Protestants Claim Catholics are not Born Again

This is NOT True!

WHY?

Bible Text

 3:3  Jesus answered, and said to him:  Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
 3:4  Nicodemus saith 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 again?
 3:5  Jesus answered:  Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
 3:6  That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. (John 3:3-6).

Catholics and Protestants agree that to be saved, you have to be born again. Jesus said so:

“Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

When a Catholic says that he has been born again, he refers to the transformation that God’s Grace accomplished in him during Sacramental Baptism. Evangelical Protestants typically mean something quite different when they talk about being born again.
The Sinner’s Prayer

For some Protestants, becoming born again often happens like this:

A person goes to a crusade or a revival where a Protestant minister (who has never received the Sacrament of Holy Orders) delivers a “talk” telling him of his need to be born again.  He says something like this:

“If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and believe he died for your sins, you’ll be born again!" says the preacher. So the person makes “a decision for Christ” and at the “altar” which is a table (an altar is that upon which a sacrifice is performed and the victim of the sacrifice is offered to God) call goes forward to be led in “the sinner’s prayer” by the Protestant minister. Then the Protestant minister tells all who prayed the sinner’s prayer that they have been saved—born again.

Please note that “the sinner’s prayer” is not one of the Seven Sacraments which Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest, perfectly instituted.  It is not even any part of any Sacrament.  Therefore, it has no power per se to give Sanctifying Grace as do each of the Seven Sacraments.

But is the Protestant minister right in telling all who prayed the sinner’s prayer that they have been saved?

NO - NOT according to the Bible!

Why?

Born Again

What does the term born again actually mean?

Regeneration (being born again) is the transformation from death to life that occurs in the soul when a person first comes to God and is justified.  God washes us clean of Original Sin and all actual sins and gives us a new nature, breaking the power of sin over us so that we will no longer be its slaves, but its enemies, who must fight it as part of the Christian Catholic life as the Apostle writes to the Romans:

 1    What shall we say, then?  shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
 2    God forbid.  For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein?
 3    Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?
 4    For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.
 5    For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.
 6    Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer.
 7    For he that is dead is justified from sin.
 8    Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ:
 9    Knowing that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over him.
 10   For in that he died to sin, he died once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God:
 11   So do you also reckon, that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God, in Christ Jesus our Lord.
 12   Let no sin therefore reign in your mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof.
 13   Neither yield ye your members as instruments of iniquity unto sin; but present yourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of justice unto God.
 14   For sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not under the law, but under grace.
 15   What then?  Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?  God forbid.
 16   Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice.
 17  But thanks be to God, that you were the servants of sin, but have obeyed from the heart, unto that form of doctrine, into which you have been delivered.
 18   Being then freed from sin, we have been made servants of justice.
 19   I speak an human thing, because of the infirmity of your flesh.  For as you have yielded your members to serve uncleanness and  iniquity, unto iniquity; so now yield your members to serve justice, unto sanctification.
 20   For when you were the servants of sin, you were free men to justice.
 21   What fruit therefore had you then in those things, of which you are now ashamed?  For the end of them is death.
 22   But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting.
 23   For the wages of sin is death.  But the Grace of God, life everlasting, in Christ Jesus our Lord.  (Romans, Chapter 6).

The Apostle also writes to the Ephesians:

 10 Finally, brethren, be strengthened in the Lord, and in the might of his power.
 11 Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil.
 12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.
 13 Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect.
 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice,
 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace:
 16 In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one.
 17 And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God).   (Ephesians 6:11-17)

To understand the correct biblical teaching of being born again, we must understand the terms it uses to refer to this event.  Therefore, WORDS do mean something - otherwise communication would be a futile and confusing babble of meaningless sounds.  This is the reason why dictionaries exist - not only to learn the correct spelling of words, but also the correct definition of words.

Christian Catholics

First - what does the term Christian Catholic mean?

ALL Catholics are Christians!  But not even ONE Protestant is a Christian or a Catholic!

Why?

Various Protestant leaders have hi-jacked the Catholic word “Christian” because they no longer like the word “Protestant” and had to find a substitute for it!

Historically, Catholics have always been Christians; but Protestants have NEVER been Christians!

WHY?

Protestant Bibles

Because it was Catholics who used the term Christian for over 1,500 years before some ex-Catholic bishops and priests set up their own contradictory/competing sects and factions of religions in the 16th Century!  Some of them even wrote their own “bibles” - with each “bible” contradicting in some places the “bible” of their Protestant competitor.

These competing Protestant “bibles” have been frequently rewritten by “updating” ever since so that now, in the 21st Century, one sees historically a variety of Protestant “bibles” - each one contradictory of the others in some places - although each one claims to be the “infallible” Word of God!!

