Born again at baptism: an essay

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaptainPicard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CaptainPicard

Guest
Hi all,
A while back I noticed a string of threads regarding baptismal regeneration and it seemed like they all started from ground level. The basics of Catholic teaching had to be restated each time. I didn’t know of any internet article that gave a comprehensive overview of Catholic teaching on baptism, arguments for baptismal regeneration, and answered questions to common arguments against baptism. Most of them covered one aspect or another fairly quickly.

So I decided to write the article myself. At first I wanted it to be fairly short along with being comprehensive, but after a while, I gave up on it being short. It’s probably about a two hour read. Longer than a lot of people will be willing to read, but at least it’s not book length and it’s free online. It discusses a lot of Old Testament baptismal types (like Noah, the Red Sea, Jonah, Elijah, etc), the key New Testament texts, and the Church fathers, along with describing basic Catholic teaching and answering common questions about baptism.

So here it is:
Regeneration – Born Again at Baptism

I hope it’s of value to Catholics on here. Likewise, for those who don’t believe in baptismal regeneration, it’ll provide a backdrop for our conversation so we don’t have to start at the very beginning and will hopefully have a more fruitful and interesting dialogue. Fellow Catholics, too, might disagree with my interpretation of some of the texts. We could discuss those, as well.

If you read it and like it, you might let others know that it is worth their time (if you don’t like, just move along… 😉 )
 
I realized that a thread that requires a two hour read to participate in might not work, but I’m going to bump this thread one more time just in case anybody who is interested in it missed it. I hoped to make the essay a “one stop shop” for noncatholics to learn about the Catholic view of baptism. It has a lot of interesting scriptural insights (not my own insights so much, but a collection of thoughts from different ECFs and modern theologians).
 
What does it mean to be a born again Christian? The classic passage from the Bible that answers this question is John 3:1-21. The Lord Jesus Christ is talking to Nicodemus, a prominent Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin (a ruler of the Jews). Nicodemus had come to Jesus at night. Nicodemus had questions to ask Jesus.

As Jesus talked with Nicodemus, He said, “’I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.’ ‘How can a man be born when he is old?’ Nicodemus asked. ‘Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again’” (John 3:3-7).

The phrase “born again” literally means “born from above.” Nicodemus had a real need. He needed a change of his heart—a spiritual transformation. New birth, being born again, is an act of God whereby eternal life is imparted to the person who believes (2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1-4, 18). John 1:12,13 indicates that “born again” also carries the idea “to become children of God” through trust in the name of Jesus Christ.

The question logically comes, “Why does a person need to be born again?” The Apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:1 says, “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins…” (NKJV). To the Romans in Romans 3:23, the Apostle wrote, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” So, a person needs to be born again in order to have their sins forgiven and have a relationship with God.

How does that come to be? Ephesians 2:8-9 states, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” When one is “saved,” he/she has been born again, spiritually renewed, and is now a child of God by right of new birth. Trusting in Jesus Christ, the One who paid the penalty of sin when He died on the cross, is what it means to be “born again” spiritually. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

peace and blessings

david
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)icard,
I haven’t read your entire essay but quickly glanced through the headings and didn’t notice (although you may have written about it) any mention of Original Sin or Concupiscence, both of which are essential to an understanding of why baptism is necessary, and what baptism does and why we continue to sin after baptism. Even though our sins are forgiven through baptism and we have been born again and are a new creature in Christ, unlike the old creature we were before baptism - the question then becomes, why do we continue to sin after baptism? Have you addressed this?
 
The words below were to explain Baptism to someone asking about children being baptized, but may fit here.
You asked last week how you could explain baptism to someone who did not see its necessity, and especially baptizing babies.
This question comes up when people are focused on the “spiritual side” of Christianity without acknowledgment of the “physical side” of Christianity. Their focus is on “going to heaven”, “being right with God”, “having Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior”, etc.
Explanations of Baptism do not do a lot to solve this focus, because they are assuming that an understanding of the “physical side” of Baptism already exists with people. But very few people have that understanding of the “physical side”.
When the question arises of “How does Baptism save us?” is asked, the explanations are something like, "It is not merely water, but it is a life-giving washing of regeneration (a sacrament) because it is based on Christ’s command and promise and it is performed in his name.
That, too, is a focus on the “spiritual side” of what is spiritually happening, but not telling what is happening on the physical side.

