Regeneration and Baptism

[asd72]

A fundamentalist Christian has asked how to explain the fact he has been ‘regenerated’ outside of baptism. He says he was ‘born again’ 3 years ago although he had been baptized at 16 and a lukewarm Christian for 20 years before this ‘born again’ experience.

I don’ t how to explain it, what would you call his experience?

This was after discussing the Catholic understanding of being born again as referring to the sacrament of Baptism.

Help!

 

[DavidFilmer]

A fundamentalist Christian has asked how to explain the fact he has been ‘regenerated’ outside of baptism. He says he was ‘born again’ 3 years ago although he had been baptized at 16 and a lukewarm Christian for 20 years before this ‘born again’ experience.

I don’ t how to explain it, what would you call his experience?

This was after discussing the Catholic understanding of being born again as referring to the sacrament of Baptism.

Baptism has everything to do with our soul, but nothing to do with our intellect or will.

How does he KNOW that he has been “‘regenerated’ outside of baptism?” Can he cite any Biblical authority for this non-Baptismal “regeneration?”

 

[excubitor]

A fundamentalist Christian has asked how to explain the fact he has been ‘regenerated’ outside of baptism. He says he was ‘born again’ 3 years ago although he had been baptized at 16 and a lukewarm Christian for 20 years before this ‘born again’ experience.

I don’ t how to explain it, what would you call his experience?

This was after discussing the Catholic understanding of being born again as referring to the sacrament of Baptism.

Help!

The scripture is very clear.

John 3:Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

As the previous poster correctly pointed out the fundamentalist is pointing to his own emotional experience as evidence of rebirth. This is contrary to the scripture which clearly shows that rebirth is an action of both water and spirit. The most obvious interpretation of this is the action of the Holy Spirit which brings about rebirth of baptism.

Physical birth is analogous of our spiritual rebirth. In our physical birth the spirit enters the fertilised egg and the egg grows as an embryo in the waters of the womb. In great travail the woman brings forth the new creation into the world. She then suckles the child and raises him/her to maturity.

Likewise our spiritual fathers in the church beget us with the spirit of God. We grow in the womb of the church as catechumens and emerge as new creatures through the breaking of the water of baptism. Our mother is the church who suckles us with the milk of the word and raises us into the maturity of the faith. There are endless inferences to this analogy throughout the New Testament which makes an excellent study.

However we must also ask whether his original baptism was valid. When I converted to the church it became apparent that a large proportion of modern “baptisms” are not valid because they do not intend to do as the church does. This is all quite technical. Suffice it to say that it is an open question as to whether the fundamentalist is born again at all, either by his questionable baptism or by his emotional experience.

However his commitment to God which he expressed is virtuous. Explain to him how this commitment is evidence that the Spirit of God is drawing him towards the fullness of Grace and Truth which can only be found in the one holy apostolic catholic church.

 

[Todd_Easton]

St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 69, Articles 9 and 10) said that sometimes when people receive the sacrament of baptism they do not receive all the effects of the sacrament because of their insincerity but that when their insincerity is removed they then receive all the effects.

It is possible that your friend’s insincerity prevented him from receiving all the effects of his sacramental baptism until his insincerity was removed three years ago.

 

[Barbkw]

Ask him if he’d like to experience that feeling once each day. Then explain the Sacrament of (daily) Eucharist and the Sacrament of Reconciliation to him.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It is possible that your friend’s insincerity prevented him from receiving all the effects of his sacramental baptism until his insincerity was removed three years ago.

I strongly echo this sentiment.

I would also point out

CCC#1257 God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

So (although this may well not apply to your friend) God can grant His grace to whomever or wherever He wishes under whatever conditions He wishes. Your friend’s story is ultimately no barrier to Catholicism even if he were 100% right.

 

[chypmonk]

I strongly echo this sentiment.

I would also point out

CCC#1257 God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

So (although this may well not apply to your friend) God can grant His grace to whomever or wherever He wishes under whatever conditions He wishes. Your friend’s story is ultimately no barrier to Catholicism even if he were 100% right.

