Born Again

Being “born again” is a phrase that is thrown around a lot among Christians, especially non-Catholic Christians. Non-Catholic Christians think of being “born again” as this amazing spiritual experience that allows you to see the kingdom of God, and guess what… it totally is! Catholic Christians agree with non-Catholics 100% on this. Guess what else… it’s baptism!

A majority of Christians, including all Catholic Christians and a percentage of non-Catholic Christians, believe that “born again” is “baptism”, and they have believed this since the beginning of Christ’s Church. It has only been recently that a minority of Christians are trying to lessen “baptism” and elevate “born again”, which is the equivalent to lessening “Keanu Reeves” and elevating “the guy who played Neo in the Matrix” (fyi: the guy who played Neo in the Matrix is Keanu Reeves). The two are the same and they cannot be separated, so trying to raise one above the other is impossible. So why do some try to divide them?

Why Divide?

Some Christians go their entire lives being told what “born again” means, instead of being shown what the Bible teaches that “born again” means. They build up this amazing spiritual experience which they attribute to “born again”, which is completely fine, because “baptism” is both a spiritual and physical experience (as we will see the Bible explain in this article). The problem, however, is that they are only taught that “baptism” is a physical experience. When they are not shown that the Bible teaches “baptism” to be a physical and spiritual experience, they begin to think that saying “born again” is “baptism” will remove the entire spiritual aspect of the experience, when instead, you are just adding the one piece that they forgot to add from the Bible.

The “born again” is “baptism” conversation between Christians is another example of Christian A saying to Christian B, “Yes, I believe everything you are seeing in the Bible about this topic, and here is another thing about this topic that the Bible teaches as well”. To make a long story short, don’t worry about “born again” being “baptism”, because nothing you saw in the Bible about being “born again” is going to change, you are just adding the remaining pieces to your puzzle.

Keep in Mind

We will look at these verses later in the article, but it is good to know that both “baptism” and “born again”, whether they are the same thing or not, are necessary. The Bible teaches this (which we’ll look at in more detail in a moment):

[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, – 1 Peter 3:21

[3] Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” – John 3:3

So even if they are different, it wouldn’t change the fact that they are both necessary. Now to make a long story long… let’s take a look at “born again/baptism” in the Bible!

Jesus and Nicodemus

The Bible begins talking about being “born again” (also translated “born from above”) in John 3, when Jesus has a conversation with a man named Nicodemus, so let’s start there:

[1] Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. [2] This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” [3] Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” – John 3:1-3

So right now in the conversation, what do we know about being “born again”? One “cannot see the kingdom of God” “unless one is born again”. Correct? These are Jesus’s exact words to Nicodemus. Then the conversation continues:

[4] Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” – John 3:4

Right now, does Nicodemus know what “born again” means? No. Nicodemus thinks Jesus means “born again” means that one would need to get back into their mother’s womb and be born a second time. So then Jesus clarifies His metaphor of “born again”:

[5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. – John 3:5

Jesus swaps out the words “born again” with the words “born of water and the Spirit”. Those are the only words that change in His statement, aside from “see” and “enter”. So it is safe to say that “born again” means the same as to be “born of water and the Spirit”.

So then we need to ask ourselves, what does it mean to be “born of water and the Spirit”?

Born of Water and the Spirit

There are a couple ways that people go about understanding this passage (and if anyone knows more, please share them in the comments, and I can add them to this post).

The first is very simple, and doesn’t contradict the Bible at all. Christians will say that “born again = born of water and the Spirit”. In understanding Jesus’s words in this way, Christians then go in search of a way in which one is “born of water and the Spirit”. More on that, later down the road. The second understanding will say “born again = born of water and THEN born of the Spirit”. The justification for reading it this second way would be to say that when Jesus says “born of water”, he is explaining that to be “born again” you first need to be born regularly (in this understanding “born of water” would need to be a phrase that refers to “childbirth” in a metaphor where “water” refers to amniotic fluid) and then you need to be “born again”, which is being “born of the Spirit”.

The Second Understanding

Let’s start off by seeing if there is any validity to the second understanding of this passage, as this is the understanding that some people will try to use to get around “born again” meaning “baptism”.

Hole #1: Nicodemus Knows about Childbirth

First, keep in mind, that Nicodemus already understands how a person is born the first time. Nicodemus even states this to Jesus:

[4] Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” – John 3:4

Nicodemus’s question to Jesus isn’t about what the two ways of being born are. Nicodemus is asking about the second way of being born, not the first. Jesus knows Nicodemus understands childbirth, so there would be no need for Him to say, “well, to be born again, first you need to be born, and then you need to be born again”.

The second way of reading this could comes across as Jesus being condescending to Nicodemus, even though Jesus knows that Nicodemus knows how to be born the first time. It would be similar to this conversation:

A: “Hey, you need to be born again.”

B: “I’m already born. How do I get born again?”

A: “Well, you get born, and then you get born again.”

B: “How is that helpful? That was my question to you, you just turned it into a statement.”

This interpretation of the conversation would basically mock Nicodemus, instead of inform him, because Nicodemus understands the words “born” and “again”. Nicodemus knows that he is “born” and that Jesus is talking about being “born again”. The thing he doesn’t know is how to be “born again”, so Jesus explains that to be “born again” is to be “born of water and the Spirit”.

Also, everyone Jesus is speaking to is to is already born, so why would Jesus include this in His explanation of “born again”? Once again, a similar conversation demonstrates how this type of response would come across as unhelpful and condescending to Nicodemus:

C: “You need gas in your car.”

D: “How do I put gas in my car?”

C: “Well, first you buy your car, and then you put gas in it.”

D: “I already bought my car, and I heard you tell me to put gas in it. I’m asking you how do I put gas in this car, which I clearly already bought. Are you going to help me or not?”

As we know from the Bible, Nicodemus knew that he was already born, he knew how he was born the first time, and Jesus knew that Nicodemus knew all this. Nicodemus’s question was about being “born” a second time, and Jesus answered that question with “of water and the Spirit”.

Hole #2: Symmetry

Next, consider the symmetry of Jesus’s responses:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit , he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Going with that symmetry, this second way would change the wording of the first verse to be “unless one is born and then born again”, instead of just “unless one is born again”, in order to match the symmetry in Jesus’s response.

Hole #3: You Need to Add to the Bible

In order to arrive at “born again = born of water and THEN born of the Spirit”, you do need to add to what Jesus said, which was simply “born again = born of water and the Spirit”. When you need to edit Christ’s words in order to start your explanation, then you’re already starting off on a very shaky foundation.

Hole #4: “Born of Water” Never Meant “Childbirth”

Lastly, with this understanding of Jesus’s words, there is the claim that “born of water” means “childbirth” (“water” being a reference to amniotic fluid, using the phrase “her water broke”). For starters, nowhere in the Bible (aside from here, if you agree with this understanding) is the phrase “born of water” ever used to refer to childbirth.

Next, since this is John writing, we can go back before this chapter, and see that John already uses “born of…” phrases to explain childbirth. John uses three of them in John 1:9-13, and none of them include “born of water”.

[9] The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. [11] He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. [12] But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, [13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:9-13

John uses “born of blood”, “born of the will of the flesh”, and “born of the will of man”. Don’t let this stop you from believing in this way though, because who cares what John said earlier in his Gospel, John is quoting Jesus now, so maybe Jesus doesn’t refer to childbirth in the same way as John does. That is a completely valid argument.

So how does Jesus reference childbirth? One example is in Matthew 11:11:

[11] Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. – Matthew 11:11

and another example is in the verse immediately after the born again speech, in which Jesus says “born of the flesh”.

