The Catholic Church From the Born Again Perspective

"Have y'all been built-in again?" the Fundamentalist at the door asks the unsuspecting Catholic.

Yep, they believe in Jesus. And yes, they try to alive Christian lives. They probably have some vague sensation that Fundamentalists think being born once more involves a religious experience or accepting Jesus every bit your personal Lord and Savior. Many cradle Catholics, too, have had their moments of closeness to God, even of joy over God'due south honey and mercy. They may even have had conversion experiences of sorts, committing themselves to take their faith seriously and to live more faithfully as disciples of Jesus. Only the cradle Catholic probably cannot pinpoint any item moment in his life when he dropped to his knees and accustomed Jesus for the commencement time. As far back as he can call back, he has believed, trusted and loved Jesus as Savior and Lord. Does that prove he has never been born over again?

Not the Bible way, says the Fundamentalist. Only the Fundamentalist is incorrect there. He misunderstands what the Bible says about being built-in again. Unfortunately, few Catholics sympathize the biblical apply of the term, either. Equally a upshot, pastors, deacons, catechists, parents and others responsible for religious educational activity take their work cut out for them. It would be helpful, and then, to review the biblical and Cosmic meaning of the term born again.

"Born again " The Bible style

The only biblical utilise of the term born again occurs in John iii:three-v although, as nosotros shall see, similar and related expressions such as new birth and ,regeneration occur elsewhere in Scripture (Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 1:three, 23). In John 3:3, Jesus tells Nicodemus, Truly, truly, I say to you lot, unless one is born once again, he cannot encounter the kingdom of God. The Greek expression translated built-in again (gennathei anothen) too means born from higher up. Jesus, it seems, makes a play on words with Nicodemus, contrasting earthly life, or what theologians would later dub natural life (what is built-in of mankind), with the new life of heaven, or what they would later call supernatural life (what is born of Spirit).

Nicodemus' reply: How can a man exist born when he is old? Can he enter a second fourth dimension into his mother'due south womb and be born? (John 3:4). Does he only fault Jesus to be speaking literally or is Nicodemus himself answering figuratively, meaning, How tin can an old man acquire new ways as if he were a child again? We cannot say for sure, but in any case Jesus answers, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is mankind, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Practise non curiosity that I said to you, `You lot must be born once more.' (John 3:5-7).

Here Jesus equates born once more or born from above with born of water and the Spirit. If, as the Cosmic Church has always held, existence born of water and the Spirit refers to baptism, and so it follows that being born again or born from in a higher place means being baptized.

Clearly, the context implies that built-in of water and the Spirit refers to baptism. The Evangelist tells u.s.a. that immediately after talking with Nicodemus, Jesus took his disciples into the wilderness where they baptized people (John 3:22). Furthermore, water is closely linked to the Spirit throughout John's Gospel (for instance, in Jesus' see with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:9-thirteen) and in the Johannine tradition (cf. i John 5:7). It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that John the Evangelist understands Jesus' words near being born once more and born of water and the Spirit to accept a sacramental, baptismal meaning.

Other views of "built-in of h2o and the spirit"

Fundamentalists who reject baptismal regeneration usually deny that built-in of h2o and the Spirit in John 3:5 refers to baptism. Some argue that water refers to the h2o of childbirth. On this view, Jesus means that unless one is born of h2o (at his physical birth) and again of the Spirit (in a spiritual birth), he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

A major problem with this argument, even so, is that while Jesus does contrast physical and spiritual life, he clearly uses the term flesh for the erstwhile, in contrast to Spirit for the latter. Jesus might say, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless i is built-in of flesh and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God though it would exist obvious and absurdly redundant to say that one must be born (i.eastward., built-in of flesh) in order to be born again (i.e., born of the Spirit). But using born of water and the Spirit to mean born of the flesh and so of the Spirit would just misfile things past introducing the term water from out of nowhere, without whatever obvious link to the term flesh. Moreover, while the flesh is clearly opposed to the Spirit and the Spirit clearly opposed to the flesh in this passage, the expression born of water and the Spirit implies no such opposition. It is not h2o vs. the Spirit, but water and the Spirit.

Furthermore, the Greek of the text suggests that born of water and the Spirit (literally built-in of h2o and spirit) refers to a single, supernatural birth over confronting natural nascency (built-in of the flesh). The phrase of water and the Spirit (Greek, ek hudatos kai pneumatos) is a single linguistical unit. It refers to being born of water and the Spirit, not born of water on the one hand and born of the Spirit on the other.

