John 3: 3-7 born again experience v.s. baptism

[kepha1]

The following remark was taken from a question and answer message board where only one answer is permitted.

Find me a catholic who can correctly interpret JOHN 3:3-7 and you might make your point. I have yet to find even one catholic who could correctly reveal the meaning of this part of scripture which is the cornerstone of the faith.

If the catholics can’t get the foundation correct, if they cannot preceive or understand the milk of the Word, how much more incorrect or corrupt is the meat of their doctrines.

The Catholic Church rejoices when people discover Jesus. There should be no condemnation from Catholics when people’s lives change for the better. Accepting Jesus as personal savior can be a dynamic and/or experience. As valid as all this is, the born-again experience, according to scripture, is consummated by water. This does not negate in any way the validity of that born again experience. I have demonstrated that (A) “the born again experience” and (B) “born again” are not opposed to each other.

A predestines a person to B. I think us Catholics make a mistake when defending baptism by negating a persons heart felt experience. It’s contrary to the Church’s statement on Religious Liberty.

Where Catholics differ from born-again Christians is that a Catholic might think A is the first step of making a formal act of faith, not a step all it’s own. A is the beginning of a journey, not the arrival. Regarding baptism, in all of scripture and in all the Christian writings in the 1st 3 centuries of the Church, nowhere is water separated from spirit. That would be a denial of the sacramental principle. (<click here for more information)

“physical matter cannot convey grace” is a Gnostic principle going back to the Apostolic Age. But I digress. John 3:13 looks quite familiar, and I am not sure why Jesus is alluding the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. “…come down from heaven” in the middle of His discourse on Baptism.

Peter C

 

[BRB]

The following remark was taken from a question and answer message board where only one answer is permitted.

The Catholic Church rejoices when people discover Jesus. There should be no condemnation from Catholics when people’s lives change for the better. Accepting Jesus as personal savior can be a dynamic and/or experience. As valid as all this is, the born-again experience, according to scripture, is consummated by water. This does not negate in any way the validity of that born again experience. I have demonstrated that (A) “the born again experience” and (B) “born again” are not opposed to each other.

A predestines a person to B. I think us Catholics make a mistake when defending baptism by negating a persons heart felt experience. It’s contrary to the Church’s statement on Religious Liberty.

Where Catholics differ from born-again Christians is that a Catholic might think A is the first step of making a formal act of faith, not a step all it’s own. A is the beginning of a journey, not the arrival. Regarding baptism, in all of scripture and in all the Christian writings in the 1st 3 centuries of the Church, nowhere is water separated from spirit. That would be a denial of the sacramental principle. (<click here for more information)

“physical matter cannot convey grace” is a Gnostic principle going back to the Apostolic Age. But I digress. John 3:13 looks quite familiar, and I am not sure why Jesus is alluding the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. “…come down from heaven” in the middle of His discourse on Baptism.

Peter C

Protestants will say that Jesus is talking of water birth via amniotic fluid. Clearly this is what Nicodemus believed Jesus to be talking about. And, Jesus in verse 6 seems to confirm Nicodemus’s interpretation when he responded “that which is born of flesh is flesh”.

Now, Catholics will say Jesus meant the water to mean Baptism. However, Jesus in his answer to Nicodemus doesn’t support this conclusion.

I’m not saying that Baptism isn’t necessary … I’m just saying that I don’t think Catholics can support water baptism from the answer Jesus gave Nicodemus.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think us Catholics make a mistake when defending baptism by negating a persons heart felt experience.

I think what those Catholics, at least me, mean when we hesitate at “emotional” responses is that they cannot be used as conclusive of faith. As Cardinal John Henry Newman (soon to be declared Blessed ) said:
*Such emotion, however, is not the essence of true faith, though it accidentally accompanies it.*Feelings are not foundational. See also: Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. …but they may accompany true faith. Mother Theresa said she felt distant from Jesus almost all the time, yet her faith did not rest on some heartfelt emotion.

 

[BRB]

I Mother Theresa said she felt distant from Jesus almost all the time, yet her faith did not rest on some heartfelt emotion.