[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. – John 3:6

To say that “born of water” means “childbirth” because the phrase “water broke” is used before “childbirth” is a bit of a stretch, especially seeing as this phrase is never used in the Bible to refer to “childbirth”:

[1] “Man who is born of a woman is few of days and full of trouble. – Job 14:1

is few of days and full of trouble. – Job 14:1 [14] What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman , that he can be righteous? – Job 15:14

, that he can be righteous? – Job 15:14 [4] How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure? – Job 25:4

be pure? – Job 25:4 “[11] Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” – Matthew 11:11

[28] I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” – Luke 7:28

none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” – Luke 7:28 [13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man , but of God.” – John 1:13

[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. – John 3:6

is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. – John 3:6 [12] for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman . And all things are from God. – 1 Corinthians 11:12

. And all things are from God. – 1 Corinthians 11:12 [4] But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman , born under the law, – Galatians 4:4

The only way of reaching “born of water” meaning “childbirth” is to say that “water” refers to the “amniotic fluid” of “childbirth”. Is anyone “born of amniotic fluid”? Of course not, because amniotic fluid is a product of being conceived, it doesn’t play a role in conception; it’s not even around at the time. This would be like saying you were “born of umbilical cord”; it is an effect of birth, not a cause.

Hole #5: A Bad Matching Game

Let’s read John 3:3-8 to see the final attempt people will make to say “born of water” means “childbirth”:

[3] Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” [4] Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” [5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [7] Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ [8] The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” – John 3:3-8

In John 3:6, after Jesus explains “born again” to be “born of water and the Spirit”, He goes on to say, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”. There is no argument among Christians of any sort that this means “our first birth is a birth of flesh, and our second birth is a birth of spirit”. However, the claim from here is that “born of Spirit” refers to the “Spirit” in the previous verse, while “born of flesh” refers to the “water” in the previous verse. Does that match up at all? Why would Jesus keep “Spirit” and “Spirit”, and swap out “water” for “flesh”?

If “born of water” really meant “childbirth”, then wouldn’t Jesus have said “that which is born of water is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”?

Consider this conversation:

A: “I want to be a cheetah.”

B: “You’re a human, how can you be a cheetah?”

A: “I want to be agile and fast. That which is slow is slow, and that which is fast is fast.”

Should we assume that “agile” means “slow” even though it has never meant “slow” before? Should we assume that being a “cheetah” no longer entails being “agile”?

Jesus just finished explaining how we are “born again” (“of water and the Spirit”), then, in His next sentence, Jesus further explains why we need to be “born again”, and it is because “our first birth is a birth of flesh, and our second birth is a birth of spirit”.

The Second Understanding Conclusion

There is a lot of evidence stacked up against adding the word “then” to Christ’s words when He says “born of water and the Spirit”. Due to this, people don’t try hanging their hat on this interpretation for too long before realizing it is quite unstable. These facts will usually send people down the correct understanding of Christ’s words, which is exactly as Christ said: “born again = born of water and the Spirit”.

Keep in mind, we still have no explanation as to why most Christians believe that “born again” is “baptism”, but from what we have read in John 3, we now know that “born again = born of water and the Spirit”. What else does the Bible tell us about “born again”?

The Rest of “Born Again”

The Bible only uses the phrase “born again” (also translated as “born from above”), a couple more times outside of when Jesus initially explained it in John 3, so let’s look at those before moving on, to see if they let us know any more about what “born again” means.

1 Peter 1:3-5

[3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, [4] to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, [5] who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. – 1 Peter 1:3-5

From 1 Peter 1:3-5, we don’t learn anything about what being “born again” entails, however, we do learn the following about being “born again”:

According to God’s great mercy, He causes us to be “born again”.

When we are “born again”, it is “to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you”. In short, when we are “born again”, it is to the “hope” of eternal life (the “inheritance that is imperishable”).

From this we can say, if “born again” truly is “baptism”, then these causes and effects of “born again” would need to apply to “baptism” as well. So let’s see if they do:

[4] But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, [5] he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, [6] whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, [7] so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. – Titus 3:4-7

In Titus 3:4-7, we find that God saves us by “the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit”. And what is the “washing of regeneration” that the Bible says saves us? The answer is “baptism”:

[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, [22] who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. – 1 Peter 3:21-22

So from Titus 3:4-7, we learn the following about “baptism”:

According to God’s own mercy, He causes us to be “saved/baptized”.

When we are “baptized”, it is “so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life”. In short, when we are “baptized”, it is to the “hope” of “eternal life”.

So far, everything about “born again” in 1 Peter 1:3-5 applies equally to baptism as well. So now let’s look at the one other time outside of John 3 that “born again” (also translated as “born from above”) is used in the Bible.