Basically, people find it difficult to see how a human action of pouring water on me by a priest can do anything to save my soul.
So, what is really happening on the physical side of baptism?
In the Old Testament the whole hope of the Old Testament was focused on the promise of the Messiah who would establish an eternal kingdom “Messiah” means “Christ” in Greek, and it means “Anointed One” in English.
They were waiting for the one whom God would anoint as King to establish a new government that would be on his shoulders, a new nation, a new kingdom - not created by men, as our ancestors did when they used weapons to establish the United States.

The physical side of Baptism began with Jesus being baptized (anointed) as that King –
The physical activity of John baptizing him was his appointment to the office of King (and High Priest). Jesus became the first citizen of that Kingdom when he was baptized.

The spiritual side of Jesus’ Baptism was the Dove from heaven, and then the voice from heaven, both confirming what everyone physically saw happen.
Jesus’ Kingdom was ON Earth, but it was not OF men (men did not establish it). It was OF God - God established it. It was a kingdom OF God, not a kingdom OF men.
That is the Gospel – the “Gospel of the Kingdom of God” – it is real, it is here, and you are a citizen of it, as described below.

Here, then is the physical side of baptism –
Jesus commanded his disciples to make people into new disciples by baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit –
In other words, he commanded his disciples to grant citizenship to people into his Kingdom on earth by baptizing them.
It is a kingdom with citizens, But it is a kingdom with no land (yet), as Jesus said, “Foxes have dens, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (“Son of Man” was the title for the Messiah, the Anointed King, from the prophets of the Old Testament).
If our King had nowhere to lay his head in his kingdom on earth, then neither do we who are citizens of that kingdom on earth - we are resident aliens on earth, in the human established nations where we live.
The church is the nation of people who are citizens of that kingdom on earth.
Jesus appointed leaders with the command and authority to grant citizenship and teach the new citizens.
So, the church baptizes people (grants them citizenship) and then teaches them that it is greater than just an earthly kingdom, but has the spiritual side also.
When you were baptized you became a citizen of Jesus’ kingdom on earth, but he is risen from death, and you who are his subjects on earth will also be with him in his spiritual, eternal kingdom.
All who participate in Jesus’ kingdom on earth, by faith, also know they are part of that kingdom that transcends earth into the heavens where He sits at his Father’s right hand.
They know that their baptism was physically “the granting of citizenship into a kingdom on earth”, and they know it was also a washing of new birth into sonship in the heavenly kingdom. Their True Nationality is “Christian”.

No one is “born” into Jesus’ kingdom by human birth – you were not born a Catholic. Babies are not “automatically” Christians.
People who desire to be in Jesus’ kingdom are accepted in, baptized into citizenship
However, since its beginnings, the Church has always welcomed whole families into citizenship together, baptizing children, teaching them as they grow up about the true nature of the kingdom of God – that they are part of it on earth and will be part of it when their King returns to claim them.
If we do not baptize our children, then we cannot comfort them by saying, “you are Jesus’ brother / sister”, “you are one of his people”, “Jesus chose you and made you his own”, etc. Instead we would have to say to them, “When you are old enough to choose for yourself, then you can be a part of Jesus’ kingdom, but you cannot be a part of his people yet because you cannot think clearly yet until you reach a certain age.”
That may sound cruel, but the kingdom is here, and it has a physical point of entrance (baptism) – don’t hold back your child / baby from being brought into the kingdom, and then learning to know who their king is.
Jesus declared the same when people brought babies and children to him (Luke 18:15-17) – his Kingdom belongs to them and all who receive it like they do. Jesus rebuked his disciples for stopping these parents, so since then the Church does not refuse citizenship to babies and children who are brought to Jesus’ Kingdom by their parents. The Church grants this blessing of citizenship to the babies and children by baptizing them, and then teaches them about their King as they grow.
 
Captain …

I salute you for your composition. 👍 Sourced, footnoted, great pictorials etc. As others have said … it may be a while before enough get around to reading your work in its entirety … to get the discussion/reviews going in earnest.

I’ve briefly given it a quick overview read … and will study it in more detail tonite.
 
