What is the New Birth?
“Most assuredly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
When we come to look at the nature of the New Birth we arrive at another controversial portion of our text. The words, ‘born of water and the Spirit’ have been, and still are, a battleground of interpretation. The main question is this; what, if anything, has the expression to do with baptism? The Church of Rome, along with ‘High Church’ Anglicans and others, believe that our Lord is saying in effect to Nicodemus, “Unless you are prepared to submit to Christian baptism, you will never experience spiritual rebirth”. The reformed section of the Protestant Church has usually opposed this view (1), but recently, a section of the American Presbyterian church known as Federal Vision, and also certain leaders of the Charismatic movement (2) seem to have returned to it.
To the Roman Catholic, regeneration is effected ex opere operato by the sacrament of Baptism. Once baptized, even as a tiny baby, one is regarded by the Church of Rome as having been born again. This state can be lost by the committing of ‘mortal sins’, which may then be expiated by the sacraments of Confession and Penance. The Anglican Church appears to be divided on this issue. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer has the Minister saying, after baptizing an infant; “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto Him that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning”. These words, taken by themselves, surely indicate that Anglicans not only believe in Baptismal Regeneration, but also that it can be lost through sin. However, reformed Anglicans have never been of this opinion. Bishop J. C. Ryle, in his Expository Thoughts on John (vol. 1; Banner of Truth 1987), gives a great deal of space to showing that the phrase Water and Spirit does not refer to baptism.
Reformed Presbyterians and Episcopalians believe in infant baptism, but see it as a New Covenant sign equivalent to circumcision in the Old Testament. They believe that the children of believers are members of God’s covenant and should therefore receive the covenant sign. They do not baptize a baby in order to save it, nor on the assumption that it is saved by having Christian parents, but rather to bring it into the Christian family. They note that when Lydia and the Philippian jailer were baptized, their households were baptized with them (Acts 16:14-15, 31-33), though of course it by no means necessarily follows that their households included infant children. This is a far more respectable view than the Church of Rome’s position, but I do not believe that it is correct. According to Jeremiah 31:31ff, the New Covenant was to be different from the Old. Specifically, everyone in the New Covenant would know the Lord (v34). Therefore the baptism of infants is not appropriate as a covenant sign as babies cannot exercise faith in the Lord Jesus.
There is another view that many Episcopalians and Presbyterians hold; that of Presumptive Regeneration. They presume that the children of Christian parents are regenerate from birth and that therefore they should treated as such by receiving Christian baptism (3). To me, this is absolutely wretched and scarcely better than the Roman Catholic position. I shall write (DV) a critique of this position as part of this series.
Reformed Baptists believe that only those who profess repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are suitable candidates for baptism and this obviously excludes infants. However, they do not suppose that baptism by itself brings about the New Birth. Rather it is, ‘To the person who is baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12); of remission of sins; and of that person’s giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life’ (1689 Baptist Confession of Faith 29:1). In other words it is an outward sign of something which has already happened inwardly; a public statement, both by the party baptized and by his church that God has given him New Birth; that he has died to his old self and risen again a new creation in Christ Jesus. Now it happened, even in New Testament times that mistakes were made and unregenerate people were baptized (cf. Simon Magus in Acts 8), but since baptism is only the sign of the New Birth, and not the New Birth itself, it has no effect in itself upon the one who is baptized.
There are two main reasons why I do not believe that the phrase Water and Spirit can refer to baptism, and why I support the Reformed Baptist position given above. Firstly, if baptism is intended by this phrase then that ordinance is absolutely necessary for salvation. ‘Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’. On that basis, the thief on the cross is damned; likewise such groups as the Quakers and the Salvation Army, who do not practise water baptism, are, every single one of them, utterly lost. Yet there is no other Bible text that teaches this. On the contrary, two verses (1Peter 1:23; James 1:18) ascribe the New Birth not to baptism, but to the Word. Moreover Paul (1Cor. 1:17) wrote that, ‘Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel’, a strange thing to say if baptism is so very necessary to salvation.
Secondly, I cannot believe that our Lord would be reinforcing what is the chief error of Pharisaism; the idea that outward purification can bring about inward cleansing. As we have seen, Pharisees like Nicodemus spent all their time in ritual washings and cleansings. Is it really likely that the Lord Jesus would be saying to him, “What you need, Nicodemus, more than anything else, is another ritual washing”? If that was our Lord’s meaning, then why was Nicodemus so dumbfounded by it? More ceremonial, outward cleansings would have been right up his street, water off a duck’s back in more ways than one! No, Nicodemus’ problem was not on the outside but the inside. “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness” Mark 7:21f). Can an external washing purify a man from inward sin and depravity? Of course not! “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. …….. For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matt. 23:25ff). In the Shakespeare play, Lady Macbeth cries out, “Will these hands ne’er be cleansed?” No matter how many times she washed them, the blood of her sin still seemed to stain her hands. No outward washing could make her inwardly clean. The cleansing she needed would have had to deal with her guilt within.
