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. |
“Born again to me means that moment that you, as a functioning adult, accept God as the all mighty rather than carrying on with the rote you ware handed growing up or otherwise a lack of training. It is the concept of understanding.”
And where does it say you have to be a “functioning adult” with “understanding?” I missed that bit in the bible. [Mainly because IT’S NOT THERE!] Consider that with “your way” - retarded people are just out of luck. Consider that Jesus said of little children “suffer the little children come unto me.” And consider in NT times “whole households” [which CERTAINLY would have included infants and the very young, were baptized. Baptism is the NEW way one is united in a covenant relationship to God, it is available to all mankind and not just the Jewish people.
you obviously don’t have a CLUE regards the sacrament of Baptism and what the church teaches. Please. No false preaching from the peanut gallery about what Catholics believe. You are not an accurate reporter.
We are saved by God’s GRACE, through faith and good works. Or did you rip James out of your bible? We are also meant to be baptized, normally through water and saying “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” There is also “baptism of desire” where one can’t be baptized, perhaps for a practical reason like the thief on the cross, and St. Genesius, an actor who was acting in an anti-Christian lay and midway in the performance, which mocked Christian beliefs, he DID embrace Christian beliefs, said so and was martyred on the spot. He is still patron saint of actors.
OK, then. Since you insist on iconoclastic presentation that confuses the reader with lines that look just like the lines FR uses to separate one post from another, and comment typosgraphy that looks just like reply typography, hope you’ll be happy with low readership.
No, that is your lack of HTML skills, which other freepers take the time to learn and can easily be addressed as noted above. Lack of paragraphs is due to not putting the html paragraph indicator in place, for one thing.
“you obviously don’t have a CLUE regards the sacrament of Baptism and what the church teaches.”
Considering how many Papists I’ve debated on FR who have alternatively defended salvation for Muslims and atheists and denied that the church teaches it, I suspect it is the Papists who do not actually know what their church teaches. All they know is that their “church” is right.
“We are saved by God’s GRACE, through faith and good works. Or did you rip James out of your bible?”
IOW, you teach that grace is merited for salvation, just like the catechism:
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
Note: We can “then” merit the graces needed for “sanctification.... and for the attainment of eternal life,” amongst temporal blessings.
Compare with the scripture:
Rom_4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom_11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Rom_9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Grace, by definition, is gratuitous, and therefore cannot be earned by any merit of an individual, but by the absolute gift of God. As Saint Augustine explains:
“For who makes thee to differ, and what has thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. iv. 7). Our merits therefore do not cause us to differ, but grace. For if it be merit, it is a debt; and if it be a debt, it is not gratuitous; and if it be not gratuitous, it is not grace.” (Augustine, Sermon 293)
“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.”
And you and your dad are poorer for rejecting the Eucharist, the gift of Christ Himself which you reject, as did Judas. I suggest you read John 6. “Unless you EAT MY FLESH and DRINK MY BLOOD you have no life within you.” Does your church do that? It’s not a symbol. It’s His flesh and blood. Judas split after that. The only way you can be sure you have been saved is when you get to heaven. “not all who say ‘Lord, Lord’ will be saved.” In other words, people can fall away.
“No, that is your lack of HTML skills, which other freepers take the time to learn and can easily be addressed as noted above.”
Thanks for your advice, though I will completely ignore it for now.
Catholics can have “born again” moments.
You are still a Catholic, however. The marks of Baptism and Confirmation are indelible.
Sit down with a priest and get your questions answered.
**And you and your dad are poorer for rejecting the Eucharist, the gift of Christ Himself which you reject, as did Judas. I suggest you read John 6. “Unless you EAT MY FLESH and DRINK MY BLOOD you have no life within you.” **
BTTT!
Amen.
Like Alex Murphy once said:
In my experience, [Roman Catholics] make just one thing crucial to salvation - kissing the Pope's ring. Ultimately, everything else is negotiable for them. IMO nothing else explains why Trinitarian pro-life Protestants are anathemized, while atheistic pro-abort Democrats receive Pope-presided communion wafers and Cardinal-presided funeral masses.
“I have never seen any scripture indicating that babies were baptized.” — I’ve never seen any scripture indicated that only adults were. As a matter of fact, scripture is more supportive of the Catholic faith’s teaching of infant baptism. See Acts 16:15, 16:33; 1 Cor 1:16. for references to whole households being baptized.
“And you and your dad are poorer for rejecting the Eucharist, the gift of Christ Himself which you reject, as did Judas. I suggest you read John 6. “Unless you EAT MY FLESH and DRINK MY BLOOD you have no life within you.” Does your church do that? It’s not a symbol. It’s His flesh and blood. Judas split after that. The only way you can be sure you have been saved is when you get to heaven. “not all who say ‘Lord, Lord’ will be saved.” In other words, people can fall away.”
1. My father did not reject the eucharist - he trusted Christ alone for salvation.
2. I am not any poorer for obeying Christ’s words and regularly participating in communion as He commanded.
3. Communion is done “in memory of Him”. It is not Him, or memory would be unnecessary.
4. You are simply unschooled in Scripture if you think communion saves you.
5. No one who has come to Christ in saving faith, who is baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ, who is part of the Bride of Christ falls away. The passage you quote merely teaches that words do no save. Of course they do not.
My observation stands. Catholics who come to saving faith make some of the most amazing Christians.
*facepalm *
The epitome of cherry pinking verses. Taking six words out of context from the middle of a sentence.
Here's the rest of it.......
1 Peter 3:18-22 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely 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 good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
Well, the author seems to have gotten it correct, but too bad he's rationalizing it away.
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.