I Hated the Idea of Becoming Catholic

Aleteia ^ | JUNE 20, 2014 | ANTHONY BARATTA

[NYer]

It was the day after Ash Wednesday in 2012 when I called my mom from my dorm room at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.

“You’re not going to become Catholic, you just know you’re not Southern Baptist,” she said.

“No, I don’t think so.”

A pause. “Oh boy,” she sighed.

I started crying.

I cannot stress enough how much I hated the idea of becoming Catholic. I was bargaining to the last moment. I submitted a sermon for a competition days before withdrawing from school. I was memorizing Psalm 119 to convince myself of sola scriptura. I set up meetings with professors to hear the best arguments. I purposefully read Protestant books about Catholicism, rather than books by Catholic authors.

Further, I knew I would lose my housing money and have to pay a scholarship back if I withdrew from school, not to mention disappointing family, friends, and a dedicated church community.

But when I attempted to do my homework, I collapsed on my bed. All I wanted to do was scream at the textbook, “Who says?!”

I had experienced a huge paradigm shift in my thinking about the faith, and the question of apostolic authority loomed larger than ever.

But let’s rewind back a few years.

I grew up in an evangelical Protestant home. My father was a worship and preaching pastor from when I was in fourth grade onwards. Midway through college, I really fell in love with Jesus Christ and His precious Gospel and decided to become a pastor.

It was during that time that I was hardened in my assumption that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t adhere to the Bible. When I asked one pastor friend of mine during my junior year why Catholics thought Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth when the Bible clearly said Jesus had “brothers,” he simply grimaced: “They don’t read the Bible.”

Though I had been in talks with Seattle’s Mars Hill Church about doing an internship with them, John Piper’s book Don’t Waste Your Life clarified my call to missionary work specifically, and I spent the next summer evangelizing Catholics in Poland.

So I was surprised when I visited my parents and found a silly looking book titled Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic on my father’s desk. What was my dad doing reading something like this? I was curious and hadn’t brought anything home to read, so I gave it a look.

David Currie’s memoir of leaving behind his evangelical education and ministries was bothersome. His unapologetic defense of controversial doctrines regarding Mary and the papacy were most shocking, as I had never seriously considered that Catholics would have sensible, scriptural defenses to these beliefs.

The book’s presence on my father’s desk was explained more fully a few months later when he called me and said he was returning to the Catholicism of his youth. My response? “But, can’t you just be Lutheran or something?” I felt angry, betrayed, and indignant. For the next four months I served as a youth pastor at my local church and, in my free time, read up on why Catholicism was wrong.

During that time, I stumbled across a Christianity Today article that depicted an “evangelical identity crisis.” The author painted a picture of young evangelicals, growing up in a post-modern world, yearning to be firmly rooted in history and encouraged that others had stood strong for Christ in changing and troubled times. Yet, in my experience, most evangelical churches did not observe the liturgical calendar, the Apostles’ Creed was never mentioned, many of the songs were written after 1997, and if any anecdotal story was told about a hero from church history, it was certainly from after the Reformation. Most of Christian history was nowhere to be found.

For the first time, I panicked. I found a copy of the Catechism and started leafing through it, finding the most controversial doctrines and laughing at the silliness of the Catholic Church. Indulgences? Papal infallibility? These things, so obviously wrong, reassured me in my Protestantism. The Mass sounded beautiful and the idea of a visible, unified Church was appealing - but at the expense of the Gospel? It seemed obvious that Satan would build a large organization that would lead so many just short of heaven.

I shook off most of the doubts and enjoyed the remainder of my time at college, having fun with the youth group and sharing my faith with the students. Any lingering doubts, I assumed, would be dealt with in seminary.

I started my classes in January with the excitement of a die-hard football fan going to the Super Bowl. The classes were fantastic and I thought I had finally rid myself of any Catholic problems.

But just a few weeks later, I ran into more doubts. We were learning about spiritual disciplines like prayer and fasting and I was struck by how often the professor would skip from St. Paul to Martin Luther or Jonathan Edwards when describing admirable lives of piety. Did nothing worthwhile happen in the first 1500 years? The skipping of history would continue in many other classes and assigned reading. The majority of pre-Reformation church history was ignored.

I soon discovered I had less in common with the early Church fathers than I thought. Unlike most Christians in history, communion had always been for me an occasional eating of bread and grape juice, and baptism was only important after someone had gotten “saved.” Not only did these views contradict much of Church history but, increasingly, they did not match with uncomfortable Bible passages I had always shrugged off (John 6, Romans 6, etc).