“Most assuredly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
When we come to look at the nature of the New Birth we arrive at another controversial portion of our text. The words, ‘born of water and the Spirit’ have been, and still are, a battleground of interpretation. The main question is this; what, if anything, has the expression to do with baptism? The Church of Rome, along with ‘High Church’ Anglicans and others, believe that our Lord is saying in effect to Nicodemus, “Unless you are prepared to submit to Christian baptism, you will never experience spiritual rebirth”. The reformed section of the Protestant Church has usually opposed this view (1), but recently, a section of the American Presbyterian church known as Federal Vision, and also certain leaders of the Charismatic movement (2) seem to have returned to it.
To the Roman Catholic, regeneration is effected ex opere operato by the sacrament of Baptism. Once baptized, even as a tiny baby, one is regarded by the Church of Rome as having been born again. This state can be lost by the committing of ‘mortal sins’, which may then be expiated by the sacraments of Confession and Penance. The Anglican Church appears to be divided on this issue. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer has the Minister saying, after baptizing an infant; “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto Him that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning”. These words, taken by themselves, surely indicate that Anglicans not only believe in Baptismal Regeneration, but also that it can be lost through sin. However, reformed Anglicans have never been of this opinion. Bishop J. C. Ryle, in his Expository Thoughts on John (vol. 1; Banner of Truth 1987), gives a great deal of space to showing that the phrase Water and Spirit does not refer to baptism.
Reformed Presbyterians and Episcopalians believe in infant baptism, but see it as a New Covenant sign equivalent to circumcision in the Old Testament. They believe that the children of believers are members of God’s covenant and should therefore receive the covenant sign. They do not baptize a baby in order to save it, nor on the assumption that it is saved by having Christian parents, but rather to bring it into the Christian family. They note that when Lydia and the Philippian jailer were baptized, their households were baptized with them (Acts 16:14-15, 31-33), though of course it by no means necessarily follows that their households included infant children. This is a far more respectable view than the Church of Rome’s position, but I do not believe that it is correct. According to Jeremiah 31:31ff, the New Covenant was to be different from the Old. Specifically, everyone in the New Covenant would know the Lord (v34). Therefore the baptism of infants is not appropriate as a covenant sign as babies cannot exercise faith in the Lord Jesus.
There is another view that many Episcopalians and Presbyterians hold; that of Presumptive Regeneration. They presume that the children of Christian parents are regenerate from birth and that therefore they should treated as such by receiving Christian baptism (3). To me, this is absolutely wretched and scarcely better than the Roman Catholic position. I shall write (DV) a critique of this position as part of this series.
Reformed Baptists believe that only those who profess repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are suitable candidates for baptism and this obviously excludes infants. However, they do not suppose that baptism by itself brings about the New Birth. Rather it is, ‘To the person who is baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12); of remission of sins; and of that person’s giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life’ (1689 Baptist Confession of Faith 29:1). In other words it is an outward sign of something which has already happened inwardly; a public statement, both by the party baptized and by his church that God has given him New Birth; that he has died to his old self and risen again a new creation in Christ Jesus. Now it happened, even in New Testament times that mistakes were made and unregenerate people were baptized (cf. Simon Magus in Acts 8), but since baptism is only the sign of the New Birth, and not the New Birth itself, it has no effect in itself upon the one who is baptized.
There are two main reasons why I do not believe that the phrase Water and Spirit can refer to baptism, and why I support the Reformed Baptist position given above. Firstly, if baptism is intended by this phrase then that ordinance is absolutely necessary for salvation. ‘Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’. On that basis, the thief on the cross is damned; likewise such groups as the Quakers and the Salvation Army, who do not practise water baptism, are, every single one of them, utterly lost. Yet there is no other Bible text that teaches this. On the contrary, two verses (1Peter 1:23; James 1:18) ascribe the New Birth not to baptism, but to the Word. Moreover Paul (1Cor. 1:17) wrote that, ‘Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel’, a strange thing to say if baptism is so very necessary to salvation.
Secondly, I cannot believe that our Lord would be reinforcing what is the chief error of Pharisaism; the idea that outward purification can bring about inward cleansing. As we have seen, Pharisees like Nicodemus spent all their time in ritual washings and cleansings. Is it really likely that the Lord Jesus would be saying to him, “What you need, Nicodemus, more than anything else, is another ritual washing”? If that was our Lord’s meaning, then why was Nicodemus so dumbfounded by it? More ceremonial, outward cleansings would have been right up his street, water off a duck’s back in more ways than one! No, Nicodemus’ problem was not on the outside but the inside. “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness” Mark 7:21f). Can an external washing purify a man from inward sin and depravity? Of course not! “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. …….. For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matt. 23:25ff). In the Shakespeare play, Lady Macbeth cries out, “Will these hands ne’er be cleansed?” No matter how many times she washed them, the blood of her sin still seemed to stain her hands. No outward washing could make her inwardly clean. The cleansing she needed would have had to deal with her guilt within.
