not say “unless one is born of water and then born again of the Spirit…” It says “unless one is born of water and Spirit…” If we hearken back to the Lord’s own baptism in John 1 and Matt. 3, we notice when our Lord was baptized the Holy Spirit descended simultaneously upon him. This was one event, involving both water and the Spirit. And so it is with our baptism. If we obey God in being baptized—that’s our part of the deal—we can count on God to concurrently “open the heavens” for us and give us the Holy Spirit. And finally, it would be anachronistic to read into Jesus’ use of “water” to mean physical birth in John’s gospel. In fact, St. John had just used a word to refer to physical birth in John 1:12-13, but it wasn’t “water:” But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. St. John here tells us we are not made children of God by birth (“of blood”), or by our own attempts whether they be through our lower nature (“of the flesh”) or even through the higher powers of our soul (“the will of man”); rather, we must be born of God, or by God’s power. Notice, St. John refers to natural birth colloquially as “of blood,” not “of water.” Washing of Water by the Word It is perhaps an even greater stretch to attempt to claim the “water” of John 3:3-5 represents the word of God. At least with the amniotic fluid argument, you have mention of “birth” in the immediate context. However, the Protestant will sometimes refer to Ephesians 5:25-26 and a few other texts to make this point: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word… “See?” a Protestant may say, “The ‘washing of water’ is here equated to ‘the word’ that cleanses us.” If you couple this text with Jesus’ words in John 15:3, “You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you,” the claim is made, that “the water” of John 3:5 would actually refer to the word of God rather than baptism. The Catholic Response Beyond the obvious fact that there is nothing in the context of John’s gospel to even remotely point to “water” as referring to ”the word,” we can point out immediately a point of agreement. Both Catholics and Protestants agree that Jesus’ words—unless one is born anew (or, again)—speak of man’s initial entrance into the body of Christ through God’s grace. Perhaps it would be helpful at this point to ask what the New Testament writers saw as the instrument whereby one first enters into Christ. This would be precisely what we are talking about when we speak of being “born again.” I Peter 3:20-21: “… in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Romans 6:3-4: “Are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.” Galatians 3:27: “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” I Cor. 12:13: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit (See also Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and Col. 2:11-13). If baptism is the way the unsaved are brought into Christ, no wonder Christ spoke of being “born of water and spirit.” Baptism is the instrument of new birth according to the New Testament. If you liked this and would like to dive deeper into learning what Catholics believe and why they believe it, click here. |
*8“And you haven’t posted any examples where only Adults were baptized.”
Every baptism in the New Testament.**
Excuse me, look for several households that were baptized including children if you consider their time and manner of living. One was Lydia’s.
Why are you believing the lamestream media about the Pope. All the supposed statements have been disproved.
“Excuse me, look for several households that were baptized including children if you consider their time and manner of living. One was Lydia’s.”
The argument that children were baptized is an argument from silence.
Even in your response, you had to qualify it (add to Scripture) by saying, “including children if you consider their time and manner of living”.
The plain words of Scripture and the examples where people are identified are all adults. There are no explicit examples of children being baptized. Only adults.
I could have said Lydia’s household. You figure it out!
“I could have said Lydia’s household. You figure it out!”
And the fact that you would have to imply children, instead of seeing a single clear example speaks volumes. If you said Lydia’s household, it would not have given a clear example of a child being baptized either.
Baptism is for those who are mature enough to believe, have believed, have professed faith in Christ and want to publicly testify to others about their inner faith. Some children can do all that. Not every child. Infants, no.
And I will pray for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlqgL-hAC-M#t=89
“Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.”
Do you agree with him and can you provide any scriptural evidence to back up his claim? Very rhetorical question because his comment was dangerous nonsense.
It does mean that? So RCs not only argue from silence in order to support their traditions of men, but also read into Scripture that which is simply not stated?
The actual facts are that the mentions of whole household baptism are very cursory (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1Cor. 1:16) which does not mean it excludes or includes paedobaptism, though where more information is provided other than a cursory statement such as, "I baptized also the household of Stephanas," then it records or indicates that those baptized were those who could hear the word and thus respond. (Acts 2:41; 8:12; 10:43-47; 19:4,5; 16:32; 22:16)
Yet what works to exclude paedobaptism is that the stated requirement for baptism is that of repentant wholehearted faith, (Acts 2:28; 8:36,37) which an infant cannot fulfill.
In addition, you do not make a doctrine on silence and conjecture, as it contrary to the character of the Holy Spirit to fail to record support in Acts for such a critical (according to Catholicism) practice, and you cannot charge God with neglect.
