Can a Catholic Be a Born Again Christian

"Accept yous been born again?" the Fundamentalist at the door asks the unsuspecting Catholic.

Yes, they believe in Jesus. And yes, they try to live Christian lives. They probably accept some vague awareness that Fundamentalists think being born again involves a religious experience or accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. Many cradle Catholics, too, have had their moments of closeness to God, even of joy over God's love and mercy. They may even have had conversion experiences of sorts, committing themselves to take their organized religion seriously and to live more faithfully as disciples of Jesus. Only the cradle Cosmic probably cannot pinpoint whatsoever item moment in his life when he dropped to his knees and accustomed Jesus for the first time. As far back every bit he can recall, he has believed, trusted and loved Jesus as Savior and Lord. Does that testify he has never been born again?

Not the Bible way, says the Fundamentalist. But the Fundamentalist is wrong there. He misunderstands what the Bible says nigh beingness born again. Unfortunately, few Catholics understand the biblical apply of the term, either. As a result, pastors, deacons, catechists, parents and others responsible for religious education have their piece of work cutting out for them. Information technology would be helpful, then, to review the biblical and Catholic meaning of the term built-in again.

"Born once again " The Bible fashion

The simply biblical apply of the term born over again occurs in John 3:iii-5 although, as we shall see, similar and related expressions such as new birth and ,regeneration occur elsewhere in Scripture (Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 1:iii, 23). In John 3:3, Jesus tells Nicodemus, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is built-in again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. The Greek expression translated built-in once more (gennathei anothen) also means born from above. Jesus, information technology seems, makes a play on words with Nicodemus, contrasting earthly life, or what theologians would later dub natural life (what is born of flesh), with the new life of heaven, or what they would later call supernatural life (what is born of Spirit).

Nicodemus' reply: How tin a man be born when he is old? Tin can he enter a 2d fourth dimension into his female parent's womb and exist born? (John 3:iv). Does he simply fault Jesus to be speaking literally or is Nicodemus himself answering figuratively, pregnant, How can an old human learn new means as if he were a child again? Nosotros cannot say for certain, 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 built-in of the flesh is mankind, and that which is built-in of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to yous, `Yous must be born again.' (John iii:five-7).

Here Jesus equates born over again or built-in from above with born of h2o and the Spirit. If, as the Catholic Church has always held, beingness born of water and the Spirit refers to baptism, then information technology follows that beingness born again or born from in a higher place means being baptized.

Clearly, the context implies that born of water and the Spirit refers to baptism. The Evangelist tells us that immediately later on talking with Nicodemus, Jesus took his disciples into the wilderness where they baptized people (John three:22). Furthermore, water is closely linked to the Spirit throughout John'southward Gospel (for instance, in Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan adult female at the well in John 4:ix-xiii) and in the Johannine tradition (cf. ane John 5:seven). It seems reasonable, and so, to conclude that John the Evangelist understands Jesus' words about beingness born again and born of water and the Spirit to have a sacramental, baptismal significant.

Other views of "born of water and the spirit"

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

A major problem with this argument, notwithstanding, is that while Jesus does contrast physical and spiritual life, he clearly uses the term flesh for the onetime, in dissimilarity to Spirit for the latter. Jesus might say, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is built-in of flesh and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God though information technology would be obvious and absurdly redundant to say that one must be built-in (i.eastward., built-in of mankind) 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 so of the Spirit would only confuse things by introducing the term water from out of nowhere, without whatsoever obvious link to the term flesh. Moreover, while the mankind is clearly opposed to the Spirit and the Spirit clearly opposed to the mankind in this passage, the expression born of water and the Spirit implies no such opposition. It is not water vs. the Spirit, merely water and the Spirit.