In so doing, they irrationally impute to God the ability to speak out of hundreds of “sides of His mouth” at the same time, with each of the hundreds of  “sides” of His mouth speaking contradictory things, each one different than each other in some way - this historical fact denies the ONE Word of God!

The God of Truth does NOT contradict Himself as Christ testifies in speaking to His Heavenly Father:  “Thy Word is Truth” (John 17:14) for “Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17) Who is the ONE Truth of God, the Divine, Eternal, Infinite Logos:  “I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life” (John 14:6) since “it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the Truth” (1 John 5:6).

In Anglo-Saxon English this simply means that Jesus Christ did not have a multiple personality disorder in which He was hundreds of Jesus Christs’, with each one of these hundreds contradicting each other in a cacophony of psychobabble, absurdity, lies, and falsehoods because “What Truth can come from that which is false?”  (Ecclesiasticus  34:4).

On the contrary, “God is Truth”  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica Part I, Question 16, Article 5; Summa Theologica Part II-II, Question 93, Article 2, Reply to Objection 2. Summa Contra Gentiles Book I, Chapter 60) and “Truth cannot be Truth’s contrary” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Contra Gentiles Volume IV, 8) because “Every Truth without exception, and whoever may utter it, is from the Holy Ghost”  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Theologica, Part I-II, Question 109, Article 1, Reply to Objection 1).

It frequently happens today, in the 21st Century, that some 21st Century Protestants are embarrassed by the history of their respective sect which teaches some things which are contradictory to what each of the other Protestant sects teach, and all Protestant sects teach some things which are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

One historical example is the Lollards, a.k.a. Wyclifites.  The “founder” of this sect, which sect seems to have been at least one of the historical foundations of the 16th Century Protestant sects, was a 14th  Century ex-Roman Catholic Priest by the name of Father John Wycliffe [b. Ipreswell, England c. 1330 - d. at Lutterworth, England on Friday, December 31, 1384].  He was a monotheistic pre-Protestant who fell into heresy and schism.

Archbishop Arundel claims that ex-Father Wycliffe tried to undermine the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church by means of a new translation of the Catholic Bible which implies a novel rendering of passages to promote his views which:

 1) denied Transubstantiation during the Double Consecration of the Mass;
 2) taught the subjection of all church property to the civil authority;
 3) taught the denial of the authority of the Church;
 4) taught the theory of “Dominium”, i.e., that the validity of the Sacraments depend on the worthiness of the minister.

Another ex-Roman Catholic Priest, Father John Hus [b. at Husinec, Bohemia in 1369 - d. at Konstanz, Germany, being burned at the stake, on July 6, 1415], made Wycliffe's teachings the religion of Czechoslovakia.

One area of contradictory teachings are to be found in their contradictory “bibles”.  Here is a brief recap of some of the historical “bibles” of various Protestant sects.

A Brief Historical List of some of the “bibles” of
Some Protestant Sects Fabricated by their ex-Catholic “Founders”

Wycliffite Pre-Protestant Versions of the Bible

c. 1382 A.D.  -  Wycliffite Early Edition Pre-Protestant Version of the Bible translated directly from the Vulgate into vernacular English - at that time it was “Middle English” - which he  completed in about 1382 A.D.  It is known as the “Early Edition” of the “Wycliffe Bible”.

This so-called “Early Edition” was complete as far as the translators considered the books canonical, but it was soon found lacking in the necessary qualities of style and English idiom. It is at times unintelligible and even nonsensical from being too close to the literal adherence to the Latin text. A revision was, therefore, found necessary and begun shortly after the completion of the Early Version.

c. 1388 A.D.  -  Wycliffite Later Edition Pre-Protestant Version of the Bible translated into Middle English was completed in about 1388 A.D., after Wycliffe’s death in 1384 A.D.

 N.B.  Some people call either, or both, the “Early Edition” and/or the “Later Edition” of the  “Wycliffe Bible” the “King James Bible”!  However, such people fail to realize three things:

 1) Historically, both the “Early Edition” and the “Later Edition” of the “Wycliffe Bible” was never called the “King James Bible”!

 2) The ex-Roman Catholic Priest, Father John Wycliffe, had died at Lutterworth, England on Friday, December 31, 1384.

 3) The “King James Bible” is named for King James I of England [b. at Edinburgh Castle, Scotland on Sunday, June 19, 1566 - d. at Theobalds House, England on Thursday, March 27, 1625].

King James VI was the King of Scots from 1567 to 1625.  This same King James VI was simultaneously King James I, the King of England and Ireland, from 1603 to 1625.

