Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary

[tabcom]

What’s the CR? Catholic Religion?

This thread is already well developed and quite focused. Your questions are more fundamental than what the main posters here are discussing.

If you have questions, please feel free to post them in threads of your own. But a good place to start is the home page of Catholic Answers. There is a “Library” on the menu at the upper left of the screen. Lots of good tract-length introductory material to the FAQs about Catholicism.

Welcome to the boards, BTW.

Well stated.

 

[tabcom]

John the Baptist was named John the Immerser not Baptist. The word Baptist is a transliteration of Immerse, is it not?

This point has been discussed back at . . .

Post #19

 

[viper78912]

Question: “Is baptism necessary for salvation? What is baptismal
regeneration?”

Answer: Baptismal regeneration is the belief that a person must be
baptized in order to be saved. It is our contention that baptism is an
important step of obedience for a Christian, but we adamantly reject
baptism as being required for salvation. We strongly believe that each and
every Christian should be water baptized by immersion. Baptism illustrates
a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.
Romans 6:3-4 declares, ‘Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized
into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried
with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was
raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a
new life.?’ The action of being immersed in the water illustrates being
buried with Christ. The action of coming out of the water pictures
Christ’s resurrection.

Anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ as being required for
salvation is a works-based salvation. To add ANYTHING to the Gospel is to
say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our
salvation. To say that we must be baptized in order to be saved is to say
that we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death in
order to make it sufficient for salvation. Jesus’ death alone paid for our
sins (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus’ payment for our sins is
appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31;
Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience
after salvation, but cannot a requirement for salvation.

Yes, there are some verses that seem to indicate baptism as a necessary
requirement for salvation. However, since the Bible so clearly tells us
that salvation is received by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9;
Titus 3:5), there must be a different interpretation of those verses.
Scripture does not contradict Scripture. In Bible times, a person who
converted from one religion to another was often baptized to identify
conversion. Baptism was the means of making a decision public. Those who
refused to be baptized were saying they did not truly believe. So, in the
minds of the apostles and early disciples, the idea of an un-baptized
believer was unheard of. When a person claimed to believe in Christ, yet
was ashamed to proclaim his faith in public, it indicated that he did not
have true faith.

If baptism is necessary for salvation, why would Paul have said, “I am
thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius” (1Corinthians 1:14)? Why would he have said, “For Christ did not send me to
baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest
the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Corinthians 1:17)?
Granted, in this passage Paul is arguing against the divisions that
plagued the Corinthians church. However, how could Paul possibly say,“I
am thankful that I did not baptize??” or “For Christ did not send me to
baptize” if baptism was necessary for salvation? If baptism is necessary
for salvation, Paul would literally be saying, ‘I am thankful that you
were not saved’ and ‘For Christ did not send me to save’? That would be
an unbelievably ridiculous statement for Paul to make. Further, when Paul
gives a detailed outline of what he considers the Gospel (1 Corinthians
15:1-8), why does he neglect to mention baptism? If baptism is a
requirement for salvation, how could any presentation of the Gospel lack a
mentioning of baptism?

[baptism-Acts-2-38.html] Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism is necessary
for salvation?

[baptism-Mark-16-16.html] Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary
for salvation?

[baptism-1Peter-3-21.html] Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is
necessary for salvation?

[baptism-John-3-5.]
Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is necessary for
salvation?

Baptismal regeneration is not a Biblical concept. Baptism does not save from sin, but from a bad conscience. Peter clearly taught that baptism was not a ceremonial act of physical purification, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. Baptism is the symbol of what has already occurred in the heart and life of one who has trusted Christ as Savior (cf. Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12). To make the source of salvation perfectly clear, Peter added,
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3).
Baptism is an important step of obedience that every Christian
should take. Baptism cannot be a requirement for salvation. To make it
such is an attack on the sufficiency of the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ.what do you think?

 

[elisha777]

Five weeks of age is kind of young to be confessing Christ. Though there is only one baptism I believe that it must be for those who confess Christ. I have had the gift of the Holy Spirit for almost one year. The saving baptism (baptism of the Holy Spirit) and the gift of the Holy Spirit are distinctive from each other. Even though my sins are in remmission I still do make mistakes.

