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. |
how so?
“humor me, please show me where you explained how the text is being twisted or manipulated?”
Sure:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3120249/posts
Read my posts in that link (LOL) and you should have an idea of what I was saying.
Now’s your chance to actually read my posts, analyze them, and explain how they are lacking or wrong in some way, and then I’ll be able to respond with more clarity, if clarity is needed.
I’ll explain later, I’m on my way to the patch, and the roads aren’t great lol.
Thank you for posting articles like this .. they’re very interesting.
Unlike the follow-on “discussion” (I use the term loosely), which is worse than merely useless.
Claims by “Born Agains” about needing to be born again is nothing but judgment by them that the Lord says not to do.
"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
Text from page http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass:_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445 of the Vatican Radio website
This is a very different reading than what you are purporting in your post.
**Catholic, Are You Born Again? **
Absolutely.
By water and the Spirit!
“This is a very different reading than what you are purporting in your post.”
Can you please give a logical and reasonable explanation for how that is so?
Here is where you can find out how to post consistently with the norms established here since 1997: HTML Sandbox 2013. You can also access this instruction thread any time by looking at the keywords on the top of the main page and selecting "HTML Sandbox."
This is the response of those that are not Born Again Christians. Rather, it is the response of those that are caught in a system that indoctrinates it's members with the idea that you will work your way to salvation.
The fundamental divide between Born Again Christians and Roman Catholics is how God's Grace is obtained. Born Again Christians understand that Grace is a gift of God that is given to us because of our Faith Alone in Jesus Christ Alone. We understand everything was changed at the Cross.
Roman Catholics do not believe The Gospel. Rather they follow the Jewish religious model that was established prior to the Cross. They teach that there is a required sacramental system, which can only be administered by their designated priesthood. The sacrificial system they believe in, as with the Jewish religious model, only has a temporary effect and requires regular replacement.
The RCC has also mimicked the Jewish practices in how their priests are elevated and believed to be the only ones worthy of implementing the needed ongoing sacrifice. Also, they embrace the idea that the civil state is an extension of the religious order and as such should impose the penalties for sin.
Like most non Born Again people they don't fully understand the significance of the Cross. The sacrificial system is done. The perfect sacrifice has been made and because it's perfect it is sufficient. Also what they fail to see, because they are not Born Again, is after the Cross churches were established as independent bodies that were unified by faith not the imposed power of the state.
Catholicism teaches you to get to third base, rarely teaching what you need to get to heaven. Many Romans come to fully trust Christ apart from works anyway. My father, for instance.
I’ve observed that Roman Catholics make great, joyful Christians when the light dawns about how to be sure of salvation.
“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”.. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” (Pope Francis)
This is definitely not:
"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
You have actually concatenated two paragraphs and selectively quoted the Pope into one paragraph and you have purposely left out the context of Our Lord's words as quoted by the Pope - He was speaking about this in the previous paragraph:
Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”:
Text from page http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass:_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445 of the Vatican Radio website
Text without Context is Pretext is my explanation as shown above.
Great suggestion!
I for one have really been enjoying GPH's insightful posts and using the italics would be helpful.
I have some serious questions. I was born and raised Catholic, but last year had a born again moment/experience. I am no longer Catholic and consider myself “born again” except for the fact that I have never been baptized as an adult. In the last few months the idea of wanting to be baptized has been really gnawing at my spirit. I am ready to to it. My question is, who performs my adult baptism? Can anyone do it, and where must it be...lake, swimming pool? This is really important to me now. Any help or advice is greatly appreciated.
“I think we would all be better able to follow your assertions”
You mean my facts. I do not most assertions. As for italics, actually, it doesn’t work for me. It just turns my posts into one giant text-block. No spacing. Just paragraphs all joined together. Same thing happens if I include any kind of weird text, such as stuff in Greek or Hebrew which wasn’t romanized. I suspect it’s the browser. One of these days I’ll fix it.
“You have actually concatenated two paragraphs and selectively quoted the Pope into one paragraph and you have purposely left out the context of Our Lord’s words as quoted by the Pope - He was speaking about this in the previous paragraph:”
I’m still missing the “logical” explanation for “how this is so.” You can probably start with explaining what the Pope meant, and what you think I said he meant, and explain how they do not converge.
But an RC can see what they want, and thus 3 simple mentions of household baptisms (Acts 16:33; 18:8; 1Cor. 1:16) is proffered as evidence for paedobaptism, yet the stated requirement is that of repentant wholehearted faith, (Acts 2:28; 8:36,37) which an infant cannot fulfill.
And while we suffer from the effects of Adam's sin, eternal damnation is based upon what one is personally culpable for, not that of our fathers. Dt. 24:16; 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20)
In addition, where more information is provided other than a cursory mean 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)
Secondly, what I am asserting is that you have purposely left many things out of your quoting of the Pope to make it justify your argument and to intimate that he was stating that we would meet atheists in heaven as if they were saved thru some sort of ignorance or work of themself. The Pope is not stating that at all. What he is asking people to do, or suggesting that people, even non-believers do, is to do good as a step to getting on the right path where we can meet and both help each other move forward towards Heaven.
I am not the Pope nor do I claim to be my own Pope so only he knows what he means entirely but that is what I get out of it when read in its entirety.
As for yourself, you should know what you were trying to state and if I misunderstood your thought or argument in the piecemeal paragraph by the Pope that you posted then correct me.
Did not the early church, which many non-Catholic Christians are purporting to go back to, baptize infants?
If St. Paul states that baptism replaces circumsision in the New Covenant, couldn't he have used a better analogy as to exclude infants from being baptized?
If faith in Christ is needed for salvation what happens if you yourself cannot make a confession of faith in Christ and you die? What if you were 2 years old? Are you condemmed to Hell?
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.