1 Peter 1:23

[23] since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; – 1 Peter 1:23

This verse is in reference to John 1:13 and John 3:6, which we looked at previously:

[13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:13

[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. – John 3:6

The “perishable seed” implies our first birth, and the “imperishable seed” implies being born of God, our second birth.

So what do we know about “born again”?

Being “born again” is different from being “born of flesh”, in that it is “of God”

“Born again” is possible “through the living and abiding word of God”.

So now we should look at whether “baptism” also refers to a second birth:

[3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. – Romans 6:3-4

From Romans 6:3-4, we find that baptism offers a “newness of life”. And is this newness of life different from being “born of flesh”?

[16] From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. [17] Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. [18] All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; [19] that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. – 2 Corinthians 5:16-19

So what do we know about “baptism”?

Being “baptized” lets us no longer be regarded “according to the flesh”. We are a “new creation” in Christ (God).

“Baptism” is possible “from God”.

Note: Baptism is definitely defined as a type of new birth, because with baptism we become a new creation. So at this point, we know that either the new birth of “baptism” is the same as the new birth of being “born again” OR there are three types of birth: one is childbirth, another is “baptism”, and another is being “born again”. If the latter is true, then why wouldn’t Jesus have said “unless one is born again and again”?

The Results

Every remaining mention of “born again”, outside of John 3, explains “born again” in a way that also applies to “baptism”.

Knowing that, let’s return to John 3 and see why the majority of Christians have always known that “born again” is “baptism”. We know from Christ that “born again” involves “water and the Spirit”, so is there any evidence in the Bible that “baptism” involves “water and the Spirit”?

“Born Again” is “Baptism”

Returning now to John 3, which is the only remaining place in the Bible, aside from 1 Peter 1 (which we just looked at), that mentions “born again” (also translated as “born from above”). Let’s look at what is attributed to being “born again”:

“Born again” allows us to “see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3)

“Born again” allows us to “enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5)

“Born again” is a figurative birth “of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5)

So now we just need to see if “baptism” fits the mold for “born again”.

[18] For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, [19] in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, [20] because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. [21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, [22] who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. – 1 Peter 3:18-22

In 1 Peter 3:18-22, we learn about the eight people in Noah’s ark, who “were brought safely through water” (1 Peter 3:20). “Baptism”, which corresponds to being “brought safely through water”, “now saves you” (1 Peter 3:20-21). Next up is where the Bible explains in clear detail the physical and spiritual elements of “baptism”.

We see that baptism is a physical experience, however the simple action of the “removal of dirt from the body” is not all that is needed to be saved (1 Peter 3:21). It is the “appeal to God” that this action signifies that allows us to be saved (1 Peter 3:21). So even if the physical part of baptism is present, without the spiritual part of baptism in addition to this action, we would not be saved. The action is done to let God know that you believe in what He taught about baptism, the action is “an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him” (1 Peter 3:18-22).

This passage is not commonly seen by Christians who do not realize that “baptism” and “born again” are the exact same thing. I have commonly heard Christians say that “baptism cannot save you”, at which point I point out that the Bible does not agree with them in this opinion, and they need to start back-peddling, because “baptism does save you”.

Keep in mind, “baptism” does not earn us salvation. The only reason we are able to be saved is because of God’s grace:

[4] But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, [5] even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— – Ephesians 2:4-5

[8] For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, [9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. – Ephesians 2:8-10

It is through our faith that the appeal to God, signified by the action of being baptized, that God’s grace saves us. Do not let anyone try to tell you that true faith exists apart from actions (or works), because this goes against what the Bible teaches about faith (click here to learn more about how true faith is only possible with works).

So right now we know this for sure:

“Baptism” saves us; allows us to “see the kingdom of God” (1 Peter 3:21)

“Baptism” saves us: allows us to “enter the kingdom of God” (1 Peter 3:21)

The Last Item

The final thing we know about being “born again” from the Bible is this:

“Born again” is a figurative birth “of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5)

Well, we already know that “baptism” is a figurative birth, as we saw above in Romans 6:3-4 and 2 Corinthians 5:16-19. Also, we know that “baptism” involves being “brought safely through water” from 1 Peter 3:20-21. So, now we just need to find out if “baptism” involves “the Spirit”.

[9] In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. [10] And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. [11] And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” – Mark 1:9-11

Here Christ “came up out of the water” and immediately “the Spirit” descended on Him. Baptism definitely involves “water and the Spirit” here. The other gospels echo the same:

[16] And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; [17] and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” – Matthew 3:16-17

Jesus “went up from the water” and “the Spirit of God” descended on Christ. Of course, this is the same scene described in Mark’s and the other gospels, so does the Bible teach of “baptism” involving “the Spirit” anywhere else?

[38] And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” [40] And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” [41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. – Acts 2:38-41

Peter tells everyone to “repent and be baptized” because this will allow them to “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”.

So there you have it:

“Baptism” is a figurative birth “of water and the Spirit” (Romans 6:3-4, 2 Corinthians 5:16-19, 1 Peter 3:20-21, Matthew 3:16-17, Acts 2:38-41)

If your definition of “born again” is coming from the two locations where “born again” (also translated as “born from above”) is mentioned in the Bible, then there is not a single attribute about being “born again” that is not exactly the same as “baptism”.

The Sinner’s Prayer

If you heard that being “born again” involved reciting “The Sinner’s Prayer”, then you may want to look for that prayer in the Bible (spoiler: you won’t find it there; it was made up). Keep in mind, it is perfectly fine to pray “The Sinner’s Prayer”, as it is perfectly fine to pray any made up prayer (such as a “Grace Before Meal” prayer). However, reciting this prayer is not a requirement of being “born again”. You can certainly pray this prayer while your being “baptized/born again”, but if you don’t, you’re still “baptized/born again”.

What Did Jesus Do?

Now to point out the obvious. John 3:1-21 recounts Jesus’s explanation of being “born again” to Nicodemus. It is fairly hard to ignore what Jesus and His disciples did after this, in John 3:22-24:

[22] After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing. [23] John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized [24] (for John had not yet been put in prison). – John 3:22-24

So, after Jesus do explained to Nicodemus that “born again” meant to be “born of water and the Spirit”, He decided to go into the Judean countryside and baptize people.

If being “born again” is of such great importance, then why would Jesus say all of this to Nicodemus, and then go off afterwards and start “baptizing” people, unless “born again” is “baptism”? Obviously this is rhetorical, because as the Bible shows above, there is not a single difference between being “born again” and “baptism”.

Trying to Drain the Water

At this point there is no way to deny that “the Spirit” is linked to “baptism”, that “baptism” saves us, and “baptism” brings us “safely through water”. However, in a last ditch attempt to invalidate the fact that “baptism” is “born again”, some will try to claim that “baptism” doesn’t involve “water”. I know… this is a strange “grasping at straws” attempt, but I’ve been in a conversation where someone has tried this, so let’s just look at it. Keep in mind though, we already know that “baptism” brings us “safely through water”.

The main verses quoted in an attempt to prove this theory are ones such as this:

[11] “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. – Matthew 3:11

Some will say that Jesus’s baptism doesn’t involve water, only the Holy Spirit. But does this verse say that Jesus won’t be baptizing with water? No. It doesn’t say “He will baptize you without water and only with the Holy Spirit“, it says “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” From this verse alone, we don’t know whether water is or is not implied. There are two major holes in this attempt.

Hole #1: God Instructed Baptism be “with Water”

First of all, God sent John to baptize “with water”:

[31] I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” [32] And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. [33] I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ [34] And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” – John 1:29-34

So what we know is that God sent John “to baptize with water”. Hold onto this fact for a moment, and read about Jesus’s miracle with the loaves and the fish:

[8] One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, [9] “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are they for so many?” [10] Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, about five thousand in number. [11] Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated. So also the fish, as much as they wanted. [12] And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments, that nothing may be lost.” [13] So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves left by those who had eaten. [14] When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” – John 6:8-14

Did Jesus tell the disciples to gather the fragments and put them in baskets? No. However, the disciples already know how to “gather” things of this quantity, so of course they’re going to use baskets. Even though Jesus didn’t say “gather in baskets”, it doesn’t mean baskets cannot be used in gathering.

God already taught John how to baptize people, and that was “with water”. Just because “with water” does not occur after every use of the word “baptize”, it does not mean that water is not a part of baptism. It also doesn’t mean that water is part of baptism. So how do we know that Jesus’s baptism still involved water? Because we read the Bible and find out it does.

Hole #2: Those in the Bible Understood that Baptism Involved Water

The easiest way to figure out if “water” is still a part of “baptism” is to look at the Bible:

[44] While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. [45] And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. [46] For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, [47] “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. – Acts 10:44-48

“Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people” seems like Peter knew that baptism involved water (Acts 10:47).

[22] After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing. [23] John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized [24] (for John had not yet been put in prison). – John 3:22-24

Looking again at John 3, why would John the Baptist go off to a place where “water was plentiful”, if “baptism” no longer involved “water”?

[34] And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” [35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. [36] And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” [38] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. [39] And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. [40] But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea. – Acts 8:34-40

The eunuch, whom Philip told the good news about Jesus to, knew that baptism couldn’t be prevented seeing as there was “water” present (plus the Spirit was there as well). Keep in mind that the eunuch just learned about the good news, and even this newbie realized that baptism involved water.

Also, as we looked at already, “baptism” corresponds to being “brought safely through water”:

[20] because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. [21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, [22] who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. – 1 Peter 3:20-22

As you can see, the argument that “baptism doesn’t hold water” just doesn’t hold water (I had to make the pun). Seriously though, the early Christians in the Bible realized that “water” was part of “baptism”, so on what basis would Christians have to remove “water” from “baptism” today? Again, this question is rhetorical; there is no basis to remove “water” from “baptism”.

One Last Attempt to Re-Write the Bible

Once it is realized that “baptism” involves “water and the Spirit”, the only option left for people trying to deny that “born again” is “baptism” is to say that the “water” in John 3:5 doesn’t mean real water.

[5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. – John 3:5

The claim here is that the word “water” in “water and the Spirit” actually means “the word of God”, even though there is no indication of this. Also, it is worth noting that the “water” in John 3:23 unmistakably refers to “real water”:

[23] John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized – John 3:23

Ignoring the fact that there is no indication that “water” means “word” here, it is good to consider whether this approach would hold up to the Bible if “water” possibly did mean “word”.

First off, the verse that people will go to for this attempt is:

[25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, [26] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, [27] so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. – Ephesians 5:25-27

Some people will say, since the Bible says “by the washing of water with the word”, then the “water” must be the “word”, and “born again” cannot mean “baptism”. They say this even though the verse says “water with the word” and not “water which is the word”. If this feels like a stretch already, that is because it is. Notice how “water” and “the word of God” are used as two separate things in the Bible:

[5] For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, [6] and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. – 2 Peter 3:5-6

In this passage, we find that “water” is controlled “by the word of God” (2 Peter 3:5). So unless we’re willing to change the words of Ephesians 5:26, we’re still not quite on the right path for “water” being “the word of God” in John 3:5.

However, for the purpose of being absolutely sure that the “water” in John 3:5 doesn’t mean “word”, let’s see how things play out if it does.

Hole #1: Baptism is Uneffected

Even if this idea that “water” meant “word” in John 3:5 made sense, unlinking “born again” and “baptism” would not change the fact that “born again” and “baptism” both save us, are both necessary, and are both a type of figurative birth. So we would need to be “born again” with the “word and the Spirit”, and in addition to that, we would still need to be “baptized” with the “water and the Spirit”. Redundantly, the benefits of both of these events would be the exact same thing (as we learned above).

To put this more clearly, you can go from Dallas, Texas to Miami, Florida (let’s pretend that this is being “born again”), and you can go from Houston, Texas to Miami, Florida (let’s pretend that this is being “baptized”). In both trips, you end up in Miami, the exact same Miami, and every benefit that you will have from Miami will be exactly the same whether you traveled from Houston or from Dallas. Now let’s remember that being “born again” (Dallas to Miami) and being “baptized” (Houston to Miami) are both necessary. So why would you need to take such as similar trip twice (only the starting point being slightly different), when the outcome of one trip is no greater or less than the outcome of the other trip?