Psalm_51 said:
Capta(name removed by moderator)icard,
I haven’t read your entire essay but quickly glanced through the headings and didn’t notice (although you may have written about it) any mention of Original Sin or Concupiscence, both of which are essential to an understanding of why baptism is necessary, and what baptism does and why we continue to sin after baptism. Even though our sins are forgiven through baptism and we have been born again and are a new creature in Christ, unlike the old creature we were before baptism - the question then becomes, why do we continue to sin after baptism? Have you addressed this?
Click to expand...
This is good advice. I think that when I originally set out to write the essay, I was hoping to keep it shorter. I was shooting to streamline it as much as possible by talking about baptism only and just generalizing sin – not going into detail about different kinds of sin (personal vs original).

But now that it’s pretty long anyway, I think I can afford to talk about that a little more. I had a little in there about original sin mid way through, but I just added a paragraph more up front. I’m about to add in a little section on concupiscence, as well. Now that you mention it, that seems like a pretty vital bit of information, especially for the the Protestant who wonders to himself, “if you’re born again, why do you keep sinning?”

Thanks for the advice and thanks all for reading.
 
Yes there is a physical aspect to baptisum, the act itshelf is physical act and that is only for the physical world to see …but the act itshelf points toward the spirtural side…which is more important…your physical body as it is now will never inherit the kingdom God…but your new spirtural body will.

Peace and blessing
 
Reformed protestants, Calvinists primarily, argue in TULIP, that we are totally depraved and our wills are not capable of turning toward God. They like the Scripture verse in Romans which repeats the Old Testament verse which essentially says that “no one is righteous, no one is good, no one seeks after God.” They seem to apply this notion both before and after baptism. But after we are born again of water and spirit (baptism), our new nature and our will are no longer depraved to the extent that they were prior to baptism when we were all affected - no exceptions - by Original Sin and so our post-baptismal bent is no longer to run from God, we have indeed “new” natures and we are indeed “new” creatures in Christ with new wills unlike our former wills which were damaged by the Fall. Reformed theology seems to confuse the state of our wills before and after baptism. Since many of the Reformed churches don’t believe that baptism is salvific, and believe that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, I guess I can understand their construct. They believe in imputed righteousness, forensic justification and that the saved person remains utterly depraved and only the robe of Christ’s righteousness is what protects us from God’s justice in punishing our sins; without it, we would still be doomed. So they believe in this mystical robe that we all have wrapped around us and is what God looks upon when he sees our sins and that is the only reason God accepts us, saves us, and eventually glorifies us. They don’t believe that real grace is infused into the heart and soul of the believer when he is born again or that real inner conversion and transformation can occur as believers have God’s grace poured into their souls through baptism and the sacraments. In that sense they seem to deny that sanctification or the command to “Be Holy as God is Holy” is even possible in the life of the believer because they remain in their depraved state their entire lives. While they rightly believe that salvation is all God’s work from beginning to end -from justification, sanctification, and eventually to final glorification, they deny that the believer must cooperate with God’s grace in bringing us to eternal life. And they deny that baptism is genuine regeneration which begins a real conversion process leading to a process of real holiness in the life of the believer on this earth. To them, we are “viewed” by God as holy only in the sense that we are covered in the righteousness of Christ’s robe, not because of our own righteousness brought about through the infusion of God’s grace such that we can be holy as God is holy. They also believe that any good work done by a believer is stained with at least a modicum of sin and that no good work is truly good. After all, no one is good, no one is righteous, no one seeks after God. That’s the verse that anchors their theology.
 
Psalm_51 said:
Reformed protestants, Calvinists primarily, argue in TULIP, that we are totally depraved and our wills are not capable of turning toward God. After all, no one is good, no one is righteous, no one seeks after God. That’s the verse that anchors their theology.
Click to expand...
A verse that speaks of the unregenerate man/woman … not the Reborn, Adoption of God [via Christ] — who is made 100% righteous upon the moment of Adoption.

Still capable of sin, but not inclined to do so, and compelled to confess all post-baptismal sins with regularity.
 
When I was first learning about Protestant theology, the idea of imputation just seemed so strange to me. I could hardly believe that anybody would hold to that theory. It just seems to contradict the idea that we are cleansed of our sin and reborn, washed by the blood of Christ.

