Are Catholics “Born Again?”

Our parish has a Q&A feature in which staff members tackle the queries left in a comment box or e-mailed to the parish. I volunteered to reply to the question titled above:

The root of this principle is in John 3:3-5, and it reads:

Jesus said to (Nicodemus), “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.”
Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”
Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Scripture scholars note that the Greek word ἄνωθεν (anothen) means both “from above” and “again.” Jesus seems to be referring to the first meaning, and Nicodemus seems to misinterpret the Lord, taking the second meaning.

Misunderstandings aside, the notion of being reborn in baptism, in “water and Spirit,” tells of the great significance of the sacrament, and of the commitment to the Christian life it implies. Jesus certainly preaches that those who wish to see and participate in the kingdom of God will experience such a momentous change in their lives, that the notion of a second birth is not an exaggeration.

Many Christians speak of being “born again,” as a graced event in which people, usually adults, experience the Lord in such a significant way that it’s like a whole new life for them. And ideally, this is what all Christians should experience when they commit themselves to Jesus Christ. The question might be raised: does it happen only once? Or is it possible, through a continuing conversion, to go progressively deeper into a Christian commitment to God? The witness of the saints might suggest that this continuing experience is the mark of a godly life.

In baptism, and even as infants, Catholics are “born again,” in the sense Jesus means: “being born of water and Spirit.” It’s no accident that the baptismal font at our parish was designed to suggest a tomb, and that in baptism we participate in death and rebirth, as Saint Paul describes, “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.” (Romans 6:4)

As a child grows, an openness to God’s grace is necessary. The same is true for adults. Baptism is not a magical event, and neither is the evangelical or charismatic experience of being “born again.” Each of these experiences is an opportunity for God’s grace to work in us. But we always have the freedom to choose: we can close ourselves off from divine grace, or we can cooperate with God’s will and live out a Christian life after being “born from above.”

Image Credit: painter Edward Tanner (1899), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia.

I appreciate the general tone of your post. However, I don’t agree with your statement - one we hear quite often from Roman Catholics - that the RCC is the “root,” and non-RCC Christians are but offshoots. The RCC is a syncretism of non-Christian elements mixed with Christian elements, it does not represent original Christianity.

True, people like Luther at first had hope that he might bring reform to the RCC, but he began to realize that the RCC had prostituted the truth. In other words, the RCC had become to Christianity what semi-pagan Judaism was in the OT, a syncretism of Judaism with paganistic thought, a whoredom if you please - which is precisely the term the prophets used for it. Spiritual adultery.

True Protestants pay hardly any attention to the claims of the RCC. They go on back past the RCC, back to the original Apostolic Biblical faith.

You are grasping at straws. Baptism follows a repentance of sins. Babies cannot sin. Only when they are old enough to understand right from wrong, are they able to repent. You make assumptions that are not scripturally valid regarding whole households. Yes, if the children of those households were old enough to know right from wrong,and repented, then they could be baptized. However, to infer something is misusing the Word of God.

Water baptism is clearly a FIGURE or TYPE of something which already took place in the heart of the believer the moment he/she was saved (1 Pet. 3:21). Water baptism is the ordinance representing the identification of the Christian with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You are “crucified” (standing upright in water), you are “buried” (immersed into the water), and you are “resurrected into life” (raised out of the water). Water baptism then, is a picture of spiritual baptism as defined in Rom. 6:3-5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. It is the outward testimony of the believer’s inward faith. A sinner is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is a visible testimony to that faith.

Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead.” Colossians 2:12

So then, water baptism is a picture of what transpired when you placed your faith and trust in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to save you from your sins (Romans 6:3-5). It does not atone for sin. Only the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin (I John 1:7; Colossians 1:14).

Circumsion is not baptism. It was and is a Jewish custom to circumcise males at 8 days. It has nothing to do with baptism. Baptism comes from the Greek word, baptizo: “immersing”

Indeed, study your Bible, and find out what it really says. Baptism DOES NOT save anyone. You must compare 1 Peter 3:21 with all other scriptures relating to repentance and baptism. To build a doctrine on just one scripture is heresy.

sasportas wrote:

“In dealing with Cyberant’s point, I also dealt with your point. See my post 119.”