For me baptism by immersed in water is important because it is in Bible but there have also some places where people get baptised when they are young child. I believe that our baptism not take away our sins because real work with your character begins after in your christian life but still baptism is some witness to unseen world that we are not belong anymore to devil but now we belong to God. Even maturied christian make mistakes sometimes but still God loves us when we confess to Him our mistakes then He forgive to us as like 1.Jh.1:9 says.

 

[tabcom]

Question: “Is baptism necessary for salvation? What is baptismal
regeneration?”

Answer: Baptismal regeneration is the belief that a person must be
baptized in order to be saved. It is our contention that baptism is an
important step of obedience for a Christian, but we adamantly reject
baptism as being required for salvation.

viper . . . I would like to comment on your post. But first, from where did you get your Q&A?

 

[po18guy]

John the Baptist was named John the Immerser not Baptist. The word Baptist is a transliteration of Immerse, is it not?

bible.ca/eo/ba/ba_11.htm

"C. NOT ONE STANDARD GREEK LEXICON DEFINES “BAPTIZO” AS “SPRINKLE” OR
“POUR”…

Maybe because nothing in scripture indicates that John, Christ or any of the twelve preached in Greek. John the Baptizer spoke, and was named in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Hebrews at that time. Greek had nothing to do with his name, except for the later translation and transliteration problems.

This whole immersion obsession condemns all invalids and all who are not near water sufficient to cover them. I think God is slightly larger than these limited human ideas. If God assumed Enoch, Elijah and Moses into heaven directly, he can probably cleanse sins with as much effort as it takes for Him to be God.

 

[po18guy]

Guess your going to have to explain to me the the Mystical Body of Christ. What do you mean by that?
#2 question…I notice the baptized infront of Christians. I believe that once you have accepted Christ as your Savior you are a Christian…so… in the CR are you not a Christian unless you are baptized?

Read John 3:3-5. The very words of Christ. You are born again via water and the spirit. Some preachers ignore this. They also ignore John 6 in its entirety. It’s all there for a reason-your salvation.

The mystical body of Christ is His church on earth. It’s us.

Get baptized, and quick!

Christ’s peace.

 

[tabcom]

The action of being immersed in the water illustrates being buried with Christ.

Allow me to take this ‘illustration’ a little further. When Christ was placed in the tomb, the rock was rolled over the entrance to keep the water from seeping out.

Anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ as being required for
salvation is a works-based salvation. To add ANYTHING to the Gospel is to
say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our
salvation

OK . . . now I know you aren’t quoting from a RC source.

Yes, there are some verses that seem to indicate baptism as a necessary
requirement for salvation.

Mark 10:38
Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

Lk 12:50
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!

Luke 9:22-24
“If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.”

Pax stated back in Post #43: “(These) usage(s) refers to an idiomatic expression of ‘baptism as afflictions’.”

Baptism does not save from sin, but from a bad conscience. Peter clearly taught that baptism was not a ceremonial act of physical purification, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. Baptism is the symbol of what has already occurred in the heart and life of one who has trusted Christ as Savior (cf. Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12). To make the source of salvation perfectly clear, Peter added,
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3).

Baptism cannot be a requirement for salvation. To make it
such is an attack on the sufficiency of the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ.what do you think?

I’d agree with that – regardless of who originally said it.

 

[po18guy]

Having faith AND must be baptized? Please explain.

If you desire to be Christian, you must obey the commands of Christ. In John 3, verses 3-5, He told Nicodemus that he must be “born again”. That’s the what. How about the how? John 3:5 has Christ telling Nicodemus that he is “born again” through “water and the spirit”. If you are not baptized and have not received the Holy Spirit, you cannot normally be considered Christian. Well disposed toward Christianity maybe, but not a member of His Body. There is one other way, but that is a rare exception. It’s in Luke.

Christ’s peace.

 

[savedsinner]

Yes, there are some verses that seem to indicate baptism as a necessary
requirement for salvation. However, since the Bible so clearly tells us
that salvation is received by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9;
Titus 3:5), there must be a different interpretation of those verses.
Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

None of those verses teach that we are saved by faith alone, and in fact two of them are teaching about baptism regenerating us.

