YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN

Jesus answered and said unto him [Nicodemus], “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:3)

Marvel not that I said unto thee, “Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)

In the context of these two passages, Jesus is confronted by a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who approaches Him secretly at night.  Jesus immediately tells Nicodemus that, to be right with God, he “must be born again.”  This then leads to a discussion where Jesus is contrasting physical things and spiritual things.  However, Nicodemus just doesn’t seem to get it and he stays stuck in the “physical” mindset (3:4), while Jesus’ point about being born again is about the spiritual realm (3:8).  Thus, the statement, “You must be born again” is a spiritual concept. 

The word “must” is a strong word, especially when used by Jesus Christ.  The implication here is, you MUST be born again IF you want to go to Heaven.  And who doesn’t?  It seems that everyone (at least outside the atheist camp) wants to go to Heaven.

But the question is how?  How is one born again?  What does it really mean?  I know that Protestants use the term all the time.  But why is it that when witnessing to Catholics, it happens very often that they have no idea what Protestants are talking about?  You can see that, amongst many Catholics, there is confusion and there are misconceptions about what “born again” means.  As an example, see the first five minutes of this video:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=ray+comfort+asking+catholics%2c+have+you+been+%22born+again%22+&&mid=751F5C79A6218169E455751F5C79A6218169E455&FORM=VAMGZC

It seems that Catholics very seldom use the term “born again,” but Catholic apologists will insist that it is just referring to water baptism.  But whatever it means, we have to recognize that these words are coming from Jesus Christ, and we have to recognize His emphasis on the term – and that whatever it is, it is a must and not a suggestion!

The Fathers

Ok, so how can we find out what Jesus really meant when He said “born again” in John 3:3 and 3:7?  The Catholic Church stresses that the early church fathers were unanimous in the belief that “born again” means that one is forgiven/saved/regenerated by the very act of being baptized in water. 

Personally, I am very limited when it comes to the beliefs of the early church fathers, so I will leave this topic to those who are much more qualified.  But for those who think that the fathers were indeed “unanimous” on the concept of baptismal regeneration (as the great majority of Catholic apologists claim), see this article:

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/refutation-of-baptismal-regeneration-in-the-early-church/

Catholics seem to believe that no one can argue with the early church fathers because a few of them lived at the time of the apostles’ students and their students’ students.  They’ll say that if anyone knew what Jesus or the apostles taught, it had to be these guys. 

But my question is why stop there?  The church fathers were not infallible, so they are not the final word!  Why not go all the way back to the words of Jesus, Himself, and His apostles – the words we find in Scripture?  If what the fathers said does not line up with the Scriptures, or gives a perverted view of them, then we need to reject their views.

If there was a bank robbery in your town and the police needed the facts, whose word would be more trusted, first-hand witnesses (the ones who were actually there at that exact time) or some third- or fourth-hand account?

Furthermore, IF it is found that the early church fathers happen to be wrong, does any Catholic think that he can simply blame THEM on Judgment Day?: “Lord, I didn’t know!  The Church told me to trust in what THEY said, since they were close to the time of the apostles, so it’s THEIR fault for telling us the wrong things!”

Yes, these so-called church fathers will indeed be accountable for any wrong teachings they may have spread.  But it is each person’s responsibility to search the Scriptures, not the fathers, to see what God wants from us (Acts 17:11).  I’m not saying that the fathers were wrong on everything they taught, but I am saying that they were fallible in everything they taught.  But the Scriptures are indeed infallible in everything they teach (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

God Looks At the Heart (Not the Ritual)

According to the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 11:27-31), a person must have the right disposition (attitude, temperament, frame of mind) when receiving communion.  And we believe the same mindset applies to water baptism, as well.  These church ordinances must not be trivialized.

The Catholic Church will agree with this.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a person partaking of the sacraments (including baptism) must have the correct disposition beforehand (See CCC #1131 and CCC #1388).

So, both Protestants and Catholics agree that a person’s heart has to be right before he is baptized.  Therefore, without the right state of the heart, the ritual is useless!  Catholics will say that both the disposition and the ritual are necessary for salvation.  Ok, but what if a person has the right heart and is on his way to be baptized, but is run over by a Mack truck before he can get to the church?

Catholics will say, “But he had the ‘baptism of desire’ and he intended to get baptized (CCC #1259), so God will be merciful to him.”  Well, we Protestants would agree!  But again, this just proves that water baptism is actually not mandatory.

More proof of that is demonstrated by the Catechism where it will point out that God is not bound by sacraments/rituals (CCC #1257).  Well, (most) Protestants would agree, yet in this very same paragraph of the Catechism it states again that baptism IS necessary for salvation!  Ok, so which is it?  Is the ritual of water baptism necessary for a person to be saved or not?  This is an obvious contradiction in the same paragraph.