This version of the Bible is called the “King James Bible”, named for King James I of England, because it was during January, 1604, that King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version of the Bible, which was to be translated into the then “modern English” - which today is called “Elizabethan English”, so named for the English being used during the bloody reign of Queen Elizabeth I [b. at Greenwich, England on Thursday, September 7, 1533 - d. at Richmond, England on March 24,  1603] who martyred many Roman Catholics, was conceived in response to the problems of the two earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a sect within the Protestant Church of England sect.

Because:

a)  the Protestant “Great Bible”, was finished in April of 1539 A.D., which, because of its huge size, was called the “Great Bible”, a full 65 years before the translation for “King James Bible” per se was begun in 1604;

b) the Protestant “Bishop’s Bible”, which was finished in 1568, or 36 years before  the translation for “King James Bible” per se was begun in 1604;

c) no Bible was called the “King James Bible” until 1611;

d) the “Later Edition” of the “Wycliffe Bible” was completed in about 1388, or about 223 years before  the translation for “King James Bible” per se was printed in 1611;

Therefore, it is poor scholarship, and a gross ignorance of Church History, to try to call either edition of the “Wycliffe Bibles” of 1382 and/or of 1388 the “King James Bible”.

The same applies to all Protestant Bibles printed before 1611.  This would include the Protestant “Great Bible” and the Protestant “Bishop’s Bible”.

The principles of the “Wycliffe Bible” are laid down in the prologue of the so-called “Later Edition”. The  revisers and the exact date of the revision are not known. John Purvey, the leader of the Lollard party, is generally considered to have taken a large part in the work. The style and idiom of the “Later Edition” are far superior to those of the “Early Edition”, and there can be little doubt as to its popularity among the Wycliffites.

But, shortly after the “Later Edition” of Wycliffe’s, the Lollards introduced interpolations of a virulent character into their non-Catholic texts.  This resulted in violence and anarchy among the people.  As a result, this sect came to be regarded as enemies of order and disturbers of society.

This explains why the ecclesiastical authorities soon convened the Roman Catholic Synod of Oxford [1408 A.D.].  It forbade the publication and reading of unauthorized vernacular versions of these pre-Protestant bibles.  Instead, it required that only the Catholic Bible in the English vernacular was to be read by Catholics.

List of Versions of Protestant Bibles in German

1522 A.D.  - Luther’s  New Testament.  Luther rejected the Epistle of Saint James because the Apostle teaches that faith without works is dead and Luther heretically taught that faith alone is necessary for salvation.  Luther also omitted the Apocalypse, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of Saint Jude.

1529 A.D.  -  Zurich bible, a.k.a. Zwinglian bible, by the Swiss Zwinglians.  It included their own version of the Prophets and the Deuterocanonical books by Leo Juda.  They considered it to be far superior to Luther’s version.   It was revised between 1860 A.D. - 1868 A.D.

1529 A.D. -  Anabaptist version of the Zurich bible, a.k.a. Zwinglian bible, by Hetzer at Worms.

1545 A.D.  - Luther’s Old Testament.  This finalized the first Protestant bible in German.  This bible went through ten editions in his lifetime because Luther had to make many corrections and revisions to his “infallible Word of God”.  In summary, the Protestant priest, Father Luther, frequently made excessively free translations into German and at times interpolated the original text.

1579 A.D.  -  Calvinist version of the Zurich bible, a.k.a. Zwinglian bible, by Parens.

1602 A.D. - 1604 A.D.  -  Calvinist version of the Zurich bible, a.k.a. Zwinglian bible, by Piscator at Herborn.

1630 A.D.  -  Socinian bible published by Crellius at Racovia.

1709 A.D.  -  Protestant bible in German by Michaelis.

1774 A.D.  -  Protestant bible in German by Moldenhauer.

1776 A.D.  -  Protestant bible in German by Grynæus.

1781 A.D.  -  Protestant bible in German by Vögelin.

1809 A.D. - 1814 A.D.  -  Protestant bible in German by de Wette and Augusti at Heidelberg.

1831 A.D. - 1833 A.D.  -  Protestant bible in German by Vögelin.  It was revised by de Wette.

List of Versions of Protestant bibles printed in English up to 1884

N.B.  In the 20th Century it seems there was an “explosion” in
all kinds of Protestant bibles in English

1525 A.D.  -  1550 A.D.  -  Tyndale's Protestant bible.  Ex-Roman Catholic Franciscan Priest, Father William Tyndale [b. 1494 A.D. - d. October 6, 1536 A.D.] was the first to avail himself of the new opportunities furnished by the press and the new learning. Tyndale first went to Oxford and then to Cambridge where he was ordained a Priest and became a professed member of the Franciscan Fathers at Greenwich. In 1524 A.D. he went to Hamburg, Germany and from there to Wittenberg, Germany to visit Luther.