John 3:16 is in the middle of a conversation of Jesus where he is telling Nicode’mus that you must be born again through baptism, and the verse of Titus is speaking of the effect of Baptism when it say’s "he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

The passage in Ephesians is telling us that we are saved by faith, not that we are saved by faith alone.

Please don’t add words to scripture.

Paul used the word “faith” around 250 times in his writings, and used the word “alone” more that any other writer in the New Testament, but the Holy Spirit prohibited him from using them together to say we are saved by “faith alone”, in fact the only time the Holy Spirit allowed a New Testament writer to use the words “faith alone” is in James 2:24 where James says “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

 

[guanophore]

Slight distinction here: baptised Christians are Christians, but unless they are members of the Roman Catholic Church, they are not members of the Mystical Body of Christ. cf: Mystici Corporis of Pius XII, Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, and Dominus Jesus, John Paul II, and its update from the CDF, compliments of Benedict XVI.

peace

I think this is either a misunderstanding, or misinterpretation, or possibly a semantics problem.

There are 23 Catholic Rites in union with Rome, and only one of them is Latin (Roman). One is not required to be part of the Roman Rite. Secondly, the mystical Body is comprised of all the saved, including those under the old covenant, prior to the existence of the Church.

I notice the baptized infront of Christians. I believe that once you have accepted Christ as your Savior you are a Christian…so… in the CR are you not a Christian unless you are baptized?

Only God knows completely who are members of His Body, the Church in full. However, the normative means by which He gave us to enter into the Church is Baptism. Therefore, if persons have been validly baptized (in the name of the Father, Son, and HS) then we recognize that they are members of Christ’s Body.

There are many who call themselves “christian” who do not believe in what Christ taught. There are some who do hold to most of the beliefs taught by Christ, but still reject Baptism and other sacraments.

Having faith AND must be baptized? Please explain.

If you move a couple posts up in #152 you can read the quote from Matt. about “he who believes and is baptized will be saved”. In this passage, as well as in others, it is clear that “belief” or “faith” is faith that works. Faith that makes one a disciple, obedient, and following Jesus’ commandments.

 

[tabcom]

If you desire to be Christian, you must obey the commands of Christ. In John 3, verses 3-5, He told Nicodemus that he must be “born again”.

myfavoritmartin in his post under the thread: Baptism, non-essential!

points out that there are a total of 5 different views of this passage.

As stated in that post:

*“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit,” (John 3:3-8).

Let’s look at five basic interpretations to this section of scripture in reference to water.

The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.
** The first option **looks to the context of Jesus’ words dealing with being born “again” (3:3). Nicodemus responds by mentioning the experience of being born from the womb (v. 4). Jesus then speaks of water and the Spirit and then says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (3:6). The implication is that the first birth is the natural birth and the second birth is the spiritual birth. In other words, the water refers to the water of the womb – the first birth. This seems to have support in the understanding of Nicodemus about entering into the womb to be born a second time. However sadly, this view is not the most commonly held view.

** The second option** holds that the water is referring to the Word of God. Eph. 5:26 says, “that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.” Some believe that the washing of water is done by means of the Word of God.
The third option says that the water refers to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps Nicodemus was reminded of Ezek. 36:25-27, “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27"And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” Certainly, Jesus’ own words are applicable here when He says in John 7:37-39, “Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. 38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.’” 39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
** The fourth view **holds that the water is in reference to the water baptism of repentance taught by John the Baptist. Matt. 3:1-6 describes John’s ministry in the desert, his teaching about repentance, and baptizing people into that repentance. Contextually, the first chapter of John mentions John the Baptist in verses 6-8 and 19-36. Certainly, John and his ministry is in view here. If this is the case, then Jesus would have been speaking of the “baptism” (the initiatory ordinance) of repentance preached by John the Baptist.
** The fifth view **is the one held by churches that require baptism in order to be saved. They state that the water is referring to baptism and that it is essential to salvation.

 

[guanophore]

This topic has been discussed recently by many participating in this thread.
Here is a link to infant baptism . . . Infant Baptism.
In it there is much debate regarding what original sin is. I’m on record as saying baby’s inherit a sin nature, not that baby’s are born with sin.

