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. |
Then why does the Catholic church demand it?
Every soul/spirit intellect that has taken this flesh journey has been 'born from above'. Christ never used the phrase 'born again', and what He was instructing Nicodemus is explained in John 3:13
And NO man hath ascended up to heaven, but He That came down from heaven, even the Son of man Which is in heaven.
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the *children* are partakers of flesh and blood, He (Christ) also Himself likewise took part of the same; *THAT* through death HE might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil;
Notice what Christ asks Nicodemus John 3:10 after Nicodemus asks Christ "How can these things be?" in verse 9
Christ ask Nicodemus "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?....What Christ taught was not new, else He would not have asked Nicodemus as a 'master of Israel' why Nicodemus did not understand what Christ was saying.
The book of Jude speaks of those that refused to take this flesh journey, they are also called the 'fallen angels'.
Chris did not say all that take this flesh journey would see the kingdom of God, only that to 'see' that kingdom the first requirement was to take this flesh journey. Obviously, every soul born of woman decided to take this journey.
“If you’re not Catholic why does Catholicism bother you so much.”
Meanwhile, the thread is a direct attack against Protestants, though it’s littered with stupid strawmen as usual. One wonders why FR Catholics are constantly harping against us.
Some churches have baptismals. Some people are baptized in lakes at church camps.
Do you have a church you are currently attending? They can help you.
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"?
Pretty much useless as you can’t be “re-baptized.” Ask your new protestant friends when they will eat Jesus’ flesh and blood as He commanded in John 6. “Unless you EAT my flesh and DRINK my blood you have NO LIFE within you.” Apparently, you have chosen “no life within you.” Good luck with that. Judas did a bang up job with that bit. That’s exactly where he fell away from Jesus. So you and Judas will be good buddies.
You should know better. And I’m sure they will be able to show you where in the bible it’s forbidden to baptize children. As a matter of fact Acts tells us that entire HOUSEHOLDS were baptised. Try following ALL of what Jesus said. Not just the bits you like.
John 1:1 In the beginning (Genesis) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
I suppose it is impossible to hear/read the arrogance of your claim. God made a donkey speak to a preacher for hire. Claiming credit for things not possible does not make ones claims credible.
His response? “Maybe you should try to find a counselor or therapist of some kind”.
Boanrges, I was only willing to write that to implore you to stay away from a Catholic church. Just last week the Pope made a statement to Muslims effectively saying Christianity and Islam will lead you to the same place.
It was only years later that I met an Evangelical family and discovered what a Christian really is. I congratulate you on taking the steps you have taken. I would suggest researching churches in your area and visiting them to find one you enjoy attending AND preaches the Bible, not ‘feel good’ garbage that even many supposed Protestant churches preach today. A good church will help you grow as a Christian AND you will look forward to going, rather than dread it as I remember dreading Catholic church as a youth. Any good Pastor will be thrilled to hear of your experience give you whatever info you need on getting baptized.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I do not wish to get into some theological debate with you or anyone. I can only tell you, for me personally, Catholicism with all its endless rules, regs, rituals, sacraments, do’s and don’ts, I was made to feel like a neurotic in a spiritual sense.
I began reading the Bible many years ago and prayed God would lead me to the Truth. The more I read the Bible and prayed the more I was led away from not only Catholicism, but all religion. Religion is a waste of time in my humble opinion.
I never wished to speak to a Priest at any given time during my studies and praying. Truth is, the Holy Spirit was opening my eyes in ways no other human being could do.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Alex, here’s a pretty good relatively short read re: the canonicity of the New Testament. There is also a fairly lengthy article about the topic in the New Jerome Bible study. [It’s quite expensive, but a good library may have a copy. You should certainly be able to find one at any good Catholic university in the area.]
At any rate, here is the reference in question. [And it IS a very interesting topic.] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
“I suppose it is impossible to hear/read the arrogance of your claim. God made a donkey speak to a preacher for hire. Claiming credit for things not possible does not make ones claims credible. “
And the Shepard of Hermas is not part of the NT why? Ditto other books frequently read but deemed not scriptural in the end. SomEONE had to decide, and given PETER and his successors were authorized by Jesus himself to “bind and loose” and Jesus said he was building his church on Peter [Matthew] and that Timothy said that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth.” Then I think it would be a good thing to know who had the authority to do declare something scriptural. Certainly not your sect. I’m going on the apostolic succession Jesus Himself established and am not taking a chance on your sect. if that sounds “arrogant” take it up with Jesus. I didn’t make the rules and decisions. HE did!
Oh, and my goodness. Do you not know “the Word” in this context means CHRIST HIMSELF? This is an affirmation of the trinity. Which protestants also believe in. I.E. the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 persons in one and the same God. It’s a mystery, but one thing ALL Christians believe in. Sheesh.
LOL
What a tired old talking point. Just a little research reveals that the Holy Spirit guided Born Again Christians in seeing which books were inspired and which to reject. Just one example is the quick rejection of the "Protoevangelium of James". This book written in the 2nd century was rejected before the Roman church was able to use state power to enforce it's will.
IOW, there was very little controversy concerning what was inspired and what wasn't. The only time some council was called, or a bishop made some sweeping declaration, was because pagan beliefs were growing within a given area. Also, these supposed authoritative statements only start showing up several generations after the Apostolic Era had ended. The fact there wasn't more controversy earlier is a testimony to how seriously Christians viewed Scripture.
This so called authorized succession was made up. I have read Peter's words and not even he named his successor.
Furthermore, given the blissful ignorance of all those holy prophets that Peter and Christ relied upon make the so called Old Testament one and the same as the Gospel. In Deuteronomy 32 there are two rocks. Even Paul instructed that what happened before to them was our script that would be again to draw down this flesh age.
Grace is unmerited favor and can only come from the Heavenly Father in the name of His only Begotten Son. Nobody else has a say in regards to each individual. There is no Mary on the Heavenly throne. And what about that key to David, that closes and/or locks doors?
I could spend days pointing out things you all allowed in the WORD that are completely ignored via so called succession. Might as well toss the original in the trash. Peter never made up a whole bunch of so called feast days and he sure never rolled easter eggs or had the authority to pass off that power to any one else.
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.