That seems weird to say ! One would think she would of felt very close to Jesus … most of the time.

 

[MarcoPolo]

That seems weird to say ! One would think she would of felt very close to Jesus … most of the time.

While I have not read her spiritual letters, I understand that to be the case with Mother Theresa. I believe St. John of the Cross is similar. I find this to be an amazing testament to both of their faiths. They were still able to recognize Jesus through the suffering of emptiness.

 

[ERose]

Protestants will say that Jesus is talking of water birth via amniotic fluid. Clearly this is what Nicodemus believed Jesus to be talking about. And, Jesus in verse 6 seems to confirm Nicodemus’s interpretation when he responded “that which is born of flesh is flesh”.

Now, Catholics will say Jesus meant the water to mean Baptism. However, Jesus in his answer to Nicodemus doesn’t support this conclusion.

I’m not saying that Baptism isn’t necessary … I’m just saying that I don’t think Catholics can support water baptism from the answer Jesus gave Nicodemus.

The key word in this passage that makes this a discussion concerning baptism is “reborn”. Unless someone is reborn in water and spirit he is not able to enter the kingdom of heaven. So in my opinion this conclusion is supported.

 

[SyCarl]

Protestants will say that Jesus is talking of water birth via amniotic fluid. Clearly this is what Nicodemus believed Jesus to be talking about. And, Jesus in verse 6 seems to confirm Nicodemus’s interpretation when he responded “that which is born of flesh is flesh”.

Now, Catholics will say Jesus meant the water to mean Baptism. However, Jesus in his answer to Nicodemus doesn’t support this conclusion.

I’m not saying that Baptism isn’t necessary … I’m just saying that I don’t think Catholics can support water baptism from the answer Jesus gave Nicodemus.

I tend to agree with your view that baptism is not being dealt with here. In verse 10, Jesus chides Nicodemus for not understanding what he is talking about. He expects that a teacher of the Jews would know yet Christian baptism had not been introduced yet. Also likening not knowing where the wind comes from or goes to with the action of the Holy Spirit would seem to rule out baptism. If the Holy Spirit is given at baptism why would introduce not knowing where the Spirit acts since it would act on the one being baptized.

I think that Jesus is referring to Ezekiel, which He would expect Nicodemus to know.

"For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. "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. "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. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
(Ezekiel 36:24-27 NASB)

He is referring to the 2 actions of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. The first is washing away sins. The Spirit is often likened to water. The second is giving us a new spirit that wants to please God. He is basically saying that spiritual rebirth is required and acts the same in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

 

[savedsinner]

I am just curious.

How did the early church fathers interpret this passage?

I have seen the CA library on born again, and it seems that all of the fathers agreed that born again meant baptism, but are there a lot of the fathers that didn’t tie born again with baptism?

The born again tract states “No Church Father referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism.”
If this is true then why would anyone try to say that it doesn’t have to do anything with baptism?

 

[ERose]

I tend to agree with your view that baptism is not being dealt with here. In verse 10, Jesus chides Nicodemus for not understanding what he is talking about. He expects that a teacher of the Jews would know yet Christian baptism had not been introduced yet. Also likening not knowing where the wind comes from or goes to with the action of the Holy Spirit would seem to rule out baptism. If the Holy Spirit is given at baptism why would introduce not knowing where the Spirit acts since it would act on the one being baptized.

I think that Jesus is referring to Ezekiel, which He would expect Nicodemus to know.

He is referring to the 2 actions of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. The first is washing away sins. The Spirit is often likened to water. The second is giving us a new spirit that wants to please God. He is basically saying that spiritual rebirth is required and acts the same in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

I disagree. These passages do apply toward Baptism. The key word or words depending on the translation that you use is “reborn” or “born again”. These means that the water statement does not apply to natural birth, but rather the only sacrament that requires water and symbolizes rebirth, Baptism.

Concerning Ezekiel, you are correct he is referring to Regeneration by the Holy Spirit and the Washing Away of Sins which occurs in the sacrament of Baptism. Ezekiel is writing a prophecy concerning Baptism and its use in the New Covenant.

 

[ERose]

I am just curious.

How did the early church fathers interpret this passage?

I have seen the CA library on born again, and it seems that all of the fathers agreed that born again meant baptism, but are there a lot of the fathers that didn’t tie born again with baptism?

The born again tract states “No Church Father referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism.”
If this is true then why would anyone try to say that it doesn’t have to do anything with baptism?

I have no doubt that the Fathers interpreted these passages as discussion of Baptism. I do not have any references except for what the Church teaches now which is heavily impacted by the Fathers’ teachings.

Many Evangelicals and Protestants do not want to accept the true nature of Baptism for they have replaced it with the Altar Call where people come up to confess that Jesus is their personal Lord and Savior. For many Denominations of Evangelicals and Protestants is is the point that they are reborn. Baptism is just a ritual that offers a public testamony of what has already happened at Altar Call.

These Passages can only refer to Baptism if taken literally. Unless you are born again or reborn of Water and the Holy Spirit you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That is Baptism.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not saying that Baptism isn’t necessary … I’m just saying that I don’t think Catholics can support water baptism from the answer Jesus gave Nicodemus.

I agree. Clearly the passage is ambiguous enough to be interpreted differently. However, Catholics don’t derive doctrine from one scripture passage, or even a handful of them. Catholic doctrine comes from Jesus, through the Apostles. We support the doctrine of baptism with Divine Revelation, which we find both in this Apostolic Teaching (Sacred Tradition) and Sacred Scripture.

We also look at all the passages together, in this case those referring to baptism, and the writings of the early church, since they heard the Apostles directly and are in a better position to interpret what they said and wrote than we are.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

The following remark was taken from a question and answer message board where only one answer is permitted.

The Catholic Church rejoices when people discover Jesus. There should be no condemnation from Catholics when people’s lives change for the better. Accepting Jesus as personal savior can be a dynamic and/or experience. As valid as all this is, the born-again experience, according to scripture, is consummated by water. This does not negate in any way the validity of that born again experience. I have demonstrated that (A) “the born again experience” and (B) “born again” are not opposed to each other.

A predestines a person to B. I think us Catholics make a mistake when defending baptism by negating a persons heart felt experience. It’s contrary to the Church’s statement on Religious Liberty.

Where Catholics differ from born-again Christians is that a Catholic might think A is the first step of making a formal act of faith, not a step all it’s own. A is the beginning of a journey, not the arrival. Regarding baptism, in all of scripture and in all the Christian writings in the 1st 3 centuries of the Church, nowhere is water separated from spirit. That would be a denial of the sacramental principle. (<click here for more information)

“physical matter cannot convey grace” is a Gnostic principle going back to the Apostolic Age. But I digress. John 3:13 looks quite familiar, and I am not sure why Jesus is alluding the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. “…come down from heaven” in the middle of His discourse on Baptism.

Peter C

The interpretation is thus: Unless you are born of the water (Jesus Name Baptism), and of the Spirit (Infilling of the Holy Spirit), you will not see the kingdom of Heaven. See Acts 2:38 and the rest of the New Testament.

Hence “born again” of the Spirit. See the book of Romans chapter 8.

 

[guanophore]

I tend to agree with your view that baptism is not being dealt with here. In verse 10, Jesus chides Nicodemus for not understanding what he is talking about. He expects that a teacher of the Jews would know yet Christian baptism had not been introduced yet. Also likening not knowing where the wind comes from or goes to with the action of the Holy Spirit would seem to rule out baptism. If the Holy Spirit is given at baptism why would introduce not knowing where the Spirit acts since it would act on the one being baptized.

I don’t think we can say this. Jesus taught His Apostles to baptize, and there is no mention of the form that was used. We can speculate that one is baptized “in the name of Jesus” prior to the coming of the HS. However, it is clear that the HS was fused with water baptism when Jesus HImself entered the water.

I think that Jesus is referring to Ezekiel, which He would expect Nicodemus to know.

He is referring to the 2 actions of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. The first is washing away sins. The Spirit is often likened to water. The second is giving us a new spirit that wants to please God. He is basically saying that spiritual rebirth is required and acts the same in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Yes, but in all these reference, water is present.