Hole #2: Why the Actual Water?

As we read before:

[44] While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. [45] And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. [46] For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, [47] “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. – Acts 10:44-48

Here we clearly have an example of the Holy Spirit being coupled with the word of God. Why on earth would Peter be so adamant to add actual water into the mix, if all that was needed for being “born again” was the word and the Spirit? Peter has the Spirit and the word together in Acts 10:44, yet he seeks out actual water. On another note, “water” definitely does not refer to the “word” of God here either.

Hole #3: It’s an Explanation

Let’s look at John 3:3-5 once more:

[3] Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” [4] Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” [5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. – John 3:3-5

We know that “born again” is a metaphor, because it doesn’t literally mean to be born from your mother’s womb a second time. Jesus explains what “born again” is when he replaces “again” with “of water and the Spirit”. So we know that “born again” means to be “born of water and the Spirit”.

If we replace “water” with “word”, then we now have a metaphor inside of a metaphor. Does anyone place metaphors inside of other metaphors? Wouldn’t that be a really confusing way for Jesus to teach?

If Jesus were hiding the “water” metaphor inside of His “born again” metaphor, then how do we know that “the Spirit” isn’t a metaphor too? After all, the Spirit is much more closely linked to “the word of God” in Ephesians than “water” is linked to the word of God in Ephesians:

[16] In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; [17] and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, – Ephesians 6:16-17

If Jesus were hiding a metaphor within a metaphor, then wouldn’t “the Spirit” more likely refer to “the word of God” seeing as the Bible says “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17)? Or is it more logical that “water” means the “word” of God since the Bible says “having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word” (Ephesians 5:26)? This should be an easy one to answer.

I’ll let you decide whether Jesus was hiding a metaphor within His metaphor. Of course, even if you do believe that “water” in John 3:5 meant “word”, it doesn’t change the fact that you would then need to be “born again” and also “baptized”, instead of just “born again/baptized”.

How Important is Baptism?

Jesus clearly thought baptism was important:

[19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” – Matthew 28:19-20

Jesus knew that baptism saves us:

[15] And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. [16] Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. – Mark 16:15-16

Paul understood baptism with the Corinthians:

[12] For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. [13] For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. – 1 Corinthians 12:12-13

Paul understood baptism with the Galatians:

[27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. – Galatians 3:27

Paul understood baptism with the Colossians:

[11] In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, [12] having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. – Colossians 2:11-12

There’s more from Paul, but you get the point. Ananias understood baptism:

[12] “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, [13] came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. [14] And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; [15] for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. [16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ – Acts 22:12-16

We could go on, but this is getting repetitive.

“Born Again/Baptism”

There is not a verse in the Bible that can be applied to being “born again” that cannot also be applied to “baptism” in the exact same way, and this is because they are the exact same thing. Jesus used “born again” to figuratively refer to “baptism”, which is the same as being “born of water and the Spirit”. If you think there is any verse in the Bible that suggests an attribute of “born again” which does not equally apply to “baptism”, then feel free to share it here, and I will include the Biblical explanation of how this verse applies to “baptism” in the same way as well.

If you lose “Baptism”, then you lose “Born Again”

There are only two chapters in the entire Bible that mention “born again” (or “born from above”, as it is also translated). If we limit our definition of “born again” to only these two instances, we don’t know very much about it. Interestingly, the majority of what people attribute to the meaning of “born again” is only possible because it was linked to “baptism” throughout all of Christianity. When someone tries to rip “baptism” away from “born again”, as if they were not the same thing, they end up losing a lot of their current definition of “born again”, because “baptism” is the link to the verses in the Bible that they would need to use for defining “born again”.

For instance, where does the Bible say that being “born again” involves us accepting God? It doesn’t. The Bible says “you must be born again”, and “unless one is born again”, but the Bible never says that we accept God in order to be “born again”. The place that all Christians get this portion of “born again” is through “baptism”:

[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, [22] who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. – 1 Peter 3:21-22

“Baptism” is “an appeal to God” and because “born again” is “baptism”, we can say that “born again” is an appeal to God. “Baptism” and “born again” cannot be ripped apart because “born again” is “baptism”.