So are you saying that Jesus too is not necessary? I mean God is not bond to save us only through Jesus Christ he can save us just by an act of His will, so Jesus being an instrumental cause of grace is not necessary? Just like Baptism? The words of our Lord have always been taken literally by council after council:
John 3:Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Why is there no exceptions made by our Lord right here where he states it with no exceptions?
Vatican I in a profession of faith says the sacraments are necessary for salvation but one does not need all, meaning at least one-- Baptism, otherwise they wouldn’t be necessary :

Vatican I, SESSION 2 : 6 January 1870, profession of Faith #4—
“I profess also that
there are seven sacraments of the new law,
truly and properly so called,
instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and
necessary for salvation,
though each person need not receive them all.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

So are you saying that Jesus too is not necessary? I mean God is not bond to save us only through Jesus Christ he can save us just by an act of His will, so Jesus being an instrumental cause of grace is not necessary? Just like Baptism? The words of our Lord have always been taken literally by council after council:
John 3:Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Why is there no exceptions made by our Lord right here where he states it with no exceptions?
Vatican I in a profession of faith says the sacraments are necessary for salvation but one does not need all, meaning at least one-- Baptism, otherwise they wouldn’t be necessary :

Vatican I, SESSION 2 : 6 January 1870, profession of Faith #4—
“I profess also that
there are seven sacraments of the new law,
truly and properly so called,
instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and
necessary for salvation,
though each person need not receive them all.”

You are correct baptism is necessary for salvation. It doesn’t mean God cannot confer the grace normally conferred in baptism in ways known only to Him. That’s what the Catechism says.

 

[asd72]

Thank you everyone for your help.

 

[1ke]

A fundamentalist Christian has asked how to explain the fact he has been ‘regenerated’ outside of baptism. He says he was ‘born again’ 3 years ago although he had been baptized at 16 and a lukewarm Christian for 20 years before this ‘born again’ experience.

He wasn’t.

He was washed of original sin and received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at baptism.

His conversion of heart 20 years later was the work of the Holy Spirit and the cooperation of his free will which had its genesis at his baptism.

 

[asd72]

How does ‘baptism of the spirit’ in relation to charismatic Christianity fit into this?

I have never spoken in tongues, but it seems to happen in both Protestantism and Catholism.

How does this tie in with the water spirit baptism sacrament?

 

[cooterhein]

How does he KNOW that he has been “‘regenerated’ outside of baptism?”

The general idea is that you p(name removed by moderator)oint the date of regeneration based on when you’re regenerated. If that date happens to be a couple of years before or a half-dozen years after the date of your baptism, that’s how it is.

This individual knows (KNOWS, if you like) that he was regenerated at a particular time because that’s when God did it. If I may ask, how do you KNOW when you were baptized, David? (And what’s your initial response when questioned in this mann…you know what, that’s a separate issue).

The obvious answer is this: You know you were baptized on a particular date because that’s when you were baptized. Likewise, this person knows he was regenerated on a particular day because that’s the day on which he was regenerated. Apparently, it wasn’t the same day as his baptism.

If you must know “what this is based on,” it’s based on something called (broadly speaking) “what happened.” Speaking a bit less broadly, it’s based on “what God did” and “when God did it.”

It’s not any more complicated that that.

Can he cite any Biblical authority for this non-Baptismal “regeneration?”

There’s about seven different passages that include details pertaining to a person’s baptism as well as their regeneration. A couple of them indicate regeneration right around the time of baptism, but the rest of them indicate some other kind of timing.

If you were regenerated right around the time when you were baptized, good for you. God can time it out that way. But you shouldn’t indicate a certain date as the time of your regeneration based solely on when you were supposed to be regenerated. It should be based on when you were actually regenerated. So if you were actually regenerated on the day that you were baptized and you base this on something that God actually did at this time, congratulations. That’s great. The important thing is that it happened. The timing…not as much an issue.

 

[Pax]

A fundamentalist Christian has asked how to explain the fact he has been ‘regenerated’ outside of baptism. He says he was ‘born again’ 3 years ago although he had been baptized at 16 and a lukewarm Christian for 20 years before this ‘born again’ experience.

I don’ t how to explain it, what would you call his experience?

This was after discussing the Catholic understanding of being born again as referring to the sacrament of Baptism.

Help!

I was baptized as an infant and always deeply rooted in the faith. I, nevertheless, had a streak of rebellion within me. About 15 years ago I had an experience that is perhaps congruent with that of your fundamentalist friend. I was not born again, for that had already happened to me at baptism. I, instead, experienced a “second conversion of heart.”