Now, I’m not saying that water baptism is a bad thing.  As I said earlier, it should not be trivialized.  It is something that God expects us to do, and we should indeed honor Him in doing it, because it is a way of expressing our commitment to Him.  But baptism is for those who are already saved.

Grace vs. Merit

According to the Catholic Church, water baptism is a “sacrament,” which is described as something that “merits” grace (Canon XXXII, Council of Trent).  But according to Scripture, grace, by definition, is something that CANNOT be merited:

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.  But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6) 

Again, there is no such thing as “meriting grace.”  Therefore, none of those seven things that Catholics call “sacraments” are meritorious toward salvation. 

So how does one actually receive grace?  Is it through sacraments, rituals, or good works – or is it some other way?

“Surely He scorneth the scorners: but He giveth grace unto the lowly.” (Proverbs 3:34)

“… God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” (James 4:6)

“… for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5)

Starting to see a pattern here?  The Bible tells us that we receive grace through true humility, not by earning it or by some sort of “meriting.”  It is exactly the opposite.  Grace is given to the humble, not to the one who performs sacraments or any other kind of works in order to try to merit his way to Heaven, giving him reason to boast.

The Catholic Church loves to re-define words like “merit,” and loves to play these semantic games that turn scriptural concepts on their head!  And they will indeed have to answer to God for that.

The Hard Lesson of the Galatians

But let’s say for just a moment that we concede that water baptism actually saves a person.  Ok, so what happens when this baptized person sins after baptism (and he certainly will)?  Since it is baptism itself that saves (in the mind of the Catholic), then must he be re-baptized after every sin? 

Catholics will say no, and that he must do something else.  He must now go to confession, receive communion, do penance, etc., and then these things will cause him to stay in God’s favor through merit. 

Apparently, in Catholic teaching, one thing (baptism) saves you, then other things (rituals like confession to a priest, communion, and penance) will keep you saved.

But the Bible tells us that there is ONE thing that both saves us and keeps us, and that thing is our faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross:

“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?  This only would I learn of you, received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?  Are ye so foolish, having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3)

Note here that the term “made perfect by the flesh” refers to man’s attempts to earn Heaven through his good works, and the term “by the hearing of faith” of course refers to one’s faith/believing/trusting in Jesus. 

Furthermore, Paul forcefully rebuked the Galatians because Jesus Christ was preached to them and plainly set forth before their eyes as the One who suffered for all sins and the One who paid the full penalty for all men.  So Paul is emphatic: there is no room for works that are salvific (including baptism)!

Paul calls the Galatians foolish because they gave in to the ungodly Judaizers (Acts 15:1; Galatians 2:4) who thought they could add their works to the suffering and work of Christ on the cross.  In this way, the Galatians rejected the original gospel that Paul preached to them, incurring a curse on themselves! (Galatians 1:8-9) 

Conclusion

So according to the Catholic Church, it seems that Jesus SHOULD HAVE SAID in John 3:3, “You must partake of the sacraments to be saved.”  But that’s not at all what He said or implied.  There are no sacraments in the Bible because there are no works or rituals that can merit salvation.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for Jesus to simply address the heart of man, thus pointing to the meaning of “born again”?  Being born again is not a sacrament or ritual, but it is your heart being honest with God, recognizing your sin and corruption, and allowing Him to deal with your heart.  It is an ultimate surrender towards Him.  And it is given by God’s grace and activated by simple faith!

There’s certainly nothing wrong with being baptized or receiving communion, etc., but these are simply for us to identify with Jesus Christ – which is a statement to the rest of the world of your allegiance to Him (for example, Matthew 10:37; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:62).

I can understand how that many Catholics see water baptism as getting saved, since baptism seems to be so closely tied in with repentance and salvation, but common sense and a closer look at Scripture will clarify the matter. 

Being born again biblically is of the utmost importance.  If a person has not been born again, he will one day wish that he was never born at all!

For a fuller treatment of the meaning, role and effect of baptism, see this three-part series:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-baptism-part-1-few-basics.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-baptism-part-2-bible-verses.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-baptism-part-3-more-verses.html

THE CONFUSION OF STEVE RAY

Catholic apologist, speaker and author Steve Ray has written an article about the debate between Catholics and Protestants on the topic of faith and the role of works in salvation.  The article is titled, “St. Paul did not Write to Us!” and it can be found here:

http://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2004/06/11/st-paul-did-not-write-to-us/

In the article, Steve Ray mentions that when arguments about salvation come up:

“Protestants quickly accuse Catholics of teaching a salvation based on works and Catholics quickly point out that Protestants have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction by refusing to accept human cooperation and obedience as necessary to the process.”

This is pretty much an accurate account of what normally happens.  Catholics emphasize the role of works (faith plus works) and Protestants emphasize “faith alone,” or faith apart from the merit of works in order to be justified / saved.

Ray mentions the fact that Protestants usually go to the books of Romans and Galatians in the Bible to prove their point (and we would say, rightly so, because this is where justification is defined).  But according to Ray:

“But there is a huge problem here. Paul did not write these letters to us and he knew nothing of the Catholic-Protestant debate. The huge problem we have is the problem of anachronism.”

He goes on to define “anachronism,” which means:

“1. the representation of an event, person, or thing in a historical context in which it could not have occurred or existed; 2. a person or thing that belongs or seems to belong to another time.”

For example, saying that Moses looked at his wristwatch to see what time it was… or saying that the apostle John got in his Ford pickup to go to the market… these would be anachronisms, since wristwatches and Fords didn’t exist during their day.  

So, Steve Ray’s main points here are 1) Paul did not write specifically to us, 2) Paul didn’t know anything of a “Catholic-Protestant” debate back in his day, and 3) Applying Paul’s teaching in Romans and Galatians to the present day Catholic-Protestant debate is out of touch with reality in the sense that it is anachronistic.

But first of all, Ray’s point that “Paul didn’t write to us” is actually untrue and Ray is simply using this as a diversion.  Now, of course, we all know that Paul was not purposely writing SPECIFICALLY to us in the twenty-first century.  But the title of Ray’s article and his opening comments seem to suggest that Paul’s writings don’t apply to us today in any way.

But with this kind of reasoning, why should we obey any of the Ten Commandments today?  Would Ray say that since these also were not specifically written to us, but to Old Testament Jews, therefore, they are not to be observed by modern Christians?  He obviously wouldn’t say that!  So why does Ray even bring up this point?  Why use this deceptive title?  Again, this is simply a diversion that he uses to try and weaken or disregard the biblical evidence found in Romans and Galatians against Catholic teaching. 

   

But in a real sense, Paul did indeed write to us through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Paul’s words were infallible and God-breathed because they were Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17).  And ALL Scripture was written to us, indirectly, and ALL Scripture has some application for us today.  Paul’s words were not only directed to the people of his own day, but to all generations in the future, as well.  The principles within Scripture are always there, for every generation, to guide us into the truth.

Furthermore, the fact that Paul had never heard of a “Catholic-Protestant debate” is irrelevant.  But Paul was certainly very familiar with the substance of that debate.  It is not just about “Jew versus Gentile.”  It is the argument of the Judaizers, which was “faith plus works = salvation.”  But Paul specifically dealt with this same problem in both the Roman church (Romans 3:19 thru 5:21) and the Galatian church (epistle to the Galatians) in his day.   So today we are still wrestling with the same issues as they did back then.  Yet, Ray tries to spin this in such a way as to accuse Protestants of anachronism.  

But the fact is, Ray contradicts himself and admits at the end of the article that there is not really a problem after all, since he confesses that:

“… even though Paul didn’t specifically write his letters to us, if we study the cultural climate in which they were written, and stay faithful to the tradition in which they were passed on to us, the Holy Spirit (the primary author of the letters) will help us apply the principles and truth of those letters to our current situation.” (Emphasis added)

Notice the bold print.  Ray now admits that the Holy Spirit is able to help us apply these same biblical principles to our situation today.  But this is what we already said earlier.  So, where is the anachronism now?  First, he says that the principles in Romans and Galatians are anachronistic (don’t apply today), and now he’s saying that they do apply today (with the Holy Spirit’s help).  But if it applies today, then it is not an anachronism.  Steve Ray is backpedaling and admitting that there IS no “huge problem” here.  What starts off as his main complaint is now dismissed as no problem at all!  Confusion indeed.

But perhaps he would say that the biblical principles would only apply within the context of “Catholic Tradition,” but there is nothing in Tradition that can offset the clear message of unearned salvation in the inspired books of Romans and Galatians.

No, the real “huge problem” is that Catholics often ignore context in those sections of Romans and Galatians that actually deal with the specific doctrine of justification, and they try to add their works to their faith in order to earn salvation, as we have demonstrated elsewhere on this blog.  But, tragically, in combining their own works with Jesus’ work on the cross, Catholics are telling Jesus that His work and suffering was just not enough, thus bringing upon themselves the same curse that the first-century Judaizers brought upon their own selves (Galatians 1:8-9; 3:10-11; 5:1-4).  See this link:

http://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-curse-of-judaizers.html

See also these other related articles:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/01/faith-alone-part-1.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/01/faith-alone-part-2.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/faith-alone-part-3.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/08/sola-fide-revisited.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/09/romans-213-and-context.html#comment-form

RE-DEFINING JUSTIFICATION

I see it happen all the time.  A Catholic and a Protestant will be discussing salvation, and the Protestant points out that the Catholic Church teaches that a person is saved by his faith plus his works.  But immediately, the Catholic will say, “Oh no!  We don’t teach that.  Salvation is not by works.  The Council of Trent teaches that justification is unmerited and not obtained by works of any kind (Session 6, chapter 8).”  But when the Protestant points to other sections of Trent (Session 6, chapters 10 and 16) to show that the Catholic Church does indeed believe in works for salvation, then they will start to back-track and point to certain Bible verses in an attempt to claim that believers really are saved by works.  They do a flip-flop.  What they first denied, they later try to vigorously defend.  You see, what the Catholic Church teaches is often confusing, even for Catholics. 

Much of the confusion seems to come from the fact that the Catholic Church believes that justification is split into two different categories:  “initial” justification and “ongoing” or “progressive” justification.  They believe that in the initial phase there are no works that merit salvation.  And, supposedly, this initial justification is achieved by water baptism (which, ironically, is a work).  But afterward, in the progressive phase, salvation is (according to them) indeed merited / earned by good works.  So, they believe a person can be justified at one point and then re-justified (or “more justified”) later.  But the fact is, they are confusing justification with sanctification, which involves the Christian’s growth process.  “Sanctification” means to be set apart for God’s use, and it is a process in which we are gradually conformed to the image of Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 9:13-14).  Good works are part of this process, but they are done out of thankfulness for what God has done for us, never to merit salvation.

But according to the Bible, there is no such thing as “initial” or “progressive” justification.  Biblical justification refers to a judicial sentence or decision, as in a courtroom.  It is a term having strong legal overtones, and is used together with words like “impute” (Romans 4:8), “reckoned” (Romans 4:4, 9-10), and “counted" (Romans 4:3, 5).  Justification means to declare someone righteous.  It is a proclamation of one’s status by the Judge (God).  There is nothing “progressive” about such a decision.  It is a one-time proclamation.  So, there is no such thing as an “increase” of justification.   You can’t be “a little justified” or “partially justified.”  According to the Bible, you’re either justified or you’re not.
  

The righteousness we have, as Christians, is based on the righteousness of the Savior, Jesus Christ, and His perfect work.  Any type of righteousness that would involve some sort of “progressive justification” is based, to some extent, on the righteousness of the believer and his works.  But that would be an imperfect righteousness.  And that’s exactly the type of justification that the Catholic Church offers to its members.

In fact, Catholic teaching on salvation falls into the same error as that of the Judaizers.  See this article:

http://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-curse-of-judaizers.html

It seems that the Catholic Church’s redefining of justification has been subtle enough to confuse and deceive certain Protestants, as well.  Note, for example, the famous ECT documents (Evangelicals and Catholics Together), where some Protestants have joined with Catholics to promote “unity” and to stand together against certain evils in the world.  They even appear to now agree on justification, as well.  This may sound like a good thing.  But does this mean that the Reformation was all just one big misunderstanding, and that we should all hold hands and agree now?  Then why were there martyrs back then on both sides?  Did they all die for nothing?  Was it over a mere misunderstanding?  Hardly.  The differences between Protestants and Catholics were real back then, and they always have been.  What was error then, is still error now.  The ECT signers, in their quest for “common ground,” have come to an agreement on an unbiblical view of justification / salvation.

Conclusion

The apostle Paul was not so subtle in his view on salvation.  He says, “Are you so foolish?  having begun in the Spirit, are you now made perfect by the flesh?”  (Galatians 3:3)  Notice that Paul equates attempting to add works to the cross with living “by the flesh.”

My friends, out of all the Bible writers, it is Paul who deals with the concept of justification in the most detail (mainly Romans chapters 3-5 and the book of Galatians).  But he never tells us of a split justification like the Catholic Church teaches.  He uses no examples of “initial” or “progressive” justification in Scripture.  He offers no explanations or descriptions of this type of justification anywhere in his writings.  There is not even a brief mention of such a concept.

But on the other hand, Paul does tell us over and over that justification / salvation is obtained by faith and NOT by works (Romans 3:28; 4:2-6, 9-10; Galatians 2:16; 3:1-3; 3:11).  A man is saved by the grace of God through faith (i.e., trusting) in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and nothing else.  There is no list of good works, no sacraments, and no formulas that can be added to His sufficient work.  That is the simplicity of the true gospel.  But unfortunately, the Catholic view of justification is another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:4).