Other questions that I had buried began to reappear, no longer docile but ferocious, demanding an answer. Where did the Bible come from? Why didn’t the Bible claim to be “sufficient”? The Protestant answers that had held me over in the last year were no longer satisfying.

Jefferson Bethke’s viral YouTube video, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus,” was released during this time. The young man meant well, but to me he only validated what the Wall Street Journal called “the dangerous theological anarchy of young evangelicals,” attempting to remove Jesus from the confines of religion but losing so much in the process.

Ash Wednesday was the tipping point. A hip Southern Baptist church in Louisville held a morning Ash Wednesday service and many students showed up to classes with ashes on their forehead. At chapel that afternoon, a professor renowned for his apologetic efforts against Catholicism expounded upon the beauty of this thousand year old tradition.

Afterwards, I asked a seminary friend why most evangelicals had rejected this beautiful thing. He responded with something about Pharisees and “man-made traditions.”

I shook my head. “I can’t do this anymore.”

My resistance to Catholicism started to fade. I was feeling drawn to the sacraments, sacramentals, physical manifestations of God’s grace, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. No more borrowing, no more denying.

It was the next day that I called my mom and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.

I didn’t go to classes on Friday. I went to the seminary library and checked out books I had previously forbidden myself to look at too closely, like the Catechism and Pope Benedict’s latest. I felt like I was checking out porn. Later, I drove to a 5pm Saturday Mass. The gorgeous crucifix at the front of the church reminded me of when I had mused that crucifixes demonstrated that Catholics didn’t really understand the resurrection.

But I saw the crucifix differently this time and began crying. “Jesus, my suffering savior, you’re here.”

A peace came over me until Tuesday, when it yielded to face-to-windshield reality. Should I stay or leave? I had several panicked phone calls: “I literally have no idea what I am going to do tomorrow morning.”

On Wednesday morning I woke up, opened my laptop, and typed out “77 Reasons I Am Leaving Evangelicalism.” The list included things like sola scriptura, justification, authority, the Eucharist, history, beauty, and continuity between the Old and New Testament. The headlines and the ensuing paragraphs flowed from my fingers like water bursting from a centuries-old dam. 

A few hours later on February 29, 2012 I slipped out of Louisville, Kentucky, eager to not confuse anyone else and hoping I wasn’t making a mistake.  

The next few months were painful. More than anything else I felt ashamed and defensive, uncertain of how so much of my identity and career path could be upended so quickly. Nonetheless, I joined the Church on Pentecost with the support of my family and started looking for work.

So much has changed since then. I met Jackie on CatholicMatch.com that June, got married a year later, and celebrated the birth of our daughter, Evelyn, on March 3rd, 2014. We’re now in Indiana and I’m happy at my job.

I’m still very new on this Catholic journey. To all inquirers out there, I can tell you that my relationship with God has deepened and strengthened. As I get involved in our parish, I’m so thankful for the love of evangelism and the Bible that I learned in Protestantism.

I have not so much left my former faith as I have filled in the gaps. I thank God for the fullness of the Catholic faith.

[Springfield Reformer]

I re-read this several; time to make sure I understood your point completely, that is why I did not respond last night. Doesn't the fact that Jesus chose Anthon not just reinforce but stipulate that it is not a "generic" birth, but rather a supernatural occurrence that can only happen once?

I really don't think this is the key point of our disagreement.  I accept that "anothen" was used to describe an event that Nicodemas should have recognized as a one time thing.  Where I think we differ is what exactly is bundled into "anothen" in terms of semantic range.  Nicodemas' response suggests strongly that "anothen" or whatever underlies it did NOT act in his mind to stipulate supernatural spiritual birth. Is that because he just jumped the tracks and saw 'again-ness" where it didn't exist in the language?  Or was he taking the only alternate route he could see that was at least plausibly justified by what Jesus said? If the latter, you have allow that "again-ness" is inherent in the idea of birth happening a second time (hence "deuteron").

Another point.  The "again-ness" evident in "anothen" as used in Galatians cannot be reconciled with this idea you have of "anothen" as uniformly and exclusively meaning "from above":

Galatians 4:9  But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again [anothen] to be in bondage?

Can "ye desire 'from above' to be in bondage" be even remotely correct?  Obviously not.  "Again" works very well there, though it appears to be viewed as a singular event, a major change of state, and not a generic repetition.

As I pointed out Nicodemus used the word Dueteron. He asked how can a fully grown person re-enter the womb. If we move forward in the same chapter to verse 3:31 The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

Granted, when John the Baptist speaks about Jesus, He describes Him as from above, and uses the very word we discuss, "anothen."  But Nicodemas' is clearly responding to something in what Jesus said that suggested "again-ness," though he didn't get it quite right.  "A second time," is still a repetition in time, though not generic repetition.  The real problem is Nicodemas is not grasping the ontological distinction at all, so he's reaching for the one meaning most available to his mind.  Jesus is speaking of birth, and the only birth Nicodemas gets, that he can personalize to himself, is physical birth, which is why he ends up at his nonsensical conclusion.  As someone else here has already pointed out, he probably does not see himself in need of any spiritual rebirth.  And as we already know, a metaphor doesn't instruct the mind of one who is not ready to receive the truth being taught by the analogy.

But Jesus tells him this is something he should already know as a teacher of Israel.  Therefore we know this is not new revelation, but explication of teaching already available to Nicodemas, which he had also missed.  One of the best candidates for such teaching is this passage:

Ezekiel 36:25-28  Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.  (26)  A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.  (27)  And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.  (28)  And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Here we even see the water mentioned in parallel with the new spirit, just as Jesus described the new birth, "being born of water and the spirit," not as a reference to sacramental ritual, but as a description of purification from sin performed by God Himself as a corollary to the giving of the new spirit.  This language also parallels Jeremiah's description of the New Covenant rather exactly (See Jeremiah 31:31-34), and we would not be stretching things to suggest that Jesus is telling Nicodemas the spiritual nature of the New Covenant spoken of by the prophets is something he should have seen coming, being supposedly a teacher of Israel.

Some here have posited Nicodemas' response was insincere, a dodge, because he did in fact know about the new spiritual birth but thought it could only apply to gentiles, not to him.  I disagree with that theory for two reasons.  First, the two OT passages above describe the coming era of the New Covenant and the corresponding spiritual rebirth it brings as coming, at least initially, to Israel, not the Gentiles.  Second, Jesus doesn't deal with Nicodemas as a lying hypocrite. He castigates him for not knowing things he should have known, for dereliction of duty as it were for a teacher in Israel.  But he never accuses him of lying or pretending to think one thing while really believing another.  My read on Nicodemas is that he was as sincere as a heart attack but a victim of the corruption in Judaism that had led to widespread ignorance of important divine truths.

Every single translation uses the word "above" for "anthon."

Your statement is very broad.  Are you saying that all twelve occurrences in all versions of all Bibles of all times use "above" for "anothen?"

If so, then it's not strictly true.  We are after all debating the merits of the KJV, which does use "again" repeatedly in John 3.

But even if we exclude that, there are many other translators, most of them sitting atop the great mountain of modern Greek knowledge, who saw fit to use "again" for "anothen" in John 3.  Without attempting to be exhaustive, here is a sampling:

Douay-Rheims
Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Complete Jewish Bible
"Yes, indeed," Yeshua answered him, "I tell you that unless a person is born again from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."
(Note: the CEB tries to resolve this by using both translations simultaneously.  I didn't see that coming. :O)

English Standard Version
Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Good News Translation
Jesus answered, "I am telling you the truth: no one can see the Kingdom of God without being born again."

Holman Christian Standard
Jesus replied, "I assure you: Unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

New American Standard
Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

New Century Version
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless one is born again, he cannot be in God's kingdom."

New International Reader's Version
Jesus replied, "What I'm about to tell you is true. No one can see God's kingdom without being born again."

New International Version
In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

New King James Version
Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

New Living Translation
Jesus replied, "I assure you, unless you are born again, you can never see the Kingdom of God."

The Webster Bible
Jesus answered and said to him, Verily, verily, I say to thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Third Millennium Bible
Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily I say unto thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

Today's New International Version
Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again. "

Wycliffe
Jesus answered, and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to thee, but a man be born again, he may not see the kingdom of God.


The full list of comparisons is here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/3-3-compare.html

Another interesting entry is Jerome's Vulgate, which uses "denuo" for "anothen," which basically means "again" or "anew":

dēnuō adv. de + novo, once more, a second time, anew, afresh, again: Etruria rebellans, L.: Sicilia censa denuo est: recita denuo: iube mi denuo Respondeat, T.
—In turn, again (colloq.): metuo ne denuo Miser excludar, T.

So is Jerome wrong too?  I grant that he could be. I don't subscribe to the theory of inspired translations.  Only the autographs, the originals. But it does suggest this idea of "again-ness" which we see very concretely in Nicodemas' response was picked up by an awful lot of creditable translators as a valid way to handle "anothen."

