Catholic Apologetics Guidebook

#2. What does John 3:3 mean to me?

"Except a man be born again, He cannot see the kingdom of God"

That was nice that you quoted the amplified version of that verse. Being born again does mean being born from above. See does mean see, perceive, understand or know. In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says "the kingdom of God is within you". Romans 14:17 says that "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." From these verses, clearly the kingdom of God is not visible to natural eyes. It is spiritual!

Yes, I agree that the kingdom of God is spiritual. But I think that it is also visible; for example see Matthew 5:14.

1) Adam and Eve were created free from sin.
2) They chose to sin, thus separating themselves spiritually from God
3) They had sin in their conscience and could not remove it
4) God immediately institutes animal sacrifices as a means to *cover* (but not remove) their sins, so that some kind of God-man relationship could continue until the perfect offering of Christ (Genesis 3:15).
5) The natural nation of Israel does animal sacrifices to *cover* sins and maintain a relationship with God. They had to kill a new animal each time they sinned. Jesus Christ dies only once for all.
6) Hebrews 10:4 tells us the blood of bulls and goats could never remove sin from the conscience.
7) When Jesus Christ dies on the cross, the veil of the temple is torn in two, signifying that God is forever done with animal sacrifices, now that THE perfect sacrifice is accomplished.

I essentially agree with all of the above. I might explain it in slightly different terms, and we might find some disagreements if we were to get down to nitty-gritty details, but I think that we largely agree on these points.

8) John 3:3 and Titus 3:5 are describing the same thing: spiritual regeneration. Please read Titus 3:5 carefully. It says we are saved by #1 the washing of regeneration - meaning, step one is the conscience that is full of sin must be spiritually washed clean and then #2 renewed by the Holy Ghost.

Exactly! And this is what I believe happens in the sacraments of Baptism (step #1 from your explanation) and Confirmation (step #2 from your explanation).

9) AFTER the vessel (a human) is made clean through salvation, God is then able to baptize that person with the Holy Spirit. It is a separate experience. The Holy Spirit baptism is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit inside the spirit of a human. The Holy Spirit, being both God and holy, will not dwell inside a sinner. This explains why salvation must come first. Many confuse the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation/regeneration with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Well, what you call being "made clean through salvation", I call Baptism. And what you call "baptiz[ing]... with the Holy Spirit", I call Confirmation.

1 Peter 3:21 mentions baptism. It calls it a figure. Figurative language. It compares NT baptism with the OT saving of Noah and his family by the flood waters. The OT was a natural saving. The NT is a spiritual saving.

I would also point out that 1 Peter 3:21 does say that baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you...."

How would naturally washing the outside of the body somehow cleanse the heart/inside of a man?

Well, consider the passage in John, chapter 9, where Jesus restores sight to the blind man. He restores the man's sight by putting mud on his eyes, and then telling him to wash it off. His disciples conceivably could have asked why the mud was necessary in order for Jesus to perform this miracle. And I think the answer is that the mud was *not* strictly necessary, but that it was the means that Jesus chose to use. Likewise, God could have set up some method other than water baptism to wash us clean from our sins, but I firmly believe, based on Scripture, that this is indeed the method he chose. In other words, it is not the water itself that washes away our sins, but rather God's grace which is given along with, and as an effect of, the outward sign of the water.

Right, it doesn't. The Holy Spirit does that AFTER one renounces all sin and then asks Jesus Christ to save him. That's being Born Again.

Well yes, and I would agree that in the case of a new convert to Christianity (someone who has never previously been baptized), this is exactly what should happen before the person is baptized -- they should repent and resolve to sin no more, and ask Christ to save them. I agree with you there, I just don't agree that that by itself constitutes being born again.

So what does the natural water represent? This is as concisely as I can say it: Water baptism is something a new believer *should* (not must) do to show the world that they are dead to the old man and now spiritually alive in Christ. Going under the water represents the death and the coming up represents the new spiritual life one has. It's a physical representation of a spiritual truth. It's an outward symbol that doesn't affect the condition of the heart in any way.

I appreciate your explanation of how you view water baptism. I'm responding as I read, so I hadn't read this far yet, and I was already planning to ask you that exact question. :-)

Romans 6:3-4

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:12

Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

We are buried with Christ, if we are saved/Born Again/born from above/washed by the Spirit and regenerated by the Spirit. Just as He died physically and was raised physically, we die to the dead spiritual man and are raised up a new spiritual man, free from sin. Colossians says we are raised by faith in Christ's resurrection, not by being lifted out of natural water.

Well, I think this demonstrates how two people, using two different traditions as their "lens" for viewing Scripture, can read the same passages in very different ways. When I read these passages I see that they both talk about baptism, and that they both seem to speak of a process of being born again or born anew (though without using that exact phrase). So it seems to me that these passages actually make the case for equating baptism with being born again.

One last thought: John 4:10-15 shows Jesus using a natural situation and a natural well to illustrate a spiritual situation and a spiritual well, just after John 3:3-5.

I don't have much to say on this, but I didn't want to ignore it since I had responded to all your other points. I guess I would just say that baptism has a natural component which represents and brings about a spiritual reality, so I don't see any conflict here with my interpretation of baptism.