Furthermore, Col. 2:11–12 does makes a casual connection between circumcision and baptism, but this not make the former fully correspond to the latter as regards requirements. Circumcision was an external sign of the Abrahamic covenant that was commanded to be performed to all the household, servants included, but only for the males, and without a personal faith being a prerequisite. (Gn. 17:10-14)
Col. 2:11–12 only refers to circumcision as corresponding to the regeneration what baptism stands for, that of burying the old man and rising to walk in newness of life, (Rm. 6:3,4) with faith appropriating justification. For the Holy Spirit plainly states that the “father of faith, Abraham, "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: " (Romans 4:11)
Thus what is manifest is that while RCs attempt to wrest support for their traditions of men from Scripture, the fact is that teachings such as paedobaptism do not depend upon the weight of Scriptural evidence for their veracity, and which is not to be the basis for your assurance as an RC. Instead it is based upon the say so of Rome, which leaves you with even less support than your attempt to read paedobaptism into Scripture!
Yet such attempts make them look desperate, and serve as an argument against her traditions being taught in Scripture.
Not everywhere...
No accuracy to that whatsoever...See post #90.
Actually, that souls gain eternal life by eating human flesh is what is confected, as it is akin to paganism and contrary to what Scripture clearly teaches is the means to obtaining spiritual life within and eternal life. Thus John never mentions the Lord's supper at all in writing on how believers may know they have eternal life. (1Jn. 5:13)
Christ said THREE TIMES in clarification that yes, he was talking about his actual body and blood...
We have been thru this so many times here but i will do so again briefly if necessary, and that Christ in the stomachs of the kosher apostles supposedly eating blood while yet stood before them, or that Jn. 6:53,54ff teaches this, is an interpretation that ignores and is inconsistent with not only the gospel of John but the frequent use fo figurative language in Scripture for eating or drinking.
David even called water, "the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives" and thus "poured it out unto the Lord," (2Sam. 23:15-17) as it is strictly forbidden to consume blood. Which Catholics would interpret literally if they were consistent.
Nor is 1Cor. 11:19ff speaking about the elements being eaten as being the body of Christ, but the church .
the word for eat used is closer to gnaw.
A usual argument, but the word you refer to for gnaw, "trōgō " is used as the plural for phagō, to "eat, " with the former occurring as eateth, 5 Joh_6:54, Joh_6:56-58 (3), Joh_13:18 eating, 1 Mat_24:38, that is the act of eating. As such it does not distinguish literal from metaphorical.
When Jews say something three times they mean it.
Indeed, and thus the frequent figurative use of eat or drink, even in (Rv. 2:7,14,17,20; 17:16), and that life is gained the moment one believes, excludes the Lord's supper as being necessary to have life within and eternal life.
People left over that teaching — just like JUDAS. You and Judas are on the same page on this one....He still told us to EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD.
So to be consistent, since you take Jn. 6:53,54 literally, then you must deny that those who take this figuratively have life within and eternal life. Which renders you further heretical.
And you are schooled in ignorance of the faith.
Actually, RCs are the ones who ignore the evidence which excludes gaining spiritual life by physically eating, and the use of figurative language, and of John's characteristic use of the physical as representing the spiritual, thus Jn. 6:63 says the words are spirit, are life, and therefore obtaining spiritual life is NEVER shown to be by physically eating, but believing the gospel message. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) Even the NAB notes on 6:63 recognize this much: "Spirit . . . flesh: probably not a reference to the eucharistic body of Jesus but to the supernatural and the natural, as in ⇒ John 3:6." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXE.HTM#$3TD
And the aforementioned figurative use of John is seen
in John 3, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15).
In John 4, Jesus is the living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14).
In John 5, Jesus is the Divine Son of God “making himself equal with God”, and the prophesied Messiah (vs. 18, 39).
In John 6, Jesus is the bread of God “which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “..that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (vs. 35,40). This bread is called His flesh, “which I will give for the life of the world” (v. 51). And as He is the “living bread,” and “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” so the soon to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.
In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11).
In John 12, He is the LORD who Isaiah saw high and lifted up in glory, when Isaiah uttered the prophecy which as given in it’s fulfilled sense in Jn. 6 (Is. 6:1-10; Jn. 12:34b-50). To God be the glory.
In John 15, Jesus is the true vine. Thus the use of metaphors in Jn. 6 to denote believing and living by the Word of God, and most essentially Christ, is consistent theologically, culturally and and grammatically, whereas eating something to gain eternal life is distinctively pagan. The Jewish passover did not impart life, and Jesus analogy in Jn. 6 was not to the passover, but the miraculous bread from Heaven, which gave physical life, which corresponds to spiritual life under the New Covenant.
If John 6 is what Rome says it means, then according to v. 53, in order to have "life in you", which comes by receiving the holy Spirit (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Eph. 2:1, 5), and to receive the gift of eternal life, then we would see the apostles preaching to take part in the Lord supper in order to be born again, and be saved. Instead, they preached that we are believe on the Lord Jesus, which is what Jn. 6: 63 confirms is the meaning of v. 53. The apostles taught how one becomes born again, and so have “life in you” (Eph. 2:1, 5), is by believing the word of the gospel, that of Christ crucified and risen again (Eph. 1:13; Acts 10:43-47).