Tyndale attempted to translate the New Testament of the Bible into what was then vernacular English.  He included a long prologue in his “bible” emphasizing the Protestant heresy of justification by faith, a.k.a. sola fide. Assisted by another ex-Roman Catholic Franciscan apostate, William Roye, who was also from the Franciscan monastery at Greenwich, he began to have it printed at Cologne, Germany in 1525 A.D. at the print shop of Peter Quentell. The layout and format of the book followed Luther’s September Testament that had been printed in a quarto format in 1522.

Luther expressed the basic principle of pecca fortiter sed crede fortius, which is the heretical Protestant teaching of justification only by faith, a.k.a. sola fide, in these terms:

“Sin valiantly, but believe even more valiantly”.

“Sin valiantly, but believe even more valiantly”

It has been translated both freely and literally in several different ways, such as the following examples:

  1) “Sin boldly, but believe still more firmly (boldly).”
  2)  “Believe right, and I care not what you do.”
  3) “Be a sinner and sin mightily, but believe more mightily.”

According to one Protestant apologist, what Luther meant was that the sinner is assured forgiveness simply by believing that his sins, however grave, will be forgiven.

Lest one be accused of quoting out of context, below is the full paragraph in which the term is found along with a paragraph which precedes it to explain the historical background of Luther’s Letter.

501. LUTHER TO MELANCHTHON.
Enders, iii, 205. (Wartburg), August 1, 1521.

“During Luther’s absence the leader of the Wittenberg theologians was Andrew Carlstadt (cf. Vol. I, p. 41, n. 9). Very early in this period he began to show evidences of the radical tendencies that ultimately caused a complete break between him and Luther. In the following letter, which is only a fragment, the opening part having been lost, Luther gives Melanchthon his opinion of Carlstadt’s views on celibacy and the Lord’s Supper, expressed in his seven Theses on Celibacy of June 20, and his twenty-four theses of July 19, nine of which deal with the reception of the eucharist. It is also probable that Luther had received the sixty-six Theses on Celibacy which Carlstadt issued about this time. Cf. Barge, i, 265, 289ff, 475ff”   (Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, Translated and Edited by Preserved Smith, Ph. D. and Charles M. Jacobs, D. D. Volume II 1521-1530, The Lutheran Publication Society, Philadelphia, Pa. 1918, p. 47).

“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true, not a pretended grace; if grace is true you must bear a true, not a pretended, sin. God does not save pretended sinners. Be a sinner and sin mightily, but believe more mightily, and rejoice in Christ, who is victor over sin, death and world. [* Footnote 2] We must sin so long as we are what we are: this life is not the dwelling-place of righteousness, but we look, says Peter [II Peter iii, 13], for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world. From Him no sin will tear us, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Is it so small a purchase-price, think you, that was paid for our sins with so great a Lamb? Pray mightily, for you are a mighty sinner” (Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, Translated and Edited by Preserved Smith, Ph. D. and Charles M. Jacobs, D. D. Volume II 1521-1530, The Lutheran Publication Society, Philadelphia, Pa. 1918, pp. 50-51; emphasis added).

*  [Footnote 2:  This passage is frequently quoted against Luther, and interpreted as an encouragement to sin. As it stands here it is merely a rebuke to Melanchthon’s characteristic timidity. The sense of it is, - “Be a man and a Christian. As a man, you will sin, but when you have committed a sin, do not be paralyzed with fear of consequences, but be bold in faith, for Christ died for sinners.” Cf.  “Luther to Cronberg,” infra, no. 534, and P. Smith, in Lutheran Survey, March 14, 1917, p. 653].

For 16th Century Protestants, apparently such bluntness by Luther was not a problem?  However, it seems to be a source of great embarrassment for 21st Century Protestants, otherwise some of their apologists would not try so hard to explain it away?

One web site mounts a lengthy defense of Luther’s pecca fortiter sed crede fortius - “Sin valiantly, but believe even more valiantly”.  The writer seems to be desperate in his valiant polemics and dialectical disputations to expunge the bluntness of Luther’s heresy?

In the process, the author chastises the critics, especially those whom he claims should know better, for misrepresenting what Luther was saying because one needs to understand, not only the historical context of this letter, but also Luther’s state of mind, including the psychological and philosophical context in which Luther wrote this letter to avoid the current rampant misunderstandings of the self-evidently inarticulate Luther, etc., etc., etc.

But all of the begging the author does for everyone to please understand what Luther meant to say, rather than what Luther literally said, which is all well and good because not everyone is a great verbal communicator, or a great writer, is an exercise in futility because even this author is unable to extricate Luther from teaching the Protestant heresy of justification only by faith, a.k.a. sola fide, which was correctly expressed and summarized in Luther’s axiom pecca fortiter sed crede fortius (“Sin valiantly, but believe even more valiantly”).

