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

ON BAPTISM - Part 3 (More Verses)

This is the third and final article in this series on baptism and whether or not it saves a person.  We mentioned that there are several groups who claim to be Christian and who believe that baptism is required for salvation.  This view is called baptismal regeneration.  In Part 1, we discussed some basics about baptism, and then in Part 2 we addressed a number of Bible verses that these groups use to try and support their view.  We will continue in this article to look into their claims.

John 3:5:

Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

This is a common verse used by those who believe in baptismal regeneration.  They will say that Jesus’ words, “born of water” is speaking of water baptism.  But notice that they often use the verse by itself, apart from its context.  So, let’s observe the actual context and the flow of the discussion.  In verses 1 and 2, Nicodemus, the Pharisee, comes secretly to Jesus and tells Him that the Pharisees recognize that He is from God.  But Jesus informs him that there is more to being right with God than just recognizing that He is “from God.”  There must be a changed heart.  Therefore, in verse 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless he is born AGAIN, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.  Jesus, by saying “again,” is acknowledging a man’s first birth, but tells Nicodemus that there is another birth that must take place if he wants to be saved. 

But Nicodemus, being stuck in a “natural” or “physical” mindset, asks, “…How can a man be born when he is old?  Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” (Verse 4) 

Jesus responds (verse 5) by saying that he must be born not only of water (i.e., the amniotic fluid in the womb during a person’s natural, first birth), but he must also be born of the Spirit (a spiritual birth), as well.  In context, the subject of physical birth seems to be the only reason that the phrase “born of water” is even brought up.  Jesus was simply redirecting Nicodemus’ line of thought from the physical to the spiritual, like He did with the woman at the well (John 4:7-14). 

 

Jesus continues in verse 6 by telling Nicodemus that whatever is born of the flesh is flesh (natural), but that which is born of the Spirit (producing a change of heart) is spiritual (or supernatural).  Nicodemus is still thinking of the “physical,” while Jesus is emphasizing the spiritual.  In fact, Jesus rebukes Nicodemus (a spiritual teacher in Israel) for not understanding the spiritual aspect of what He is saying (John 3:9-12).

 

So, it is obvious here that Jesus is contrasting physical or natural things with spiritual things (3:12).  So, it would make perfect sense that “born of water” in verse 5 refers to natural birth, not water baptism.  It is interesting that there is no mention of baptism at all in this context, only believing (3:15, 16, 18).  Further, if Jesus really meant “be baptized” when He said that one must be “born of water,” then 1) why didn’t He just say that?  And 2) Jesus’ “physical birth versus spiritual birth” analogy would do little to clarify anything for Nicodemus.  We just can’t imagine Nicodemus responding, “Oh, ok Jesus, I understand now!  You’re emphasizing spiritual things, and praising the virtues of an inward spiritual change, so therefore, I must focus on this external, physical ritual of water baptism!”  No, not likely.  Again, if Jesus was speaking of baptism, His analogy didn’t make much sense.  As we said above, there must be a changed heart, but water baptism doesn’t change the heart.  So, just because “water” is mentioned does not prove that it was about baptism.

One of their arguments is, “Nowhere else in the Bible is natural birth referred to as ‘born of water’.”  That may be true, but neither is baptism ever referred to as “born of water” anywhere else in the Bible, although the word “baptism” and its variations occur dozens and dozens of times in the New Testament.  So, to find out the meaning of this phrase, we must look to the context, which is, once again, “physical birth” versus “spiritual birth.”

Another argument they use is, “But they went baptize disciples after this in verse 22, so it must have been about water baptism.”  But this is another time, another city, and another context.  There is no reason to believe that the two contexts are directly connected.

A third argument is, “If Jesus meant natural birth when He said ‘born of water,’ then that’s just stating the obvious.  It’s redundant to say that you first have to be born once in order to be born twice.  Jesus didn’t have to tell Nicodemus to meet the condition of being born physically.”  True, but the first birth is an understood requirement, which is obviously already done.  It was implied.  But notice that Jesus didn’t even mention water in His first statement (Verse 3).  He only mentioned water afterward because Nicodemus focused on physical birth.

Although we believe that natural, physical birth is the most likely interpretation of the phrase “born of water,” we will not be dogmatic about it, since there are other possible interpretations.  For example, it could be referring to the concept of spiritual washing as in Ephesians 5:26, which mentions “the washing of water by the Word.”  Also, Jesus told His disciples (John 15:3) that they were “clean through the Word which I have spoken unto you.”  These references still seem much more likely to be the case in John 3:5 than water baptism does.

And finally, as stated in Part 2, we know that baptism is not a requirement for salvation because there are clear biblical examples of people getting saved BEFORE their baptism.  That, and the fact that Scripture plainly tells us that we are saved by grace, through faith (believing), apart from any works of merit (like baptism).

1 Peter 3:19-21:

By which also He [Jesus] went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the Ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The usual response from the groups in question is, “There it is!  Baptism does now save!  Case closed!”  Apparently, that’s all they seem to see in this passage.  But a close look will show that it is not water baptism that saves at all. 

 

First of all, the verse says, “The like figure…” meaning that baptism is simply a symbol of something else.  It represents what happens to us at the moment of salvation.

Secondly, it’s telling us that it’s not the baptismal water that cleanses us… it’s “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God” (verse 21), symbolized by baptism.  It is a change in the heart, not the ritual, itself.

And third, it says that eight souls were saved “by” water, but the Greek actually says they were saved “through” water.  Yes, Noah and his family were “baptized” / “immersed in” / “placed into” the floodwaters, but 1) So was the unrepentant multitude, but the multitude was not saved in any sense.  2) Noah and his family were directly “immersed” / “placed into” the ark to escape God’s wrath. The same happens today; a person is saved (escapes judgment) when he places himself in the “Ark of our Salvation,” Jesus Christ.  This is the “baptism” that “now saves you”:  being “placed into,” or “incorporated into” the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). But this is done by faith, not water baptism.

What is it that saves a person?  According to Romans 1:16, it is the gospel message, because “…it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes…”

The great apostle Paul certainly had a yearning to see people saved.  He no doubt was concerned for all people.  But in 1 Corinthians 1:17 he says, “…for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel...”  Again, that’s because it is faith in the gospel message that saves, not baptism.  If water baptism saves, then he would never have said the above.

One more time… baptism is a work, a good and meaningful work, but nevertheless, it’s still a work.  Works are certainly important in the Christian’s life, but they do not save you.  Scripture is clear… we are only saved by faith (trusting) in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  When it comes to sanctification (living out the Christian life), faith without works is dead; but when it comes to justification (having a right standing with God), faith without works IS salvation! 
   

Just a final note:  In this series, we purposely avoided using the classic example of someone being saved without water baptism… the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43).  Although we believe that this is an excellent example, we held back from using it because some might object and say that the thief may have already been baptized (though we don’t know that), so he didn’t need to do it again.  There is a slight possibility of this, so we did not use that particular example.

However, we would like to point out that many of the same people who say the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized “because he was under the Old Covenant,” would also try to say that Nicodemus (John 3:5) did need to be baptized, although he, too, was under the same Old Covenant.  Sorry guys, but you can’t have it both ways.

 

At any rate, water baptism is an important ordinance of the Christian church and it should not be neglected, but the teaching of baptismal regeneration does not pass the biblical test.