You may only have a semantics problem with Catholics, tabcom. We understand Original Sin to be the inheritance of the “sin nature” or “concupiscence” (the tendency toward sin). Baptism breaks our bondage to this nature, so that we are no longer enlsaved by it. The Catholic Church does not teach that we inherited the guilt of Adam, just the consequence of his sin, which is the fallen nature.

IMHO, you are not going to find anyone within this forum that is going to accept this statement. No where in the Bible does it say you can accept Christ as your Savior.

But I think that is how most evangelicals understand the phrase “for as many as received Him, He gave them the power to become Sons and Daughters of God”.

tabcom:

This point has been debated intensely within this very thread. For all newcomers to the thread, scroll as far back as Post #21, I’ve stated my disagreement with Pax’s statement.

I am curious to hear your interpretation of Col 2, quoted above, which speaks about baptism replacing circumcision.

 

[tabcom]

I am curious to hear your interpretation of Col 2, quoted above, which speaks about baptism replacing circumcision.

Link to Post #33.

 

[guanophore]

Question: “Is baptism necessary for salvation? What is baptismal regeneration?”

Answer: Baptismal regeneration is the belief that a person must be baptized in order to be saved.

I don’t think this is accurate. Baptismal regeneration is the Apotsolic teaching that the HS regenerates [renews in life) the human soul in baptism, cleansing it from sins, and placing the HS within the human heart.

It is our contention that baptism is an important step of obedience for a Christian, but we adamantly reject baptism as being required for salvation.

Could you be so kind as to identify the “our” and 'we" with whom you identify? I ask this because this is not an Apostolic teaching, and is part of the Reformed theology that emerged after AD 1500. Such doctrine cannot be traced back to the scriptures or the historical teaching of the Church.
viper78912;2937378:

Anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ as being required for
salvation is a works-based salvation.

This is also an example of Reformed Theology, not consistent with Scripture and Apostolic Teaching. Scripture teaches us that baptism is salvific.

To add ANYTHING to the Gospel is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation.

I think this is true, but it is equally true that taking AWAY anything from gospel cheapens the grace that was poured out in His sacrifice.

To say that we must be baptized in order to be saved is to say that we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death in order to make it sufficient for salvation.

There are two errors in this statement. The first one is that baptism is a “work of the flesh”. This is not the case. Deeds or actions done in faith in obedience to Our Lord are Sacred Works, and not works coming from the flesh. Also, baptism is not accomplished by “men”, though we do cooperate with God’s Grace, Jesus is the Baptizer, and the work is supernatural, done by the HS, and not by people. People cannot “sanctify” ourselves. It is not in our power. Baptism sanctifies, therefore, it is not a “work of man”. Secondly, scripture is clear that we are judged by our works, and that good works (those that befit repentance) are part of our salvation.

(Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone

Here you are adding words to the scriptures, in the Reformed Tradition. The words “faith alone” only appear once in scripture. Do you know where?

Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience after salvation, but cannot a requirement for salvation.

Well, certainly God can save whoever He wants. He is not bound by the sacrament. However, Baptism is the normative means by which we enter into His Body, the Church. I agree, it is an important step of obedience.

Part of the error in this soteriology is that salvation is something that happens once and for all at one specific point in time. This is not consistent with the Apostolic Teaching.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, there are some verses that seem to indicate baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation.

It is interesting how you so easily dispense of these!

However, since the Bible so clearly tells us that salvation is received by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), there must be a different interpretation of those verses.

None of these verses add in the word “alone” as you do here. Yes, faith is essential, but it is not the only thing that is essential.

Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

Now we agree on two things!

In Bible times, a person who
converted from one religion to another was often baptized to identify conversion. Baptism was the means of making a decision public. Those who refused to be baptized were saying they did not truly believe. So, in the minds of the apostles and early disciples, the idea of an un-baptized believer was unheard of. When a person claimed to believe in Christ, yet was ashamed to proclaim his faith in public, it indicated that he did not have true faith.

I agree with this, but Jesus also sanctified the waters of Baptism with sanctifying grace.

If baptism is necessary for salvation, why would Paul have said, “I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius” (1Corinthians 1:14)?