On the contrary, no amount of dialectical deletions can ever effectively erase, or otherwise change, such an obviously clear historical fact - irregardless the umbrage with which said web-author, not to mention other Protestants, take concerning how the Lutheran heretical axiom of pecca fortiter sed crede fortius (“Sin valiantly, but believe even more valiantly”) is cited because no Protestant can get around the fact that this simply proves the Protestant heretical principle of justification only by faith, a.k.a. sola fide.

In Anglo-Saxon English, so to speak, IF Protestants REALLY WANT to disassociate themselves from Luther’s axiom “pecca fortiter sed crede fortius” (“Sin valiantly, but believe even more valiantly”), they must first disassociate themselves from the Protestant heresy of justification only by faith, a.k.a. sola fide because all that Luther’s heretical axiom pecca fortiter sed crede fortius (“Sin valiantly, but believe even more valiantly”) really does is correctly identify what the Protestant heresy of justification only by faith, a.k.a. sola fide, actually is!

In other words, Protestants can not have it both ways!  IF Protestants do not want to accept Luther’s heretical axiom pecca fortiter sed crede fortius (“Sin valiantly, but believe even more valiantly”), then neither can they believe nor accept the Protestant heresy of justification only by faith a.k.a. sola fide, without becoming hypocrites and contradicting themselves!

Returning now to Tyndale, after he was driven from Cologne, he went to Worms where he printed 3,000 copies of his New Testament which he sent them to England in the early summer of 1526 A.D.  His fourth edition was printed at Antwerp in 1534 A.D. In 1530 A.D. Tyndale's Pentateuch was printed and  in 1531 A.D. his book of Jonas was printed.

Between the date of Tyndale’s execution, Tuesday, October 6, 1536 A.D., and 1550 A.D., numerous editions of his Protestant New Testament were reprinted, twenty-one of which Francis Fry has enumerated and described (cf. Westcott, “History of the English Bible”, London, 1905 A.D.).

Concerning Tyndale's Protestant “New Testament”, one Catholic martyr wrote:

“To call it the New Testament would be wrong, it should rather be called Tyndale’s Testament or Luther’s Testament, since Tyndale, after Luther’s counsel, corrupted and changed it from the good and wholesome doctrine of Christ to their own devilish heresies. Tyndale’s translation is as counterfeit as a false copper groat that has been all silvered over. What faults are in it?  It would take a great deal of time to go through the whole book, and show all the texts that were annotated wrongly and falsely translated, for there were over a thousand of them” (Saint Thomas More [b. London, England 1477 A.D. - martyred, Tower Hill, London, England, Saturday, July 6, 1535 A.D.], A Dialogue Concernynge Heresyes - A Dialogue Concerning Heresies, Book III, Chapter 8, Tyndale’s Translation of the New Testament; emphasis added).

Friday, October  4, 1535 A.D.  -  Coverdale’s Protestant bible  -   Miles [Myles] Coverdale [b. at Yorkshire, England in c. 1488 A.D. - d. at London, England on January 20, 1569 A.D.], educated at the Augustinian monastery at Cambridge, was ordained a Priest in that Order in about 1514 A.D. After 1528 A.D. he was on the European Continent in Tyndale's society. He was favored by King Edward VI [1547 A.D. - 1553 A.D.], but was imprisoned under Queen Mary [1553 A.D. - 1558 A.D.] in 1553 A.D.

After getting his freedom, he remained on the European Continent until the execution of Queen Mary by Bloody Betty [1558 A.D. - 1603 A.D.], after which he returned to England, and died in February, 1569 A.D.  He prepared a complete English Protestant Bible, the printing of which was finished on Friday, October  4,1535 A.D.  He was the first to omit the Deuterocanonical books in the body of the Old Testament, adding them at the end as “apocrypha”. His work is a second-hand eclectic translation, based on other Protestant versions in Latin and German.

1537 A.D. - Matthew bible  - This Protestant bible is only another version of the Protestant bibles of Tyndale and Coverdale.  By now, the London booksellers had become excited because they realized that they could make a lot of money by selling Protestant bibles in English.  Grafton and Whitchurch were the first to take advantage of this business opportunity by offering for sale the so-called Matthew bible in 1537 A.D.. Thomas Matthew is an alias for John Rogers, a friend and fellow-worker of Protestant Tyndale.

1539 A.D. - Taverner's bible   - This Protestant bible followed the Protestant Matthew Bible  which was a blatant revision of the Matthew bible. Though Taverner was an accomplished Greek scholar and somewhat of an English purist, his edition had no influence on subsequent translations.