In Catholic theology, the change of regeneration is truly a dramatic rebirth. Beforehand, we’re (as I’m picturing it) an old leprous man with gnarled arthritic hands and a humped back. After the new birth, we’re newborn babes with flawless, fresh skin. Like Naaman who bathed in the Jordan, we’re really healed. The old leper is long gone, dead with Christ.

In Protestant theology, man starts out the same way, or even a little worse in reformed theology since they believe in total depravity. Then, at regeneration, instead of being cleansed, they keep their same diseased nature, but they’re given new life and a new disposition. When they’re justified, they’re handed a baby costume. They’re still the same old leprous man, but now they’ve got a costume so they look better from the outside, if not a little awkward, I imagine! Eventually God starts giving them a few band-aids and neosporin as sanctification begins, but they’re still the same old man in a costume with a few band-aids on. They may get new life and a new disposition, but have the same diseased nature.

That just doesn’t make biblical sense to me. It’s not a rebirth. It’s not being cleansed. It’s just throwing a costume on the same old man. The old man doesn’t die, he just gets new life “added to him”. I realize it’s probably more complicated than that and there’s many bible verses to debate, but that’s the gist of what bothers me about imputation theology. I discuss this only peripherally in the essay. The essay is primarily about whether or not baptism regenerates, not what happens when one is regenerated and justified.
Captain …
Click to expand...
I salute you for your composition. Sourced, footnoted, great pictorials etc. As others have said … it may be a while before enough get around to reading your work in its entirety … to get the discussion/reviews going in earnest.
Click to expand...
I’ve briefly given it a quick overview read … and will study it in more detail tonite.
Click to expand...
Thank you kindly! I know it’s a lot to ask for people to spend so much time reading somebody’s writing who they know nothing about. Wiki commons really came in handy for the pictures. It’s a whole collection of photos in the public domain.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)icard said:
In Protestant theology, man starts out the same way, or even a little worse in reformed theology since they believe in total depravity. Then, at regeneration, instead of being cleansed, they keep their same diseased nature, but they’re given new life and a new disposition. When they’re justified, they’re handed a baby costume. They’re still the same old leprous man, but now they’ve got a costume so they look better from the outside, if not a little awkward, I imagine! Eventually God starts giving them a few band-aids and neosporin as sanctification begins, but they’re still the same old man in a costume with a few band-aids on. They may get new life and a new disposition, but have the same diseased nature.

That just doesn’t make biblical sense to me. It’s not a rebirth. It’s not being cleansed. It’s just throwing a costume on the same old man. The old man doesn’t die, he just gets new life “added to him”. I realize it’s probably more complicated than that and there’s many bible verses to debate, but that’s the gist of what bothers me about imputation theology.
Click to expand...
This is good. I like your costume analogy. Sorry for drifting away from your main point. One thing that supports baptismal regeneration is the final words of Jesus before leaving this world - the great commission to go and make disciples of all nations and to baptize them. If baptism were merely symbolic, why would he even mention it just before leaving this world? Why would he place so much emphasis on baptism when giving his final charge - **His last words **- to the Apostles just before leaving this world and Jesus said (commanded them) to do it in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirt? If baptism was not efficacious but merely symbolic, why would the triune God need to be invoked during baptism? Jesus wasn’t merely suggesting something that they should put on their laundry list of things to do - to tie a string around their finger so they don’t forget this insignificant detail, this merely symbolic act - no, it was a commandment of utmost importance to the salvation of the whole world.

My two centavos.
 
Those are some interesting points that I’d never really considered. I’ll probably edit those into the essay, as well. The invocation of the name of the trinity really does indicate (as a sort of evidence, even if not as strict proof) that perhaps something powerful is going on.

I’m glad you brought up the imputation vs imparting views of grace debate (no need to apologize). I had actually thought about it quite a bit while writing. I didn’t want to add it to the essay because I didn’t want to bring too much to the table for the reader to absorb and I wasn’t sure if I had a solid enough grasp on the subject to write on it. But it is certainly an important corollary to the debate of whether or not baptism regenerates. It’s a topic that doesn’t get discussed all that often because it often takes a backseat to the faith vs works debate.
 
And John 3:16 saids nothing about baptisum so what is that were missing?

