Commenting on popular “counters” to the
baptismal regeneration reading of John 3:3-5, one Catholic (Feeneyite) apologist
noted the following:
Many over
the years -both liberal Catholic and Protestant- have denied either the literal
meaning of this verse and/or its all-inclusive meaning, that is, its
universality. So they, by definition of their status, reject the teaching of
Popes and the Church anyway. Therefore we will examine this and a few related
texts of Sacred Scripture.
I should first point out that you should
notice that Christ says we must be "born of water and the Spirit"
immediately following His statement that we must be "born again" or
"born from above." He was thus explaining how this spiritual rebirth
was to come about -by actual water and the Spirit. Nevertheless, some
Protestants, in denying this by ignoring the fact just pointed out, say that
the verse immediately following verse five explains what being "born of
water and the spirit" means. Verse six:
That
which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is
spirit.
They say that "born of water" in
verse five is explained in verse six as meaning "born of the flesh,"
just as "born of... the Holy Spirit" in verse five is the same as
"born of the Spirit" in verse six. They say then that being
"born of water" refers to one's physical birth (amniotic fluid?) and
that only "born of... the Holy Spirit" refers to one's spiritual birth,
or re-birth. There are a number of reasons why this is wrong, and is a mockery
of Christ's solemn words.
First: Verse six can't be explaining
verse five because in verse six the Lord Jesus is contrasting flesh and Spirit
pointing out that they are contrary to one another. Whereas in verse five Jesus
is uniting "water and the Spirit," declaring a union betweeen the
two. This doesn't make sense if verse six was explaining verse five. In verse
six flesh and Spirit are seen as opposed, one is the antithesis to the other.
In verse five water and the Spirit are spoken of in concert with each other.
The word "and" is a conjunction uniting the two, not contrasting
them. So a verse (six) that specifically contrasts two things and sees them in
opposition to each other cannot be explaining a previous verse (five) that
speaks of similar things not at all opposed, but as united and conjoined.
This truth is further buttressed by the
fact that elsewhere in St. John's Gospel water is NEVER contrasted with the
Spirit and the spiritual life. On the contrary, the two are in unison (see Jn.
4:14; 7:38-39). God did not inspire His authors to employ usages which are
contradictory.
Second: As just pointed out, when the
Lord Jesus declared that, to enter the kingdom of God we must be "born of
water and the Spirit," He was in fact explaining how one must be born
again in order to enter the kingdom of God. Christ was answering Nicodemus'
question of how one can be born a second time by saying one must be born of
BOTH "water and the Spirit." In other words, our SECOND birth is
"OF WATER and the SPIRIT." This is the obvious and plain sense of
these verses. Any other meaning is a clear exercise in grammatical and logical
gymnastics which will have you landing on your face.
Third: If the word "water" of
verse five means simply our natural/fleshly birth (amniotic fluid?) why would
the Lord Jesus immediately after His discourse go and have His apostles baptize
with water? Why would He try to demonstrate our natural birth, which everyone
already knows about, and not demonstrate our spiritual re-birth, since this was
the very point and focus of the Lord's teaching (see 3:7). Did Jesus suddenly
become a biology teacher and not a teacher of heavenly and salvific truths? In
explaining how one is to have a second birth it is so obvious that one must
have a first birth before their second birth that the mere mentioning of it is
idiotic. (Surely Christ was not attempting to instruct someone who had not yet
been born!)
Fourth: If water was meant
metaphorically then "Spirit" should also be meant metaphorically.
This is so because Christ never used a symbolic term in conjunction with a
literal term in the same sentence, especially where the two are used as a union
as in this case. This would be terribly misleading in either modern English
idiom or in the Hebraic idiom of the first century. Also, how could the word
"Spirit" be used to stand for something other than Spirit? The Lord
Jesus always meant the word "Spirit" literally. And if He didn't mean
"water" literally but only metaphorically, why did the Lord
immediately go to real, literal (!), water and have His disciples baptize with
that literal water? In fact, God reveals in Jn.3:23 that the two -water and
baptism- are identified together. None of this would make sense unless the Lord
Jesus meant "of water" to mean actual water and that this was in
reference to baptism (as is made clear in Jn.3:23).
The actions of the Lord Jesus
immediately following His conversation with Nicodemus demonstrate that He meant
"water" literally; for He and the apostles then proceeded to baptize
with water (see Jn.3:22-23, 26). An action by Christ immediately after a
teaching demonstrates what He meant by His teaching. Water, then, was meant
literally, and is a reference to baptism. If this is not the case, then, His
actions immediately following this teaching were terribly misleading and
self-contradictory -a blasphemous option. (Adam S. Miller, Watering Down Water)
For more on John 3 and the salvific
efficacy of water baptism, see: