Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Born Again - The Bible Way
catholic.com ^ | October 4, 2013 | Tim Staples

Posted on 02/01/2015 2:15:28 PM PST by Morgana

“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” 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." Nicode'mus 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.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; bornagain; catholic; doneright; timstaples
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: Gamecock

That’s an alarming ignorance. This discussion begins and ends with Petrine authority.


21 posted on 02/01/2015 4:19:21 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Catholics don’t need the Protestant “born again” nonsense. We have the “Holy Eucharist.” No more is needed.

Just wow! You have no idea.
22 posted on 02/01/2015 4:36:07 PM PST by Old Yeller (Civil rights are for civilized people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

***This discussion begins and ends with Petrine authority.***

No. Such. Thing.

And if there was your faith group is in SERIOUS trouble right now, what with your Socialist Pope and all.


23 posted on 02/01/2015 4:36:50 PM PST by Gamecock (Joel Osteen is a preacher of the Gospel like Colonel Sanders is an Army officer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GilesB

Where does the Bible show the baptism of the apostles?


24 posted on 02/01/2015 4:39:16 PM PST by RBStealth (--raised by wolves, disciplined and educated by nuns, and kneeling at the feet of Mary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Paul at one point compares baptism to circumcision, which, as you know, was administered to Jewish baby boys on the eighth day after birth. The presumption in a Jewish audience would therefore have been that one would enter the covenant as an infant. Origen (ca AD 248) reports that "the church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants".

Origen lied...Origen didn't know any apostles...Origen lists no names, dates, etc...And likely Origen didn't say it at all...It was likely Eusebius, Constantine's right hand man who supposedly gives most all of the history prior to Constantine as hear-say...

A couple of times in Acts, there is reference to a whole household being baptized. That would include everyone, even infants.

The burden of proof is on those who reject infant baptism.

No it isn't, but regardless, that's easy...You have been shown the scripture a number of time but obviously reject what God says...Why is that???

Cornelius' household - Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7-11

Peter taught these people that God is no respecter of persons (10:34). So whatever anyone in the household did to be baptized, all the rest must have done the same things. Peter did not give two sets of rules, one for babies and another for adults. Notice some things that people in this household did that babies cannot do: all in the household feared God (10:2,35); all came together to hear and receive what God had commanded (10:33,44; 11:1,14); they heard and believed (15:7,9; 10:43), they repented (11:18), and they were told to work righteousness (10:35). No babies baptized here!

Furthermore, since God is no respecter of persons, we are not going to find any examples of conversion in which less was required of people than in the examples we have already studied. Some examples may give fewer details, but no one in any household was baptized without faith, repentance, confession, etc. If such a case existed, God would be a respecter of persons.

Lydia's household - Acts 16:13-15,40

In this case there is no reason to believe that Lydia was even married, let alone that she had little children. The Bible teaches that, if a woman has a husband, he should be the head of the household (Eph. 5:22-25). So whenever the Bible refers to the activity of a household, if the husband is included in that activity, if the wife is mentioned by name then the man is also mentioned. (Notice how the other household conversions demonstrate this. Genealogies also followed this rule.)

Since Lydia's household was baptized, the fact that no man is mentioned would imply that she was the head of the household. Her household may have included relatives, especially older relatives, and perhaps servants, but no husband is implied, let alone children.

Paul later "encouraged" those who were brethren (NKJV), including Lydia's house (v40). Did this include babies?

The Jailer's household - Acts 16:23-34

Before this household was baptized, Paul spoke the word to all in the house (v32), and they believed (v31,34). Again, babies can't do these things, so no babies were included in the number baptized here.

Stephanas' household - 1 Corinthians 1:16; 16:15

Again, what verse says there were babies in this household? Note that Stephanas' house ministered to the saints. Again, people who are baptized must be old enough to be active in God's work as members of the church. This does not include babies.

Infant baptism leads people to believe they are saved when they are not. God requires people to be baptized for the remission of sins when they are old enough to make their own decision about the matter. But many people have been baptized as babies. Then, when they are old enough to be responsible for their conduct so they should be baptized, they refuse because they believe they have already done so. But their infant baptism was not Scriptural. So the person goes through his whole life never having been Scripturally baptized, and therefore he never has received forgiveness of his sins!

All plus much more from here

25 posted on 02/01/2015 4:43:06 PM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Campion

All you have to do is provide ONE instance of an infant being baptized in Scripture and you can rest your case.

This tactic of, *It doesn’t say it didn’t happen, so we can presume it did and teach it as truth* is a bunch of unadulterated nonsense.

If someone makes a claim that something happened, they need to provide the proof that it did, not make people accept it on their say so until they prove a negative.

That is the final resort of someone who has NOTHING on which to base their claim.

So it can be summarily dismissed as the baseless nonsense that it is.


26 posted on 02/01/2015 5:02:33 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

Not as removal of dirt from the body.