April, 1539 A.D. - The Great Bible  - Plans for this Protestant bible were hatched in about 1536 A.D.  Oliver Cromwell [b. 1599 A.D. -  d. 1658 A.D.] (Lord Protector of England [1653 A.D. - 1658 A.D.]), had placed Coverdale at the head of the enterprise for bringing out an approved Protestant bible in English.  This new Protestant bible was based on the Protestant Matthew Bible.    Coverdale consulted the Latin Version of the Old Testament with the Hebrew text by Sebastian Münster, the Vulgate, and Erasmus's edition of the Greek for the New Testament. The work was ready for the press in 1538 A.D.  Printing on it began in Paris, France, but it had to be transferred to London on Saturday, December 17, 1538 A.D.  In April of 1539 A.D., this Protestant edition was finished.  Because of its huge size, it was called the Great Bible.   Before 1541 A.D., six other editions of this Protestant bible were printed.

1557 A.D.  -  Whittingham’s New Testament, a.k.a. Calvin’s New Testament,  -  During the reign of Queen Mary  [1553 A.D. - 1558 A.D.], a number of English Protestants went to Geneva, Switzerland, the town of Calvin and Beza.  In 1557 A.D., from this city, the English Protestants issued another Protestant New Testament with an introduction by Calvin. It was probably the work of William Whittingham, and it was the first English Protestant Bible which had its text divided into “verses and sections according to the best editions in other languages”.

1560 A.D.  - The Geneva bible, a.k.a. The Breeches Bible  -  Whittingham’s New Testament, a.k.a. Calvin’s New Testament, was quickly supplanted by an issue of a complete Protestant Bible in 1560 A.D., the so-called Geneva Bible, which is also known as the Breeches Bible from its rendering of Genesis 3:7, “they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves breeches”.

This Protestant Old Testament represented the text of the Protestant Great (Huge) Bible, which had been thoroughly revised with the help of the Hebrew original and other sources, while the Protestant New Testament consisted of Tyndale’s latest text revised in accordance with Beza’s translation and commentary. The handy form and other attractive features of the work rendered it so popular that between 1560 A.D. and 1644 A.D. at least 140 editions were published.

Saturday, October 5, 1568 A.D.  - The Bishops’ Bible  -  After the usurpation of the throne of England by Bloody Betty [1558 A.D. - 1603 A.D.] in 1588 A.D. upon the execution of Queen Mary, an attempt was made to improve the authorized  Protestant Great (Huge) Bible and thus to counteract the growing popularity of the Calvinistic Protestant Geneva Bible.  Protestant Anglican Bishop Parker divided the whole Protestant bible into parcels, and then distributed them among the Protestant bishops and other Protestant men for revision. The resultant version was ready for publication on Saturday, October 5, 1568 A.D., and became generally known as the Bishops’ Bible. Several editions were afterwards published, and the Protestant Great (Huge) Bible ceased to be reprinted in 1569 A.D., excepting its Psalter which was introduced into the Bishops’ Bible in 1572 A.D., and admitted exclusively in 1585 A.D.. The Anglican Protestant Bishops’ bible is noted for its inequality in style and general merit.  As a result,  it could not replace the Protestant Geneva bible in English Protestant homes.

1611 A.D.  - The Protestant Authorized Version bible  -  The 1582 A.D. Rheims edition New Testament of the Roman Catholic Bible which was translated into Marian English [Queen Mary of England] had its influence on the Protestant Authorized Version bible, which was begun in 1604 A.D. and published in 1611 A.D.  The work was distributed among six committees of scholars, the Protestant Bishops’ bible being taken as the basis to work on. A body of rules was drawn up which contained both a scheme of revision and general directions for the execution of their work. The actual work of revision occupied about two years and nine months, and an additional nine months were required for the final preparation of the press. But even after its publication in 1611 A.D., deliberate changes were introduced silently and without authority by men whose very names are often unknown.

Tuesday, May 17, 1881 A.D. - Revised Edition of the 1611 A.D. Protestant Authorized Version of the New Testament  -  In February, 1870 A.D., the Protestant Anglican Convocation of Canterbury appointed a committee to consider the subject of an authorized revision of the Protestant Authorized Version. After the report of the committee had been presented in May, 1870 A.D., and had been adopted, two companies were formed for the revision of the Old and the New Testaments respectively. The members of each company were partly appointed, partly invited.  The revision of the New Testament was completed in 407 meetings, distributed over more than ten years, and was finally presented to Convocation on Tuesday, May 17, 1881 A.D.

Friday, June 20, 1884 A.D.  -  Revised Edition of the 1611 A.D. Protestant Authorized Version of the Old Testament  - The revision of the Old Testament occupied 792 days, and was finished on Friday, June 20, 1884 A.D. The revised Apocrypha did not appear until 1895 A.D.  At first the work of the revisers satisfied neither the advanced nor the conservative party, but in the course of time it has grown steadily in popularity among Protestants.  Since then, so many, many more changes have been made, that the accuracy of Protestant bibles is even more in doubt than even when they were first pieced together, primarily in the 16th Century!

Question:

Therefore, when Protestants say that they must believe in THE bible, to which ONE bible, of the many totally different Protestant bibles, do they refer?  Which ONE of the following Protestant bibles, is THE ONE and ONLY bible Protestants are required to use?  Is it:

1)   c. 1382 A.D.  -  Early Edition  “Wycliffe Bible” translated into Middle English.
2)   c. 1388 A.D.  -  Later Edition  “Wycliffe Bible” translated into Middle English.
3)   1522 A.D.  - Luther’s  New Testament.
4)   1525 A.D.  -  1550 A.D.  -  Tyndale's Protestant bible.
5)   1529 A.D.  -  Zurich bible.
6)   1529 A.D.  -  Anabaptist version of the Zurich bible.
7)   Friday, October  4, 1535 A.D.  -  Coverdale’s Protestant bible.
8)   1537 A.D.  -  Matthew bible.
9)   1539 A.D.  -  Taverner's bible.
10)   April, 1539 A.D.  -  The Great Bible.
11)  1545 A.D.  - Luther’s Old Testament.  Luther’s bible of 1545 A.D., which was first “finalized” in 1545 A.D., but which went through ten editions in Luther’s lifetime because he had to make many corrections and revisions of the various errors he made in his bible.
12)  1557 A.D.  -  Whittingham’s New Testament, a.k.a. Calvin’s New Testament.
13)  1560 A.D.  - The Geneva bible, a.k.a. The Breeches Bible.
14)  Saturday, October 5, 1568 A.D.  - The Bishops’ Bible.
15)  1579 A.D.  -  Calvinist version of the Zurich bible, a.k.a. Zwinglian bible, by Parens.
16)  1602 A.D. - 1604 A.D.  -  Calvinist version of the Zurich bible.
17)_ 1611 A.D.  - The Protestant Authorized Version bible.
18)  1630 A.D.  -  Socinian bible published by Crellius at Racovia, of 1630 A.D.
19)  1709 A.D.  -  Protestant German bible by Michaelis.
20)  1774 A.D.  -  Protestant German bible by Moldenhauer.
21)  1776 A.D.  -  Protestant German bible by Grynæus.
22)  1781 A.D.  -  Protestant German bible by Vögelin.
23)  1809 A.D. - 1814 A.D. - Protestant German bible by de Wette and Augusti at Heidelberg.
24) 1831 A.D. - 1833 A.D.  -  Protestant German bible by Vögelin - revised by de Wette.
25)  Tuesday, May 17, 1881 A.D. - Revised Edition of the 1611 A.D. Protestant Authorized Version of the New Testament.
26)  Friday, June 20, 1884 A.D. - Revised Edition of the 1611 A.D. Protestant Authorized Version of the Old Testament.

Commentary on Protestant Bibles

This brief review of the history of Protestant Bibles in Germany and England proves how one Protestant sect or faction was not content with the various translations of the other Protestant sects/factions.  So, they did their own translations which, in turn, were not readily acceptable by other Protestant sects!

When one adds to this the fact that some Protestants, e.g. Luther, “went wild” in deleting certain books from the Catholic Bible, interpolating various passages, deleting various passages, adding passages according to their own whims and replacing many basic words with questionable words, all of which was done to better substantiate their Protestant heresies, one is left with Protestant bibles which are prone to continual change, virtually meaningless, and not really worth the paper on which they are printed!

Unlike the Christian Catholic Vulgate edition of the Christian Catholic Bible by Saint Jerome [b. Stridon, Dalmatia, c. 340 A.D. - d. Bethlehem 420 A.D.] which has been used ever since by the Catholic Church, Protestants have never really had ONE secure "infallible Word of God" bible, but rather many “fallible bibles” that are NOT the Word of God, but rather the fallible writings of certain men who have been subject to the whims and caprices of their prejudices against the Roman Catholic Church and her Doctrinal Teachings.  Such Protestants are not known for their orthodoxy if for no other reason than that they are not Christian Catholics but instead they go to the pond of the toxic waste of wormwood from which to draw forth the polluted waters of heretical ideas and biblical interpolations, mistranslations, and other changes - whether additions or subtractions - which fallible and heretical changes they make to the unchangeable and infallible Word of God.

When one adds to this a private interpretation by every person, which is encouraged, as well as Protestant bibles which have had their own various questionable passages re-written, and otherwise changed in various ways - ironically such changes are the basis of their ever-changing "beliefs" in some way, only to be re-written again and again, one has books filled with human pride, certainly not with the Word of God!  The Protestants seem to be always re-writing the Bible?  WHY?  Because the Protestants can never seem to "get it right"!  Why?  Because they are in the darkness of the error known as heresy!