Furthermore, the Greek of the text suggests that born of water and the Spirit (literally born of water and spirit) refers to a single, supernatural birth over against natural birth (born of the flesh). The phrase of water and the Spirit (Greek, ek hudatos kai pneumatos) is a single linguistical unit of measurement. It refers to existence built-in 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: born of h2o and the Spirit refers, correspondingly, to the baptism of John (being born of water) and the baptism of the Spirit (being born of ... the Spirit), which John promised the coming Messiah would issue. Thus, on this view, Jesus says, Unless a man is built-in of water through John's baptism and of the Spirit through my baptism, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

We take already seen that, according to the Greek, born of h2o and the Spirit refers to a single thing, a single spiritual birth. Thus, the first half of the phrase cannot apply to ane thing (John'due south baptism) and the second one-half to something else entirely (Jesus' baptism). Merely fifty-fifty apart from the linguistical argument, if built-in of water refers to John's baptism, then Jesus is saying that in order to be built-in again or born from to a higher place one must receive John'southward baptism of h2o (born of water ...) and the Messiah's baptism of the Spirit (. . . and Spirit). That would mean only those who have been baptized by John could enter the kingdom of Godwhich would drastically reduce the population of heaven. In fact, no i holds that people must receive John's baptism in order to enter the Kingdom something now impossible. Therefore being born of water . . . cannot refer to John's baptism.

The nigh reasonable caption for born of water and the Spirit, and then, is that information technology 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 i:25-34; Matt 3:13-17; Mark i:9-11; Luke three:21-22). Furthermore, what distinguishes John'due south baptism of repentance in anticipation of the Messiah from Christian baptism, is that the latter is a baptism with the Holy Spirit (Matt iii:11; Mark one:eight; Luke iii:16; John one:31; Acts ane:4-5).

Consequently, on Pentecost, Peter calls the Jews to be baptized in the proper noun of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and promises that they volition receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), thus fulfilling the promise of John. Peter conspicuously teaches hither that the water baptism, to which he directs the soon-to-be converts, forgives sins and bestows the Holy Spirit. Christian baptism, then, is no mere external, repentance-ritual with water, but entails an inner transformation or regeneration by the Holy Spirit of the New Covenant; it is a new birth, a being born once more or born from above.

In Romans six:three, Paul says, Do you not know that all of u.s. who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that equally Christ was raised from the expressionless by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life (RNAB). Baptism, says Paul, effects union with the death and resurrection of Christ, and so that through it we dice and rise to new life, a course of regeneration.

According to Titus 3:5, God saved us through the washing of regeneration (paliggenesias) and renewal by the Holy Spirit. Opponents of baptismal regeneration contend that the text refers only to the washing (loutrou) of regeneration rather than the baptism of regeneration. But baptism is certainly a form of washing and elsewhere in the New Attestation it is described every bit a washing away of sin. For case, in Acts 22:16, Ananias tells Paul, Become upwards, exist baptized and launder your sins away, calling upon his name. The Greek word used for the washing away of sins in baptism here is apolousai, essentially the same term used in Titus 3:5. Furthermore, since washing and regeneration are not ordinarily related terms, a specific kind of washing i that regenerates must be in view. The most obvious kind of washing which the reader would understand would be baptism, a point fifty-fifty many Baptist scholars, such as Yard.R. Beasley-Murray, admit. (See his book Baptism in the New Testament.)

In 1 Peter 1:3, it is stated that God has given Christians a new birth to a living promise through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The term new nativity (Gk, anagennasas, having regenerated) appears synonymous with born again or regeneration. According to ane Peter 1:23, Christians have been born anew (Gk, anagegennamenoi, having been regenerated) not from perishable simply from imperishable seed, through the living and abiding word of God. From the word of the Gospel, in other words.

Opponents of baptismal regeneration argue that since the new birth mentioned in 1 Peter 1:3 and 23 is said to come well-nigh through the Word of God, existence born again means accepting the Gospel bulletin, not being baptized. This statement overlooks the fact that elsewhere in the New Testament accepting the gospel message and beingness baptized are seen as two parts of the one human activity of commitment to Christ.