IOW, water baptism.


27 posted on 02/01/2015 5:03:32 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
“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?”””

No.

That's what Catholics THINK it means and want it to mean, but anyone who is really born again knows that that's a incorrect representation of what being born again is.

28 posted on 02/01/2015 5:05:48 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Catholics don’t need the Protestant “born again” nonsense.

Well, Jesus was the first one to use the term so I guess you are then in the unfortunate position of calling the teachings of Jesus *nonsense*.

Not a place I'd want to be in.....

29 posted on 02/01/2015 5:07:29 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows

Yeah well we use the whole Bible, not just part of it.


30 posted on 02/01/2015 5:07:51 PM PST by yldstrk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: metmom

No what I said was:

“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?”””
And joining a fundamentalist/evangelical church. :-)

Lets keep it straight. :-)


31 posted on 02/01/2015 5:11:33 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Paul at one point compares baptism to circumcision, which, as you know, was administered to Jewish baby boys on the eighth day after birth. The presumption in a Jewish audience would therefore have been that one would enter the covenant as an infant. Origen (ca AD 248) reports that "the church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants".

The problem is, the ritual of circumcision never saved anyone either and yet there were Jews who thought it was necessary for salvation.

Baptism is a quasi-Christian counterpart for that.

If circumcision does not save, then baptism does not either. No physical ritual religious practice can save anyone as salvation is a heart matter and God does not look on outward appearances but on the heart.

Therefore believers are justified by faith just as Abraham was.

Salvation was by faith before the law, and continued to be that way since then.

32 posted on 02/01/2015 5:11:49 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Correct. Acts 22:16 makes it pretty clear.

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

33 posted on 02/01/2015 5:12:13 PM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JOAT
Then how could Paul be preaching the gospel and refusing to baptize?

Salvation is by faith, believing. Even Jesus said so.

John 1:10-13 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right 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.

John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

34 posted on 02/01/2015 5:14:38 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Well, nobody who’s born aging thinks church membership does anything towards saving someone either.


35 posted on 02/01/2015 5:15:43 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Ha. "Protestant nonsense?" I guess Jesus is a Protestant then.

John 3:3-

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."

36 posted on 02/01/2015 5:17:25 PM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GilesB

There are accounts from Paul baptizing entire households. We believe that there were probably infants among them.

Look for the example of Lydia’s household.


37 posted on 02/01/2015 5:24:25 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Okay, you posted several scriptures regarding believing.

That in no way contradicts the biblical command to be baptized.

Go back and read Acts 19.

WHY did Paul command these men to be re-baptized? Seems a little silly if they just needed to "pray Jesus into their hearts", no?

Also in the passage I posted to you, Acts 22:16, WHY did Ananias tell Saul/Paul to be baptized?

He had been PRAYING for days...

38 posted on 02/01/2015 5:30:08 PM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Morgana; All
I'm sorry, I don't mean to 'hijack' this thread, but something is troubling me about a preacher and I need advice.

Let me tell you a true story about a preacher. See what you think and what should be done about it.

An elderly, disabled lady we know called a preacher to come to her home and pray for her salvation. He came to her home and left within three to five minutes- without praying for her salvation, inviting her to his church, or offering her a means of baptism.(which she firmly believes in- as does this church supposedly)

Puzzled and hurt, she called him back about an hour later and asked him why he had not helped her pray for salvation as she had asked. He told her her cigarette smoke in the house was getting in his hair and clothes! He even lied to her, telling her he thought she wanted to talk about a member of his congregation who had recently passed away- although she explicitly told him several times that she'd like him to come over to pray for her salvation.

This lady does smoke about a half pack to a pack a day (and is trying to desperately quit) but she did not do so in his presence. Being aware that smoke offends some, and some are even allergic to smoke, before his arrival, closed off the living room from the rest of the house. She put the living room windows up, turned on a huge fan set in the window, showered, put on fresh clothes and sprayed the room and rverything in it profusely with fabrize. There couldn't have been enough smoke in her house to cause that kind of reaction from the preacher

What kind of 'preacher' does this? (He is the minister of a large, prominent local church)

It is the duty of a preacher to help the unsaved be saved- regardless of the presence of any unpleasant odors.

If I were a preacher and some poor soul called me for a prayer for salvation, I would have been there, held his hands- even if he was covered with excrement from head to toe- and prayed with him!

This sounds like a red flag to me. If this man is cabable of refusing some poor soul a prayer for salvation and even lying to her, what else could he be capable of?? He might be capable of causing someone else even more pain or doing some other type of serious damage to the church/congregation.

Do you think this should be reported to the church? If so, to whom?

Thanks in advance.

39 posted on 02/01/2015 5:30:37 PM PST by patriot08 (NATIVE TEXAN (girl type))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

Of water and the spirit.


40 posted on 02/01/2015 5:30:39 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson