The Problem
The earliest reference I can find to someone saying the Church is full of “baptized pagans” suggests it was an American Jesuit named Schumacher who made this observation while teaching a course on Church history. My first hearing of it came from one of the luminaries of the renewal movement in the American Episcopal Church, I forget who. Whatever its source, it is indeed true that the Church is full of people who are baptized, yet who do not evince any Christian piety at all. The list of notorious sinners who had nevertheless been baptized is impressive, including Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. There are no doubt others. My point in all this is that we need to ask: why baptize if it seems to be ineffectual, in and of itself, in doing all the Church claims it can do?
And what are those claims? It appears as though baptism has been granted remarkable standing from the earliest times. A common thread in discussing the power of baptism is a favorable interpretation of Jesus’ words recorded in John 3:5. “… I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of god unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” St. John Chrysostom, writing around the turn of the fourth century, states in his homily 25 on this verse that “water” does indeed refer to the water of baptism, which he says is equally important with the Spirit in bringing about regeneration. Says he:
That the need of water is absolute and indispensable, you may learn in this way. On one occasion, when the Spirit had flown down before the water was applied, the Apostle did not stay at this point, but, as though the water were necessary and not superfluous, observe what he says; Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Acts 10:47
This interpretation of the term “water” in John 3:5 was codified by the Roman Catholic Church through the work of Thomas Aquinas. Writes Thomas:
From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, “the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit,”
Thomas’ Summa Theologica was adopted as the official doctrine of the Roman Church, just below the level of papal Decretals, and his interpretation of the “water” of John 5:3 was formalized in this excerpt from the official Church catechism of 1213:
The Sacrament of Baptism
Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.
The Roman view of John 3:5 was carried over in toti by the Protestant Reformation. Luther said that in this verse “water” refers to baptism in a literal sense. John Calvin states that the term “water” is used figuratively, as it operates “like the Spirit” in its cleansing function. Writes John:
“I therefore simply understand ‘water and Spirit’ as ‘Spirit, who is water.’ … So to be reborn of water and the Spirit is but to receive that power of the Spirit, which does in the soul what water does in the Body.”
The baptismal office in the 1559 Book of Common Prayer shows that the English reformers were of the same view as Luther, and actually quote John 3:5. In the Elizabethan prayer book we read:
DERELY beloved, forasmuche as al men be conceived and borne in synne, and that our saviour Christ saith, none can entre into the kingdom of God (except he be regenerate, and borne a new of water and the holy gost) I beseche you to cal upon God the father, throughe our lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy, he wil graunt to these children, that thing which by nature thei can not have, that they may be baptized with water and the holy Ghost, and received into Christes holy church; and be made lively membres of the same.
This expanding view of baptism was also included in the 39 Articles of Religion. The 27th articles reads:
XXVII. Of Baptism.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
What we see is that by this time the water of baptism is capable of producing not only new birth or regeneration, but entrance into the Church, forgiveness of sins, and adoption as children of God. These themes continue in all Anglican prayer books, and find full expression in the 1979 American BCP, where we read in the Thanksgiving over the Water
“Now sanctify this water, we pray you, by the power of your Holy Spirit, that those who here are cleansed from sin and born again may continue for ever in the risen life of Jesus Christ our Savior.”
This brief review of Church doctrine shows several things that are of interest. First of all, the pairing of water and the Spirit in John 3:5 has produced an early and enduring idea that this verse refers to the water used in baptism. Secondly, we see that on this point at least, Roman and Protestant are in complete agreement. Finally, we see that as time went on, the specificity of the claims made about the water used in baptism became amplified, in spite of the evidence that water baptism per se was anything but automatic in producing faithful Christians.
This divergence between doctrine and reality should cause alarm to anybody interested in Church health. Was Jesus in fact saying what everybody since St. John Chrysostom says he is saying? After all, Jesus never emphasized baptism in his ministry; His disciples baptized, but he did not. The only reliable account of Jesus telling people to be baptized is in his post-resurrection appearance in Matthew 28. Mark 16:16 is a later emendation of questionable accuracy. What did Jesus say instead to those whom he healed? “Go and sin nor more,” or “Go, show yourself to the priests.” In 1 Corinthians 1:17 Paul denigrated the baptismal rite in comparison to other forms of ministry, saying that he did not come to baptize, but to preach. In Hebrews 6:2 we are encouraged to consider baptism, among other things, as elementary concerns. The story of the Samaritan Christians in Acts 8 shows that water baptism did not induce Spirit baptism, as does the story the members of Cornelius’ household in Acts 10, already cited by Chrysostom, and the account of Apollos in Acts 18. John the Baptist goes to great lengths to distinguish between his water baptism and the Spirit baptism that Jesus is to inaugurate. Any attempt to make water baptism and Spirit baptism coincidental flies in the face of the balance of Scripture. John 3:5 stands alone if “water” is to be understood as referring to the water of baptism.
An Explanation
If “water” in this verse does not refer to the water of baptism, then just what does it refer to? To find out, a fresh exegesis of John 3:5 is in order. We don’t know much about the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, but we can make a couple of careful assumptions. First of all, Nicodemus came at night, which would be unusual, and was probably done because he wanted to evade detection. Even early in his public career, Jesus was held in deep suspicion by the Jewish authorities, and Nicodemus no doubt wanted to keep this encounter quiet. Further, Luther points out that Nicodemus would have been a champion of the Law as a means of achieving spiritual redemption, and as such, Jesus would be anxious to disabuse him of the value of this approach. This might explain Jesus’ seeming peremptory declaration, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” Nicodemus, understandably, equates a new birth with a repetition of our physical birth, the only sensible application he could make. Jesus dilates on Nicodemus’ interpretation, making immediate reference to physical birth. Says he, “…no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” There is no reason to expect Jesus to begin talking about sacramental rites. Nicodemus, as a Pharisee, can be expected to be looking for human actions that can satisfy legal requirements. Jesus, on the other hand, is talking not about something we do, but something God does to and for us; quite the opposite of what Nicodemus would expect. So he takes Nicodemus’ starting point, physical birth, and redefines it as a new beginning, to be sure, but of a spiritual, not a physical nature. Water can be closely associated with physical birth, in that the arrival of a child is demarcated most closely by the expression of amniotic fluid. The theme of physical birth is validated immediately by Jesus’ statement in verse 6 that “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” This is classic Hebrew parallelism, wherein the same statement is made twice using different words to offer both clarity and emphasis.
This exegetical conclusion is echoed by Donald Guthrie in his seminal New Testament Theology. Writes Donald:
One passage in John which may have a bearing on baptism is John 3:5 (‘born of water and the Spirit’), for some interpret the water as referring to the baptismal rite. A problem which arises is to decide what Nicodemus would have understood by the allusion to water. If he had understood baptism it would presumably have referred to the baptism of John the Baptist. Yet there is not hint that the Baptist ever linked his baptismal rite with regeneration, nor is there reason to suppose that Nicodemus would have done so. Since Nicodemus regarded the allusion to new birth in a literal sense and referred it to a mother’s womb, it would be reasonable to suppose that being born of water was a reference to physical birth, which was therefore being linked with spiritual birth. It was as if Jesus has said, “you must be born spiritually as well as physically.” Indeed, even if Nicodemus had not understood the reference to ‘water’ in the sense of baptism, it is perhaps more likely that John’s readers would have done so.
There is no way being certain which of these alternative interpretations is correct, and at most it can be said only that there is a possible reference to baptism. If so there would not only be linking of water-baptism with spiritual regeneration, but also a clear distinction between them. They cannot be made to support the view that regeneration takes place in the act of baptism. Indeed, the fact that Jesus speaks of the impossibility of detecting the precise movements of the wind, and then uses it as an illustration of spiritual rebirth, suggests that spiritual renewal cannot be identified in time with any external event like baptism. Some have attempted to avoid this conclusion by differentiating the baptismal act from the subsequent affirmation of faith, but the John Passage gives no indication of this. The most important contribution of this passage, if it refers to baptism at all, is its emphasis on the spiritual life.”
Indeed. What is clear is that from the earliest times, western Christians or those under the philosophical influence of Greece have tended to ignore the rhetorical tools used by Jews, Jesus in particular, and instead have taken a crude, literalistic interpretation of the Biblical record. It is only by ignoring the clear parallelism of John 3:5 and 6 that one can come up with a reference to baptism in this exchange between our Lord and Nicodemus. In spite of the latter’s expectation that Jesus would advocate something by way of legal observance, Jesus says that we should instead be prepared to undergo a change in ourselves, not wrought by us, but by God. To hear a reference to a ritual observance is completely out of keeping with Jesus’ clear intent. Implicit in Jesus’ corrective is that what we need is to be restored to our prior status as a three part creature, mind, body and spirit, as before the Fall. By interjecting a human ritual into the conversation as opposed to a sovereign work of God, the sense of the exchange is reversed 180 degrees. The new birth is no longer something God does for us, but is something engineered by man. Baptism is no longer something that helps us, but something that helps God. Instead of hearing Jesus talk about Him in us effectually, we hear about we in Him legally. Instead of hearing about an event that is particular and contingent, we hear about something that is universal and automatic. Instead of hearing about Jesus as Lord, we hear about Jesus as Savior. Instead of hearing about Pentecost, we hear about Good Friday. These are all valid insights, but they are to be found elsewhere in Scripture and not in John 5:3. To put them here is to obscure the true intent of John in recording this unique encounter with Nicodemus. Whereas all are justified by Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross without our knowledge, consent or participation, not all are filled with the Spirit. This is because the latter does require our knowledge, consent and participation, if only in a negative and not a positive sense. We cannot generate Spirit baptism, but we can thwart it by grieving the Holy Spirit and making him unwelcome in our hearts, the seat of our will.
A Solution
At this point it would be helpful to review God’s plan of redemption and how he intends to redeem a sinful humanity. A graphic representation is in order.
| Actor | Man’s Problem | Attitude as of the Fall | Solution | Historic Event | Extent | Our Position Relative to Christ | Associated Sacrament | 2
Judgments |
Role of Christ | Event in Theological Terms |
| God | Guilt | Enmity with Man | Blood of Christ | Good Friday | Universal | We in Christ legally | Baptism | On Sin | Savior | Justification |
| Man | Power-
lessness |
Enmity with God | Life of Christ | Pentecost | Particular | Christ in us effectually | Eucharist | On Fruitless-ness | Lord | Salvation |
There are two actors, God and man. There are two problems due to the Fall, we are guilty and powerless to reform ourselves. God has two solutions, both involving his Son Jesus. By his death we are justified; his blood covers the sins of the whole world. We have been placed in Christ forensically. The sacrament involving our justification is baptism. It is a celebration of what God has already done for us: we are forgiven. It is a one-time affair, like the death of Christ, and is universal in its effects. There is no limit to the power of the blood of Christ. Attempts to limit its effect demean his sacrifice and blaspheme God. The cross puts all humanity in the position of Christ; we are in Him. By his life, on the other hand, he enters into us effectually, and offers the power to reform, bear fruit, and find salvation. The sacrament involving our on-going life in the Spirit is the Eucharist; by it we nourish the life of Christ within us and are empowered to bear fruit and be found worthy at the second judgment. If baptism looks to Good Friday, the Eucharist looks to Pentecost, when the Spirit of the Living Lord was poured forth upon humanity. When “water” in John 3:5 is understood to refer to baptism, Jesus’ emphasis, the bottom row of the chart, is lost and the focus shifted to the middle row; an entirely different proposition. The role we have in our regeneration, namely ceding our will and playing host to the Holy Spirit, is lost. This explains the presence of baptized pagans in Church.
If this binary understanding of God’s plan of redemption is true, then much in popular soteriology needs to be reexamined. Is John Chrysostom wrong? Are Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin wrong? I would have to say, on this point, yes. There. I said it. Is the Book of Common Prayer, in all its iterations, wrong on this point? Yes. But it’s been wrong before. There are problems with at least two of the Articles of Religion, and it’s dead wrong when it says in the Rite of Confirmation that the reason the Holy Spirit was withheld from the Samaritan converts was because Bishops were needed to confer the Holy Spirit. As Michael Green astutely observes, the reason the Spirit was withheld was not because of a deficiency in clerical personnel but because God wanted the Jerusalem Christians to witness and participate in the blessing of Samaritan Christians, thereby healing an even greater divide than that separating Jew and Gentile. The BCP in all its forms conflates and confuses the two dominical sacraments, variously ascribing forgiveness of sins and Spirit baptism to each. A revised soteriology that adheres to Scripture and makes sense would go a long way towards clearing up Church doctrine and practice.
Conclusion
This article does not attempt to deal with all that baptism is, nor the Eucharist, nor does it provide a comprehensive soteriology. It merely aspires to document how one fallacious interpretation of a single verse can take on a life of its own and stifle theological reflection for millennia. You cannot amplify the water of baptism without devaluing the Spirit baptism Jesus is really talking about; it’s a zero sum game. Witness the 1979 American BCP, where Confirmation is reduced to feather bedding for bishops while Baptism is elevated to magic. There is indeed magic discussed in John 3:5, but it’s not a magical rite that we do that forces God to do things: forgive, empower, transform. Instead it’s a magic of what God can do in the individual who prior to anything else, yields his will to Jesus as Lord, putting no restrictions on what he will do by way of obedience. This is the magic of predestination, wherein God predestines those who allow Jesus to be their Lord to “be conformed to the likeness of His Son.” The problem of the Church is not that we baptize, but that we don’t catechize and Confirm in addition to baptizing. If we can resume these neglected activities, then the problem of pagans in Church will largely be solved. The only ones who remain will be those who are dragged there by their spouses or who like the music. Another great quotation I can’t find the source of, but which is nevertheless germane:
“The Devil doesn’t oppose churches, he joins them.”