 

[ziapueblo]

The interpretation is thus: Unless you are born of the water (Jesus Name Baptism), and of the Spirit (Infilling of the Holy Spirit), you will not see the kingdom of Heaven. See Acts 2:38 and the rest of the New Testament.

Hence “born again” of the Spirit. See the book of Romans chapter 8.

How do you explain the Gospel of St. Matthew 28:19, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

 

[BRB]

I tend to agree with your view that baptism is not being dealt with here. In verse 10, Jesus chides Nicodemus for not understanding what he is talking about. He expects that a teacher of the Jews would know yet Christian baptism had not been introduced yet. Also likening not knowing where the wind comes from or goes to with the action of the Holy Spirit would seem to rule out baptism. If the Holy Spirit is given at baptism why would introduce not knowing where the Spirit acts since it would act on the one being baptized.

I think that Jesus is referring to Ezekiel, which He would expect Nicodemus to know.

He is referring to the 2 actions of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. The first is washing away sins. The Spirit is often likened to water. The second is giving us a new spirit that wants to please God. He is basically saying that spiritual rebirth is required and acts the same in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Good ideas … on OT Ezekiel verses.

Except, giving us a heart of flesh [rather than stone] … also seems at odds with what Jesus was saying. Jesus seems to be saying that flesh is earthly … spirit is heavenly. We must be reborn of spirit to reach new Kingdom.

Now, is Baptism key in this process ? Clearly our water births as newborn infant is not.

 

[BRB]

The interpretation is thus: Unless you are born of the water (Jesus Name Baptism), and of the Spirit (Infilling of the Holy Spirit), you will not see the kingdom of Heaven. See Acts 2:38 and the rest of the New Testament.

Hence “born again” of the Spirit. See the book of Romans chapter 8.

Is the order important ? Can a new believer receive H.S. via rebirth first … and then later be Baptized in water ?

Reason I ask ---- at Pentecost, those Jews who accepted Jesus as Lord received H.S. FIRST !!!

Perhaps we can infer they were BAPTIZED by H.S. … and had both steps at same time !!!

 

[Rulkiewicz]

How do you explain the Gospel of St. Matthew 28:19, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

All of Jesus’ desciples were around when Matthew 28:19 was stated by Jesus. However, not one person rebuked Peter for telling the multitude in Acts 2:38 to be baptised in Jesus name. Either Peter was wrong, or he understood the power of the name. Again, see Acts 4:12 “there is one name under heaven whereby we must be saved” Brothers and Sister in Christ, that name is Jesus.

There is also some information on the actual text being changed:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”

“The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.

I have read this, I have not confirmed it yet: but Eusebius quoted Matthew 28:19 over 20 times (before the Council of Nicaea 325AD) without any mention of 3 titles (Father, Son, Holy Ghost/Spirit) just simply “in my name”.

With Blessings,
Justin

 

[ziapueblo]

Hence “born again” of the Spirit. See the book of Romans chapter 8.

Many passages in the New Testament that have to do with baptism talk about ones sin being washed away or being cleansed. Does this not mean water and spirit?

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Is the order important ? Can a new believer receive H.S. via rebirth first … and then later be Baptized in water ?

Reason I ask ---- at Pentecost, those Jews who accepted Jesus as Lord received H.S. FIRST !!!

Perhaps we can infer they were BAPTIZED by H.S. … and had both steps at same time !!!

I don’t think the order is important. In the New Testament, it went both ways, some times they we’re baptised first, then received the Holy Spirit, and in another instance, others received the Holy Spirit first, then they were bapsited in water.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Many passages in the New Testament that have to do with baptism talk about ones sin being washed away or being cleansed. Does this not mean water and spirit?

Jesus died for the remission of our sins. And we are buried with Him in Water baptism. Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12.

That’s why the biblical mode of baptism is submergion. The Greek for baptize is “baptizo”, to submerge (bury, fully immerse). However, katacheō or kerannumi means to pour.

Jesus came “straightway out of the water” He was submerged, as were the rest of the biblical baptisms.