If you look at the context of this statement in I Cor., you can easily see that the Corinthians were bickering among themselves about who belonged to which Apostle/teacher. Baptism was understood to make one a “part”, and they were full of dissention, thinking that baptism by one was better than baptism by another. He is thankful that he did not baptize more because it would have only created more dissention.

Why would he have said, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Corinthians 1:17)?

Paul would never been able to personally baptize everyone who was converted by His preaching. He was called as a preacher and teacher, and he allowed others to do the baptizing, as well as other functions in the early church. The same is true today. The Bishop does not do all the baptisms himself.

 

[guanophore]

Granted, in this passage Paul is arguing against the divisions that plagued the Corinthians church. However, how could Paul possibly say,“I am thankful that I did not baptize??” or “For Christ did not send me to
baptize” if baptism was necessary for salvation? If baptism is necessary for salvation, Paul would literally be saying, ‘I am thankful that you were not saved’ and ‘For Christ did not send me to save’? That would be an unbelievably ridiculous statement for Paul to make.

Now there are three things on which we agree! Clearly Paul assumes in all his writings that every single believer has been baptized, since Jesus told the Apostles to baptize everyone. Paul Himself was baptized, and although he did not baptize everyone who came to faith, they were baptized when they believed. Some of these baptisms included households with children and slaves.

Further, when Paul gives a detailed outline of what he considers the Gospel (1 Corinthians
15:1-8), why does he neglect to mention baptism? If baptism is a
requirement for salvation, how could any presentation of the Gospel lack a mentioning of baptism?

It is clear that, if all the teachings of Jesus were written down, the whole world would not be able to containt he books. Paul has many pithy summaries of doctrine. This one does not “exclude” baptism.

Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?

When the Jews ask how they can be saved, Peter tells them to 1) repent 2) be baptized 3) do works that befit repentance. Why take out part of the sermon?

Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?

Catholics don’t pull out certain verses and try to build doctrine upon them. We look at all the message together. We look at this passage in the light of other passages about baptism.

[baptism-1Peter-3-21.html] Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?

Yes, just as his successor still does today!

[baptism-John-3-5.]
Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is necessary for
salvation?

Yes. This is what he means by “water” and “spirit”.

Baptismal regeneration is not a Biblical concept. Baptism does not save from sin, but from a bad conscience.

I understand that you don’t see it, because you have been taught to read the scripture out of context. your situation is not unusual by any means. If you read the book of Romans, it is clear that the only reason a person has a “bad conscience” is because of sin. Baptism DOES save from sin, because it DOES regenerate.

Baptism is an important step of obedience that every Christian should take. Baptism cannot be a requirement for salvation. To make it such is an attack on the sufficiency of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.what do you think?

I think that rejecting part of the gospel message makes the price Jesus paid on the cross “cheap”. I think it is an insult to God to reject the Apostolic Teachings.

 

[guanophore]

Allow me to take this ‘illustration’ a little further. When Christ was placed in the tomb, the rock was rolled over the entrance to keep the water from seeping out.

This does not make any sense at all!

Mark 10:38
Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

Lk 12:50
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!

Luke 9:22-24
“If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.”

Pax stated back in Post #43: “(These) usage(s) refers to an idiomatic expression of ‘baptism as afflictions’.”

I’d agree with that – regardless of who originally said it.

As you can see, Jesus originally said it, and it was taught by His Apostles. Baptism of suffering/Blood/affliction does not take place for most believers, who are baptized with water.

 

[clmowry]

Tabcom is translating the sentence to mean “forbid water” to the baptized, since they have already received the Spirit.

Thank you. wonders why tabcom couldn’t just say that?

Chuck

 

[foundthelight]

In an earlier post Tabcom quoted myfavoritemartin as below.

**

**The first option **

looks to the context of Jesus’ words dealing with being born “again” (3:3). Nicodemus responds by mentioning the experience of being born from the womb (v. 4). Jesus then speaks of water and the Spirit and then says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (3:6). The implication is that the first birth is the natural birth and the second birth is the spiritual birth. In other words, the water refers to the water of the womb – the first birth. This seems to have support in the understanding of Nicodemus about entering into the womb to be born a second time. However sadly, this view is not the most commonly held view.

Is anyone able to cite some scholarly references that back this up?**