In addition, the Lord tell us we are to “live by every word which proceedeth forth from the mouth of God
(Mt. 4:4), and in Jn. 4 He tells us that do His Father's will was in essence His food (v.34). Then, in Jn. 6:57 the Lord gives us a clear interpretation of how we are to live by eating His flesh and drinking His blood, by giving us the example of how He lives, “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me. And as Jesus “lived” by every word of the Father, (Mt. 4:4) not by literally eating His flesh, and His “meat and drink” was to do His will, (Jn. 4:34), so are we to live by believing Him, which is shown in following.
And that this is what Jn. 6 speaks of, and to which the rest of Scripture concurs, that by believing the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ, men receive His Spirit, and which enables a life of obedience. “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (Jn. 6:63). So “O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in Him” (Ps. 34:8.
” IT’s the main thing wrong with you protestants.
Actually, as Catholics, even weekly ones are overall more liberal and less committed than their evangelical counterparts , and lose members to them who seek life, then it is Rome that is spirutually lacking. As a former weekly RC who became born again while still going, i know the vast difference btwn institutionalized religion and regeneration. If the Eucharist was regulated by the FDA as health food it would be liable for false advertising.
On what basis did "you" (presuming "you" means "the Catholic church") decide "what was (the) Gospel", out of "a lot of books floating out there"?
Me first! I have yet to get an answer to my often asked questions as to the polemic behind this often made "we gave you the Bible" assertion.
The argument seems to be that the instruments, discerners and and stewards of Holy Writ (Rome presumes she is the NT church) are the infallible interpreters of it. And that such an infallible magisterium is necessary to recognize and establish both men and writings of God as being so, and thus its judgment on what it rejects or affirms must be submitted to.
Maybe this RC will answer this if they have an argument.
BTTT!
You did affirmed this so now i want to ask you one of the continually ignored questions, which is, to be consistent, since you take Jn. 6:53,54 literally, then you must deny that who lived and died taking this figuratively had spiritual life within and eternal life. Correct? Or can this be spinned while yet holding to a literal understanding? Do not resort to "i am not to judge" as these died denying what you say is necessary for spiritual life.
Egregious extrapolation on steroids! So recognizing writings as being of God makes one the infallible interpreters of it, to whom all must submit?
And "bind and loose" translates into the same, and able to require submission to traditions even if they lack actually Scriptural evidence or even among the earliest (so-called) church "fathers ."
And that both sources consistently teach that that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18? And that thus the whole church looked to a perpetually assuredly infallible chair in Rome as its supreme head over all? With history solidly supporting this?
And that the Greek in “the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim. 3:15) somehow means what? That Rome is the supreme authority over Scripture?
RCs are know here for arguments by assertions, as are the refutations, but we or i have not seen you here before.
When I was a Catholic I heard the “bread of life” gospel many times, and this was always omitted: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Those words are absolutely critical and essential to that whole passage.
I’ll just say this too, from a logical standpoint, if eating bread was such an absolutely critical and fundamental concept to entering the Kingdom of God, why is it that only John writes about it. Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not even broach the subject.
Anyway, good post daniel1212. I learned from it.
A very good lay down of the difference between eisegesis and exegesis.
Thus while RCs have continually and unequivocally affirmed Jn. 6:53,54 as literal and thus literally denying having spiritual life apart from believing in the Real Presence (which term itself as i understand it, was first employed by Anglicans), they continually refuse to affirm that implication, as that would set them in contradiction to their own church.
Likewise on Jn. 3:5. Baptism is either is necessary for regeneration or it is not. But unlike the deified wafer, the recipient of baptism does not even have to personally believe in every case, so powerful is the ritual itself. And even Trinitarian Prot baptism is usually recognized as valid, if the baptizer intends to do what Rome intends, which few actually do, but this is interpreted to sanction Prot baptism anyway. I responded to Staples himself on his blog. Let's see if he responds to it.
My wife was baptized in a lake after she came to saving faith in Jesus. Even though we were standing on dry ground there were a lot of wet eyes.
People caught up in the idea that you can mandate God to save someone by baptizing that person as a baby either worship a feeble god subject to man's desires, or are so into institutional loyalty they don't see what the Bible says.
Born Again Christians throughout history put targets on their backs by publicly stating their faith and being baptized. These people are some of the greatest witnesses in our history.
Find a Bible-preaching church and talk to the pastor. If you are a believer, they will be happy to baptize you by believer’s baptism. Hope that helps.
I don't understand that baptizing someone with Water and with the Spirit while saying "I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" equates to a feeble deity as you mention.
For weren't those exact words Christ's instructions to the Apostles and Disciples in the last chapter of John?
How can you say that Christ's words are from a feeble deity?
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.