Another argument used by opponents of baptismal regeneration: built-in of water and the Spirit refers, correspondingly, to the baptism of John (being born of h2o) and the baptism of the Spirit (being built-in of ... the Spirit), which John promised the coming Messiah would event. Thus, on this view, Jesus says, Unless a man is born of water through John's baptism and of the Spirit through my baptism, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

We have already seen that, according to the Greek, born of water and the Spirit refers to a single thing, a single spiritual nascency. Thus, the beginning half of the phrase cannot use to one thing (John's baptism) and the 2d half to something else entirely (Jesus' baptism). But even apart from the linguistical statement, if born of water refers to John's baptism, then Jesus is saying that in guild to be built-in again or born from above one must receive John's baptism of water (born of h2o ...) and the Messiah's baptism of the Spirit (. . . and Spirit). That would hateful but those who have been baptized by John could enter the kingdom of Godwhich would drastically reduce the population of heaven. In fact, no one holds that people must receive John's baptism in order to enter the Kingdom something now impossible. Therefore existence built-in of h2o . . . cannot refer to John's baptism.

The most reasonable explanation for born of water and the Spirit, and then, is that it refers to baptism. This is reinforced past many New Testament texts linking baptism, the Holy Spirit and regeneration. At Jesus' baptism, the Holy Spirit descends upon him as He comes up out of the water (cf. John 1:25-34; Matt three:13-17; Mark ane:9-eleven; Luke three:21-22). Furthermore, what distinguishes John's baptism of repentance in apprehension of the Messiah from Christian baptism, is that the latter is a baptism with the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:xi; Marking 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:31; Acts 1:4-5).

Consequently, on Pentecost, Peter calls the Jews to exist baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and promises that they will receive the souvenir of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), thus fulfilling the hope of John. Peter clearly teaches hither that the water baptism, to which he directs the presently-to-exist converts, forgives sins and bestows the Holy Spirit. Christian baptism, and so, is no mere external, repentance-ritual with water, but entails an inner transformation or regeneration by the Holy Spirit of the New Covenant; information technology is a new birth, a being built-in again or born from in a higher place.

In Romans 6:3, Paul says, Do you non know that all of the states who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Nosotros were cached therefore with him by baptism into death, so that every bit Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Begetter, nosotros also might walk in newness of life (RNAB). Baptism, says Paul, effects union with the death and resurrection of Christ, so that through it we dice and rise to new life, a form of regeneration.

According to Titus 3:v, God saved us through the washing of regeneration (paliggenesias) and renewal by the Holy Spirit. Opponents of baptismal regeneration fence that the text refers only to the washing (loutrou) of regeneration rather than the baptism of regeneration. Just baptism is certainly a course of washing and elsewhere in the New Testament it is described every bit a washing away of sin. For example, in Acts 22:16, Ananias tells Paul, Go upward, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling upon his name. The Greek word used for the washing away of sins in baptism here is apolousai, essentially the aforementioned term used in Titus iii:v. Furthermore, since washing and regeneration are not ordinarily related terms, a specific kind of washing one that regenerates must be in view. The most obvious kind of washing which the reader would understand would be baptism, a point even many Baptist scholars, such as K.R. Beasley-Murray, admit. (Meet his book Baptism in the New Testament.)

In one Peter 1:3, it is stated that God has given Christians a new nativity to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the expressionless. The term new nascence (Gk, anagennasas, having regenerated) appears synonymous with born once again or regeneration. According to ane Peter 1:23, Christians accept been born afresh (Gk, anagegennamenoi, having been regenerated) non from perishable just from imperishable seed, through the living and constant word of God. From the word of the Gospel, in other words.

Opponents of baptismal regeneration argue that since the new nativity mentioned in 1 Peter 1:three and 23 is said to come up about through the Word of God, being born once more ways accepting the Gospel message, non being baptized. This argument overlooks the fact that elsewhere in the New Attestation accepting the gospel message and being baptized are seen as two parts of the one act of commitment to Christ.

In Mark xvi:xvi, for example, Jesus says, Whoever believes and is baptized will exist saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. Believing, i.e., accepting the Gospel, entails accepting baptism, which is the means by which one puts on Christ (Gal. 3:27) and is buried and raised with him to new life (Rom 6:3-5; Gal 2:12). Acts 2:41 says of the Jewish oversupply on Pentecost, Those who accepted his message were baptized . . . Information technology seems reasonable to conclude that those whom ane Peter 1:23 describes as having been born anew or regenerated through the living and abiding give-and-take of God were also those who had been baptized. Thus, existence born of water and the Spirit and being born anew through the living and abiding word of God describe different aspects of one thing being regenerated in Christ. Existence built-in again (or from above) in water and the Spirit refers to the external act of receiving baptism, while being built-in anew refers to the internal reception in faith of the Gospel (being built-in anew through the living and abiding give-and-take of God).

Moreover, baptism involves a proclamation of the Word, which is part of what constitutes it (i.e., I baptize y'all in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit). To have baptism is to accept the Word of God. At that place is no need, then, to see the operation of the Word of God in regeneration as something opposed to or separated from baptism.

Some Fundamentalists also object that being born once again through baptismal regeneration contradicts the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace through faith. Implicit here is the thought that Christian baptism is a mere human work done to earn favor before God. In fact, Christian baptism is something that is done to one (one is baptized passive), not something one does for oneself. The one who baptizes, co-ordinate to the Bible, is Jesus Himself past the ability of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 1:33). It makes no more sense to oppose baptism and organized religion in Christ to one another every bit means of regeneration than information technology does to oppose organized religion in Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit to one another. There is no either/or hither; it is both/and.

The Catholic view of being "built-in again"

Following the New Testament use of the term, the Catholic Church links regeneration or existence born once more in the life of the Spirit to the sacrament of baptism (CCC, nos. 1215,1265-1266). Baptism is not a mere human work one does to earn regeneration and divine sonship; it is the work of Christ past the power of the Holy Spirit, which, past grace, washes away sin and makes us children of God. It is central to the Cosmic agreement of justification by grace. For justification is, every bit the Council of Trent taught, a translation from that state in which man is built-in a child of the first Adam, to the country of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ (Session 6, chapter iv). Baptism is an instrumental means by which God graciously justifies that is, regenerates sinners through organized religion in Jesus Christ and makes them children of God.

Catholic instruction is not opposed to a religious experience of conversion accompanying baptism (of adults) far from it. But such an experience is not required. What is required for baptism to be fruitful (for an adult) is repentance from sin and religion in Christ, of which baptism is the sacrament (CCC, no. 1253). These are grace-enabled acts of the volition that are not necessarily accompanied past feelings of being born once again. Regeneration rests on the divinely established fact of incorporation and regeneration in Christ, not on feelings one way or the other.

This indicate tin be driven home to Evangelicals past drawing on a point they often emphasize in a related context. Evangelicals oftentimes say that the deed of having accepted Christ as personal Savior and Lord is the of import thing, not whether feelings back-trail that act. Information technology is, they say, faith that matters, not feelings. Believe by faith that Christ is the Savior and the appropriate feelings, they say, will eventually follow. Just fifty-fifty if they practise not, what counts is the fact of having taken Christ as Savior.

Catholics tin say something like regarding baptism. The homo who is baptized may non experience any unlike later baptism than earlier. But once he is baptized, he has received the Holy Spirit in a special style. He has been regenerated and made a child of God through the divine sonship of Jesus Christ in which he shares. He has been buried with Christ and raised to new life with Him. He has considerately and publicly identified himself with Jesus' death and resurrection. If the newly baptized man meditates on these things, he may or may not experience them, in the sense of some subjective religious experience. Nevertheless, he will believe them to be true by religion. And he volition have the benefits of baptism into Christ nonetheless.

A "born once more" Christian?

When Fundamentalists phone call themselves built-in again Christians, they want to stress an experience of having entered into a 18-carat spiritual relationship with Christ as Savior and Lord, in contradistinction to unbelief or a mere nominal Christianity. As nosotros have seen, though, the term born again and its parallel terms new nascency and regeneration are used by Jesus and the New Testament writers to refer to the forgiveness of sins and inner renewal of the Holy Spirit signified and brought most by Christ through baptism.

How, and then, should a Catholic answer the question, Accept you been born once again? An accurate answer would be, Aye, I was built-in again in baptism. Yet leaving it at that may generate even more confusion. Virtually Fundamentalists would probably understand the Catholic to mean, I'yard going to heaven simply considering I'k baptized. In other words, the Fundamentalist would retrieve the Catholic is trusting in his baptism rather than Christ, whereas the informed Catholic knows it means trusting in Christ with whom he is united in baptism.

The Catholic, then, should practise more than simply point to his baptism; he should discuss his living organized religion, trust and dear of Christ; his desire to grow in sanctity and conformity to Christ; and his total dependence on Christ for salvation. These are integral to the new life of the Holy Spirit that baptism bestows. When the Fundamentalist sees the link betwixt baptism and the Holy Spirit in the life of his Catholic neighbour, he may begin to encounter that St. Paul was more than figurative when he wrote, Y'all were cached with Christ in baptism, in which y'all were likewise raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead (Col two:12).

colethereave.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/are-catholics-born-again.html