In Marking 16:16, for instance, Jesus says, Whoever believes and is baptized will exist saved; whoever does not believe volition be condemned. Believing, i.e., accepting the Gospel, entails accepting baptism, which is the means past which i puts on Christ (Gal. 3:27) and is buried and raised with him to new life (Rom six:3-5; Gal 2:12). Acts 2:41 says of the Jewish crowd on Pentecost, Those who accustomed his message were baptized . . . It seems reasonable to conclude that those whom i Peter 1:23 describes as having been born afresh or regenerated through the living and abiding give-and-take of God were too those who had been baptized. Thus, being born of water and the Spirit and being born afresh through the living and abiding word of God describe dissimilar aspects of one thing existence regenerated in Christ. Beingness born again (or from higher up) in water and the Spirit refers to the external act of receiving baptism, while being born anew refers to the internal reception in faith of the Gospel (existence born anew through the living and abiding discussion of God).

Moreover, baptism involves a declaration of the Discussion, 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 accept baptism is to accept the Word of God. In that location is no need, then, to run across the operation of the Word of God in regeneration as something opposed to or separated from baptism.

Some Fundamentalists also object that existence born again through baptismal regeneration contradicts the Pauline doctrine of justification past grace through faith. Implicit here is the idea that Christian baptism is a mere homo piece of work done to earn favor before God. In fact, Christian baptism is something that is done to ane (one is baptized passive), not something ane does for oneself. The one who baptizes, co-ordinate to the Bible, is Jesus Himself past the ability of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn i:33). It makes no more sense to oppose baptism and faith in Christ to one some other as 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 "born again"

Following the New Testament use of the term, the Catholic Church links regeneration or existence built-in over again in the life of the Spirit to the sacrament of baptism (CCC, nos. 1215,1265-1266). Baptism is non a mere human work 1 does to earn regeneration and divine sonship; it is the work of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, which, by grace, washes abroad sin and makes us children of God. It is key to the Catholic understanding of justification past grace. For justification is, as the Quango of Trent taught, a translation from that state in which human being is born a kid of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ (Session 6, chapter 4). 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 education is not opposed to a religious feel of conversion accompanying baptism (of adults) far from it. But such an feel is not required. What is required for baptism to exist fruitful (for an adult) is repentance from sin and faith in Christ, of which baptism is the sacrament (CCC, no. 1253). These are grace-enabled acts of the will that are non necessarily accompanied by feelings of being born once more. Regeneration rests on the divinely established fact of incorporation and regeneration in Christ, not on feelings one style or the other.

This point can exist driven home to Evangelicals by cartoon on a indicate they often emphasize in a related context. Evangelicals often say that the deed of having accepted Christ as personal Savior and Lord is the of import thing, not whether feelings accompany that act. It is, they say, faith that matters, not feelings. Believe by organized religion that Christ is the Savior and the advisable feelings, they say, volition eventually follow. But even if they do not, what counts is the fact of having taken Christ as Savior.

Catholics tin say something similar regarding baptism. The human who is baptized may not feel any different afterwards baptism than earlier. Merely once he is baptized, he has received the Holy Spirit in a special way. 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 objectively and publicly identified himself with Jesus' death and resurrection. If the newly baptized human being meditates on these things, he may or may not experience them, in the sense of some subjective religious experience. Still, he will believe them to be true by faith. And he will have the benefits of baptism into Christ nonetheless.

A "born once again" Christian?

When Fundamentalists phone call themselves born 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 we accept seen, though, the term built-in once again and its parallel terms new birth 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 nigh by Christ through baptism.

How, then, should a Catholic reply the question, Have y'all been born over again? An accurate answer would be, Yes, I was born again in baptism. Withal leaving it at that may generate fifty-fifty more confusion. Most Fundamentalists would probably sympathize the Cosmic to mean, I'yard going to sky merely because I'm baptized. In other words, the Fundamentalist would remember the Catholic is trusting in his baptism rather than Christ, whereas the informed Catholic knows it ways trusting in Christ with whom he is united in baptism.

The Catholic, and then, should do more only point to his baptism; he should discuss his living faith, trust and honey of Christ; his desire to abound 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 between baptism and the Holy Spirit in the life of his Catholic neighbor, he may brainstorm to see that St. Paul was more than than figurative when he wrote, You were buried with Christ in baptism, in which you were as well raised with him through organized religion in the power of God, who raised him from the dead (Col 2:12).

perrysaussiona.blogspot.com

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

Share this post