Louw-Nida treats the expression "gennao anothen" ("born again") as a composite with idiomatic value, which may offer us a better way to understand how "anothen" could take on a specialized meaning when linked with "gennao" ("born").

41.53 γεννάω ἄνωθεν (an idiom, literally ‘to be born again’); παλιγγενεσίαa, ας f: to experience a complete change in one’s way of life to what it should be, with the implication of return to a former state or relation—‘to be born again, to experience new birth, rebirth.’
γεννάω ἄνωθεν: ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν ‘unless a person is born again’ Jn 3:3. It is also possible to understand ἄνωθεν in Jn 3:3 as meaning ‘from above’ or ‘from God’ (see 84.13), a literary parallel to the phrase ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν in Jn 1:13. In Jn 3:3, however, Nicodemus understood ἄνωθεν as meaning ‘again’ (see 67.55) and γεννάω as ‘physical birth’ (see 23.52).
παλιγγενεσίαa: διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως ‘new birth and new life by washing’ Tt 3:5. The metaphor of ‘new birth’ is so important in the NT that it should be retained if at all possible. In some languages ‘new birth’ can be expressed as ‘to cause to be born all over again’ or ‘to have a new life as though one were born a second time.’ See also 13.55.

As you know, sometimes this happens as a function of idiom, that a secondary sense is promoted to a primary sense by appearing in partnership with another word.  For example, a chip is an electronic circuit or a bit of chocolate or otherwise a small bit of some physical thing, unless it's on your shoulder, in which case it's a grudge.  Imagine trying to translate that from English back into Greek.  No native Greek reader would get it, because the idiom changes the meaning of "chip" so dramatically.

So possibly this is how "anothen" so easily takes on the temporal framework of "from the beginning," as opposed to "from the top" (spatially).  When used in combination with "born," the "again-ness" comes to the foreground and the "above-ness" recedes, though without completely disappearing.  Perhaps this happens because over time, "born" took the burden of describing the source (generally speaking, humans cause birth, not supernatural sources), leaving "anothen" to account for placement in time rather than source, as time is also an important feature of human birth.  Yes, speculative, and I'd be glad to hear a better theory, but it does help explain Nicodemas' apparent decision to see in Jesus' words a second physical birth rather than a first spiritual birth.

This is one of those time that I wish we had the Aramaic/ Hebrew text, then there would be zero confusion.

I agree it would be nice to have the Aramaic.  But other than as a technical translation issue, I am really not sure why the phrase "born again" causes such angst for some.  Even in English it has the idiomatic effect of talking about the once-in-a-lifetime event of spiritual new birth.  So it isn't as though any but a few reincarnationists here and there are actually confused about it's meaning.  I know the Catholic version of regeneration is tightly coupled with water baptism as a sacrament, but why that should hinge on whether "born again" or "born from above" is the better translation is not clear to me.  They are both speaking of the same remarkable event.

Peace,

SR

[Resettozero]

Thanks, delchiante, for your making the effort to reply. Still hope you heard me in my previous post to you.

Only negatives I have to what you just posted have to do with your intrusive use of the word “we” to describe your own (and others’ like you) understandings. Occasionally, your “we” did not include me. Thanks again.

R2z

[editor-surveyor]

>> “ If Nicodemus and those gathered around understood clearly (as those who we are debating would have us believe) that it meant “from above” than Nicodemus would have been exposed as facetious in his comment.” <<

.
And he definitely was!

Read John 3:8-13 carefully.

Yeshua made it plain in that statement that he was speaking of the same kind of rebirth that he was soon going to experience at his own resurrection: a body that could travel invisibly like the wind, and walk through walls. He chastised Nicodemus for not knowing “these things.”

.

[editor-surveyor]

Scripture is our weapon!

Who was wounded?

The dog that yelps!

.

[Resettozero]

Scripture is our weapon!

Who was wounded?

The dog that yelps!

Did you miss my point? Was referring to carelessly slinging the Sword around and injuring onself.

Not sure I get your meaning.

[editor-surveyor]

The clown you were responding to considers posting scripture to demolish apostasy “using scripture as a weapon.”

An appropriate, and effective weapon I would say.
.

[verga]

Your statement is very broad. Are you saying that all twelve occurrences in all versions of all Bibles of all times use "above" for "anothen?"