And before I address your last point, I guess I just have one question and one comment regarding your beliefs on John 3:3-5:

First, if the word "water" in John 3:5 does not refer to water baptism, then what does it refer to? In other words, if we are to be "born of water and the spirit", as a requirement for entering the kingdom of God, then what is the water if not the water of baptism?

Second, I am by no means an expert on the history of Christian doctrines and beliefs. But I have done some limited reading on this history, and my understanding is that the belief in water baptism as symbolic and not salvific (which I understand to be your belief), originated during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, or possibly even in the early 17th century. So I would ask, do we have evidence that any Christians shared your view of baptism, at any point in history prior to the 16th century? And if, as I suspect (though I could be wrong), we do not see any evidence of this belief prior to the 16th century, then does this mean that the Holy Spirit allowed the church as a whole to be in error on this important point of doctrine for roughly 1,500 years? And finally, how does that conclusion square with John 16:13, about the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth?

I hope this letter finds you doing well. I wrote all I did not in the interest in having some religious debate about dry doctrines. I'm sincerely concerned for your spiritual well being and wish nothing but the best for both you and for God.

Thank you. I absolutely believe that you are very sincere about this, and I very much appreciate your concern.

Paul, Jesus condemned the Pharisees of His day for following the spiritually dead but visually impressive forms handed down by the tradition of men. Likewise, Jesus still condemns all spiritually dead forms that men choose to follow, no matter how long they've been handed down from man to man. Even if the form originally was based on the very Word that Jesus spoke when He was on earth. Just as the form Jesus condemned in the Pharisees was based off of tenets originally given to the nation of Israel by God Himself some 1500 years earlier. God gives grave consequences for adding or subtracting from His Word in both the OT (Deuteronomy ch 4, Proverbs 30:5-6) and the NT (Revelation ch 22).

So if I have read between the lines correctly, you are asserting that the Catholic Church is a spiritually dead form of Christianity which has either added to or subtracted from what is taught in the Scriptures. :-)

Well, there are a lot of different ways that I could answer that claim. In fact, I could sit here for two hours typing a response. But let me try to distill this down to a few specific points, though this will not be a complete or exhaustive response:

Ok, first, Jesus did not condemn all tradition, only corrupt tradition -- at least by my interpretation. Of course, you would probably argue that Catholic tradition is corrupt anyway, so that Jesus's condemnation would still apply. But let's set that question aside for a moment. The point I want to make here is that ALL Christians allow tradition to guide their beliefs to some extent, even those who claim to follow the principle of Sola Scriptura.

For example, why is it that you and I can look at the same Bible passage, and we can each see the plain, obvious meaning of that passage, and yet we are seeing two different meanings? We have seen examples of this phenomenon in this very conversation. I would assert that it is because you and I have learned Christian doctrine based on different traditions of Biblical interpretation. We have each learned how to interpret the Bible, at least on certain passages and topics, from men, who in turn learned these interpretations from other men, etc., etc.

Imagine for a moment that you lived in a completely pagan culture, and that you had never heard of Jesus, or Christianity, or the Bible. Now suppose that someone gave you a copy of the Bible, but told you nothing about what it meant. Then suppose that you read the Bible from cover to cover, multiple times if need be, and you tried to figure out for yourself what it meant, with no outside help. Would you have the exact same understanding of Christianity in this example as the understanding that you actually have today? Or has your real-world understanding of the Bible been influenced, at least in subtle ways, by traditions from outside the Bible, such as I mentioned in the previous paragraph?

So I guess for me, the question is not whether or not I should follow tradition, because I think that following tradition is practically unavoidable. Rather, for me the question is, which tradition is the right one to follow? Which one is indeed not corrupt, and not a "tradition of men"? I choose Catholic tradition, because I have found it to be in complete harmony with the Bible, and also because it is consistent with the tradition of the early church. In other words, I can read the writings of the early church fathers, and see that for the most part, as witnesses to the tradition and beliefs of the very early church, they agree with what the Catholic Church teaches today.

So the bottom line is that I'm Catholic because I believe that Catholic doctrine and tradition has Christ as its ultimate source, and because this is where I believe that Jesus wants me to be.

However, I don't mean to imply that I think that your faith is somehow deficient or inferior. I know, based on what you have shared with me of your own testimony, that you have a very strong relationship with God. And just as I recognize that God can give grace outside of the bounds of the sacraments if He wants to, so I believe that He also can and does give abundant graces outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church. In fact, I strongly admire you and many other non-Catholic Christians for your obvious zeal and devotion to Christ. Of course, just as you might like to lead me out of the Catholic Church, I would likewise like to lead you *into* the Catholic Church. But even if that doesn't happen (and obviously I realize that it's not likely), I am still honored to think of you as a brother in Christ.

Thanks for the conversation, and I look forward to reading any response that you would like to send. However, there's certainly no hurry. I know that I have given you a lot to read. :-)

[We exchanged a few additional e-mails after this, but we did not continue this doctrinal conversation any further.]

Dialogue on the Meaning of John 3:3 – Page 4

My Next Reply, Part 2