With all due respect, no you didn’t. As I said, I readily recognize that immersion was the preferred manner of baptism for the very point you cite. But “baptisma” does not necessarily mean immersion in either the Greek New Testament nor in the early church (that includes previous to its domination by the Roman bishop). Also, Paul’s use of the cognate form “baptismos” in Colossians 2:12 should be sufficient to warn the careful reader that there is a certain breadth of meaning here. This I know from Greek and Greek usage. Also, the symbolism of baptism, and this apart from its scripturally defined purpose and nature, consists in more than the burial analogy.

As I said, it isn’t as cut and dried or as simple as you would like to think. I saying this I am not looking for a fight. I am simply pointing out to you that there is more to this issue than you have dealt with.

More important by far is what God’s Word teaches regarding the nature and benefits of baptism, that is, not what the eye sees, but what it does not. So, I would encourage you to set aside for a little bit your fixation on immersion and carefully examine all that the Bible says about baptism, and that includes how it was foreshadowed in the Old Testament and how it was explicitly taught and encouraged in the New.

Catsrus wrote:

“To build a doctrine on just one scripture is heresy.”

It could be, if that were the case here. But that is the question at issue here, not the conclusion.

What is not a question is this, to play certain verses of Scripture off against others is the precise reason why the visible church stands so fractured today - something that is not the will of God. And also not in question is this, to deny the plain meaning of 1 Peter 3:21 is to call God a liar.

Catsrus also wrote:

“You must compare 1 Peter 3:21 with all other scriptures relating to repentance and baptism.”

Yes, that is part of my point. But you are willing to do what you recommend only in one direction. In other words, the very self-criticism you so vehemently urge on Catholics, of whom I am not one (for the sake of full disclosure), you seem to think not a good idea for yourself. In addition, your “all other scriptures” comprises far, far fewer than you imagine. My friend, to be a Christian theologian is to stand humbly under the correction of the unchanging Word of God and expect to do a lot of repenting. It is also wise to consider against whom you may be arguing ... and by that I don’t mean me.

And I saw the other road, or rather, a path, for it was narrow and strewn with thorns and rocks; and the people who walked along it had tears in their eyes, and all kinds of suffering befell them. Some fell down upon the rocks, but stood up immediately and went on. At the end of the road there was a magnificent garden filled with all sorts of happiness, and all these souls entered there. At the very first instant they forgot all their sufferings. (153)

Thank you for this wonderful excerpt from Blessed Saint Faustina.So very true,as Saint Padre Pio also explains...

"The life of a Christian is nothing but a perpetual struggle against self; there is no flowering of the soul to the beauty of its perfection except at the price of pain."-Saint Padre Pio

Well, it’s getting late here, and we lose an hour on top of that. So this will be my last.

Peter was a chief spokesman for the Apostles (not a Pope). And it was he whom God entrusted to set things right. Which he surely did at the very beginning of Christianity, on the day of Pentecost. No one can improve on Peter’s sermon on that day. It had far reaching consequences.

And what did he preach? He preached the gospel, Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. His hearers were pricked in their heart, the text says (Acts 2). However, Peter didn’t leave them with just pricked heart religion (common among Protestants). Having a pricked heart is good, believing the gospel is good, but Peter’s next words are the obedience of the gospel, which Paul would later refer to as “the obedience of faith.”

In answer to their inquiry, “men and brethren what shall we do,” Peter said...

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

He was sounding the keynote for all Christianity, Protestant or RCC. Here are the real keys of the kingdom.

I forgot to tie Peter’s “keys” with the subject of this thread, regeneration or being born again. Only when one becomes one with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, is he born again, born of the water and Spirit, or regenerated.

Peter was telling them how to be born again. Mental assent, or a pricked heart, was not enough, regeneration starts in the heart, and is completed in obedience to the gospel.

It should not be that hard to see the birth of water and Spirit Christ spoke of in John 3:5, identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, being preached at Pentecost, in Peter’s words, Acts 2:38.

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.