I will have to post more either much later tonight, or tomorrow. But I wanted to address this. I am speaking strictly about verse John 3:31 in that statement. Although I am prepared to walk that back a bit upon further reflection. I can't say for certain about the YLT or the GNB. But every other translation I have available to me uses "from above" for John 3:31.

[Resettozero]

The clown you were responding to considers posting scripture to demolish apostasy “using scripture as a weapon.”

An appropriate, and effective weapon I would say.

I regret to inform you that I can not ride this train of thought with you. Forgot who the clown is and cannot follow your sentence structure and references. Must be my allergies or something. But thanks for trying.

[delchiante]

He warns us a lot about the world and its system..it is who is behind them we are to be aware of...

His Kingdom is going to be His Rules.. His calendar.. His Timekeepng..all Him.. that isn’t legalistic.. That’s love and being able to express Love to Him and Worship to Him that made heaven, earth the seas and all that is in them.. that Kingdom is the one that’s coming.. Rome’s is going bye bye..

And the beauty is we get all the perks as gentiles.. without the circumcsion laws..we can even teach those still under those laws why they do what they do and why the need not.

We can see today and thank Him for what He made on His First Day. and then think about what He made for us on His Second day tomorrow.

Or we can go around thinking it’s Tiw’s day today and tomorrow is Woden’s day, etc.

One system points to His Creative and Redemptive Works through His Son..

The other system gives glory to other gods and created things.. man made.

Both systems... both with rules.

And people who have read scripture and are biblically knowledgable will defend the latter.

Not because it is biblical, but because it is all we have ever known..

Next thing we hear may be that the ten commandments are no longer important.. well, all of them are still good except the one that talks about the Sabbath- sabbath to us is whenever we want it to be- or whenever Rome says it is..
Or we will let Rome choose one so we can choose another one..or don’t choose one at all.. the new testament itself would prove the latter to be in error.

you and I have the same opinion on Rome I think... you are not willing to accept that they are telling people when to work and worship..maybe you don’t work anymore or maybe everyday is a sabbath for you.. maybe you didn’t have a thanksgiving meal on Thor’s day because the calendar said so..

The Kingdom calendar is in scriptur.. people who have the same set of seven days will agree with you..I am okay with that. They start from the false premise that any 7 is His 7...

Praise Yah we have scripture to tell Truth from error..

It doesn’t make us live it,though.

When I realized the world system hides His Sabbath,it became very clear what was happening.
That Sabbath commandment cannot be obeyed all the time.
That is either an important revelation considering Mathew 5:19 or it isn’t.

So we are given a choice.. we don’t know about the choice.. we just go with the world.. unless we study and find the world to be counterfeit..

That is when the choice is real and not a theory.. and not just something to function in... it is a life choice..

If He hasn’t revealed this to you before, He is now.

The world is not set up for His yet..but each believer is..

If December 25, easter, Saturday or Sunday are not holy to you, then you shouldn’t be so quick to defend Rome..

The only thing you have in common with them at that point is the name Jesus..
Now, If we didn’t have Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 that translators erased the name Jesus to the english Joshua in later translations, we wouldn’t have a debate on the name either..

[verga]

Yeshua made it plain in that statement that he was speaking of the same kind of rebirth that he was soon going to experience at his own resurrection: a body that could travel invisibly like the wind, and walk through walls. He chastised Nicodemus for not knowing “these things.”

Speaking strictly for myself here. This adds serious weight to SR ontological position/ argument.

Thank you for posting this.

[BipolarBob]

"His Kingdom is going to be His Rules.."
I hate to be the one giving out secrets here but He's done revealed His rules on Mt. Sinai some time back. Sorry you didn't get the memo. Moses must have dropped the tablets on that one.
" Rome’s is going bye bye..:
Not just Rome. The whole world, baby. It'll all be brand spanking new.
"Next thing we hear may be that the ten commandments are no longer important.. well, all of them are still good except the one that talks about the Sabbath-"
Oh I see, you're starting a new religion in which you get to pick and choose what Commandments you follow or not. I suppose you'll be your own new pope? I mean you're really really good at it, so why not?
"That is either an important revelation considering Mathew 5:19 "
You come up with a position and then cite a Scripture which contradicts it. Whoa! That's refreshing. Your postings confuse me but I'm somewhat attracted to them like a moth to a flame I suppose.

[CynicalBear]

>>Yeshua made it plain in that statement that he was speaking of the same kind of rebirth that he was soon going to experience at his own resurrection: a body that could travel invisibly like the wind, and walk through walls. He chastised Nicodemus for not knowing “these things.”<<

OH good grief. Um,,,no He was not.

1 Peter 1:22-23 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth.

Now tell us that Peter was talking to people who had already been raised from the dead and had "a body that could travel invisibly like the wind, and walk through walls" like Jesus did.

[CynicalBear]

Another hint can be found in 1 Peter 1:23

[imardmd1]

Nice treatment!

Actually Apparently Jesus was teaching His disciples the use of figurative-literal language, with which they were not acquainted, much less expert. In the John 3 passage Jesus starts teaching Nicodemus the semantics needed for communicating spiritual truths.

In v. 2, N. asks a literal question.

In. v. 3, Jesus answers in the figurative-literal sense (meaning born again in time but anew in kind).

In v. 4, N. takes Jesus literally and responds so, literally (meaning the physical birth repeated again in time and again in the same way).

In v. 5, Jesus answers with both literal and figurative-literal language (meaning first out from water of the womb, then out from Spirit).

In verse 6, Jesus explain the difference: (1) literal = water of the womb = fleshly birth which produces a man of flesh constitution and substance; but (2) figurative-literal = Spirit = birth in/of the Spirit produces a spiritual man of spiritual constitution and substance.

Here Jesus illustrates how to spiritually differentiate between literal and figurative-literal content of his teachings.

Some religionists want (wrongly) to insist from this passage that river/well water applied to the human body (literally, fleshly) produces a Spiritual man (figurative-literal, spiritually). This is, of course, nonsense, and cannot be what Jesus was saying or what he meant. That is why their reasoning and doctrine on this is natural and illogical, like that of Nicodemas, and not spiritually discerned, with the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:14-16, Php. 2:5).

[verga]

And I don't think that there is any disagreement that this verse clearly says born again. ἀναγεννάω anagennaō. Thank you for pointing this verse out.

[Springfield Reformer]

But every other translation I have available to me uses "from above" for John 3:31.

Oops, I was looking back to the earlier verses.  Missed that you were talking about 31.  

Also, I noticed my treatment of Galatians 4:9 is wrong.  "anothen" is not "again"; "palin" is.  The expression "palin anothen" renders, according to AT Robertson, as "over again," so it doesn't really add to or detract from the core argument, except to  show the versatility of "anothen," in that the strict "from above" rendering still doesn't work well there.  Anyway, just wanted to point that out.  

Would be so nice to have an edit feature on FR, but I get why it can't be done.  We don't get to take back the words we say in person either.  Motivation for better discipline. :)

Peace,

SR

[imardmd1]

The new birth spoken of is a birth in time (again) but not of the same kind (not earthly, but from/in another sphere of existence, anew):

The action of fleshly generative seed in the first time produces, in the worldly realm, a fleshly product/fruit gestated in amniotic fluid/water and born of that water (Gen. 1:27-28); but the action of the generative Seed (the Word of The God) in another gestation of a different kind (1 Jn. 3:9), produces a spiritual product/fruit in the spiritual realm, born of God in The Spirit.

[Springfield Reformer]

Thanks. And you make an interesting point. Jesus was teaching them to teach, and they didn’t even realize it at the time. Kind of like that “wax on, wax off” bit from Karate Kid. I think He still works that way, teaching us what we need to know well before we realize we need to know it.

[imardmd1]

Now just go back and insert Catholic for A and Protestant for B. This logic shows that David Koresh, Fred Phelps, the Oneness Pentecostals, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Joel Olsteen, Mormonism, and anything else that has even the tiniest connection to Christianity, no matter how attenuated, is still Catholic.

Nope. The visible, earthly manifestation of The Way was not catholic in any sense, let alone the Ignatius/Augustine sense of a polity with government external to the local church, from the first until this day. You will not find a local independent, autonomous, immersionist assembly, loyal to Jesus Christ and His Word and meeting as His body, ever reciting the Apostles' Creed as their Symbol of The Faith, because of one word in it. They are a local reproduction of the prototype Jerusalem New Testament ekklesia, an assembly of those summoned to meet for and with Him, in which the word "catholic" is not recorded as ever having been said, much less accepted as a model of tying together an association of like-minded local churches.

The "catholic" concept came much, much later and was never instituted by Jesus or His disciples that personally knew him as far as the Holy Scriptures are concerned.

I believe your assumption above is way wrong.

I was raised in Methodism, sired by the Anglican priest John Wesley, which has the distinct flavor of Romanism still clinging to it, and long ago left its influence. I'm clinging to the Christ of the Cross, and reject catholicism in any flavor.

[do the dhue]

Just rejoice, if you do.

God bless