Peace and blessings

david
 
Hi Rjmusseau,
Here’s the answer I give from my essay.
Why isn’t baptism mentioned in many passages that discuss salvation such as Acts 3:19-21, John 3:16, Acts 16:30-31, and Romans 10:9-10?
In these passages, forgiveness of sins and salvation are tied with faith, turning to God, and repentance, without baptism being mentioned. It’s important to note that scripture passages are not meant to be taken in isolation, but in view of the whole body of scripture. In light of this, baptism shouldn’t be considered at odds with faith. When we believe in Christ and turn to Him, we don’t just believe in Him, but in everything that He has to say. This includes being baptized. This view harmonizes scripture with itself, upholding the scriptural teaching of both baptism and faith. What many have done is pitted the two against each other, using one of Christ’s teachings to obliterate another.
Click to expand...
Taken in isolation from the rest of my essay, it’s not a very compelling answer, because I haven’t proven to you that the Bible does teach that baptism is necessary.

For that reason, I highly recommend you read my essay to get a more detailed argument for baptismal regeneration. I guarantee that you’ll find it an interesting read and it will cover many things that you haven’t considered. It’s longer than your average internet article but it’s not that long. It’s way shorter than a book and it’s free!
 
Rjmusseau said:
Yes there is a physical aspect to baptisum, the act itshelf is physical act and that is only for the physical world to see …but the act itshelf points toward the spirtural side…which is more important…your physical body as it is now will never inherit the kingdom God…but your new spirtural body will.

Peace and blessing
Click to expand...
RJ,

This sounds very nice and could make sense. Except two things I have to challenge on:
A) A “spritual body”. This is contradicting. A spirit is not a body, it is a spirit. A body can contain a spirit but cannot be a spirit. A spirit canlook like a body, but it is not.

B) If what you say is the definition of baptism. Then why wasn’t this taught by the Apostles, and passed on, and passed on, and so on? The Apostles, who were taught by Jesus, and Christians who were taught by the Apostles, and those who came after them, all taught that Baptism was Sacramental and saved you. Where did your defintion ever come into the picture?
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)icard said:
Hi Rjmusseau,
Here’s the answer I give from my essay.

Taken in isolation from the rest of my essay, it’s not a very compelling answer, because I haven’t proven to you that the Bible does teach that baptism is necessary.

For that reason, I highly recommend you read my essay to get a more detailed argument for baptismal regeneration. I guarantee that you’ll find it an interesting read and it will cover many things that you haven’t considered. It’s longer than your average internet article but it’s not that long. It’s way shorter than a book and it’s free!
Click to expand...
I’ll read yours if you read this one!

carm.org/is-baptism-necessary-salvation
 
CoachSTL said:
RJ,

This sounds very nice and could make sense. Except two things I have to challenge on:
A) A “spritual body”. This is contradicting. A spirit is not a body, it is a spirit. A body can contain a spirit but cannot be a spirit. A spirit canlook like a body, but it is not.

B) If what you say is the definition of baptism. Then why wasn’t this taught by the Apostles, and passed on, and passed on, and so on? The Apostles, who were taught by Jesus, and Christians who were taught by the Apostles, and those who came after them, all taught that Baptism was Sacramental and saved you. Where did your defintion ever come into the picture?
Click to expand...
I agree with you on A…we’ll just call it a spirit and leave out the body part…how does that make more sense?

On B…I say if you love jesus…then why wouldn’t you get baptised.
 
Rjmusseau said:
I agree with you on A…we’ll just call it a spirit and leave out the body part…how does that make more sense?

On B…I say if you love jesus…then why wouldn’t you get baptised.
Click to expand...
RJ,

Like I challenged you before. Can you show me any historical evidence that your definition of Baptism was taught by the Apostles and passed on by them in Church history? Your quote is definitive, and I am only asking you to provide historical evidence that this is what was taught by the Apostles, and those who came after them, and so on.

“Yes there is a physical aspect to baptisum, the act itshelf is physical act and that is only for the physical world to see …but the act itshelf points toward the spirtural side…which is more important…your physical body as it is now will never inherit the kingdom God…but your new spirtural body will.”

What Apostle taught this about Baptism? Where and when and to whom?

To answer your “if you say you love Jesus,…” This is not the point we were discussing. We were discussing the meaning behind Baptism, not the fact that people get Baptised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top