On the contrary:

“But God’s Word is one and the same and, as it is written: The Word of God endureth forever [Isaias 40:8] unchanged, not before or after another, but existing the same always.  For it was fitting, whereas God is One, that His Image should be One also, and His Word One and One His Wisdom” (Patriarch Saint Athanasius [b. Alexandria, Egypt 296 A.D. - d. Alexandria, Egypt on Wednesday, May 2, 373A.D.], Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt, Father of Orthodoxy in the Catholic Church, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse II, Chapter XVII, Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22, Continued, ¶ 36;emphasis added).

How do Protestants reconcile the contradictory teachings of their numerous “bibles” of their numerous sects with the ONE Word of God:  “I am the Lord and I change not” (Malachias 2:6) because “with the Father of Light there is no change nor shadow of alteration” (James 1:17)?

On the contrary, we must “hold the traditions which you have learned” (2 Thessalonians 2:14).

Protestantism seems to be the fulfillment of this prophecy:

“Now the Spirit manifestly saith that in the last times some shall depart from the Faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils speaking lies in hypocrisy and having their conscience seared” (1 Timothy 4:1).

Do you see how foolish it is to base one’s faith on the ever-changing sands of a book which has been changed, and will continue to be changed, a multitude of times in number innumerable, so that the original meanings can be said to have been lost in the Protestant dust and ashes of the Catholic Bibles they mutilated, burned or otherwise destroyed, whether physically or morally?!
Sola Scriptura

In addition, in regard to all of those who ascribe to the heresy of Luther of “only the Bible” (sola Scriptura), one is deprived of the “living waters” [John 4:10] of the Seven Sacraments which flow from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Yet, by sola Scriptura, one is also “treated” to the slimy puddles of the toxic, putrid wormwood which eats away the true Word of God with its own man-made substitutes amid a desert of spiritual desolation and the ocean of filthy, stinking moral madness, decay and rot call private interpretation!

How many do not correctly understand this prophecy to their own eternal destruction?!:

“And the third angel sounded the trumpet, and a great star [Father Martin Luther according to some exegetics] fell from heaven [the Church], burning as it were a torch [the flames of heresy], and it fell on the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters:  And the name of the star is called Wormwood.  And the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter [i.e. poisoned]” (Apocalypse 8:10-11).

Catholics are Really the ONLY Christians

That Catholics are really the ONLY Christians is proven from the writings of a Holy Bishop of the Catholic Church many centuries before the hundreds of various contradictory sects of Protestantism ever existed!  He wrote:

 “7.  Many things the Holy Spirit hath taught us, Whom God sent from Heaven to the Apostles as their Comforter and Guide. Many things reason teaches us, as Paul saith, and honesty, and, as he says, nature itself. (1 Corinthians 11:14).  What! Is the authority of Apostolic men, of Primitive Priests, of the most blessed Martyr and Doctor Cyprian

(Bishop Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a.k.a. Thaschus Cæcilius Cyprianus, [b. 190  A.D. - d. Martyred on Saturday, August 14, 258 A.D.]. He converted to the Catholic Church later in his life time.  He was Ordained a Priest in 247 A.D. and Consecrated as the Bishop of Carthage in about 249 A.D.)

of slight weight with us? Do we wish to teach the teacher? Are we wiser than he was, and are we puffed up by the spirit of the flesh against the man, whom his noble shedding of blood, and a crown of most glorious suffering, have set forth as a witness of the Eternal God? What thinkest thou of so many Priests on this same side, who throughout the whole world were compacted together in one bond of peace with this same Cyprian? What of so many aged Bishops, so many Martyrs, so many Confessors? Come say, if they were not sufficient authorities for the use of this name, are we sufficient for its rejection? And shall the Fathers rather follow our authority, and the antiquity of Saints give way to be emended by us, and times now putrifying through their sins, pluck out the grey hairs of the Apostolic Age? And yet, my brother, be not troubled; Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname. [Christianus mihi nomen est, Catholicus cognomen.] The former [Christian] qualifies me, while the latter [Catholic] proclaims me for what I am. The latter [Catholic] demonstrates what the former [Christian] signifies.”

“8.   And, if I finally must explain the word Catholic and translate it from the Greek into the Roman idiom, Catholic means ubique Unum - everywhere One, or, as the more learned - doctores  - think, obedience to all the Commandments of God.  Whence the Apostle, whether you be obedient in all things (2 Corinthians 2:9).  And again, For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of One, many shall be made just (Romans 5:19).  Therefore he who is a Catholic, the same man is obedient   He who is obedient, the same is a Christian, and thus the Catholic is a Christian. Wherefore our people, when named Catholic are separated by this appellation from the heretical name. But if also the word Catholic means ubique Unum - everywhere One, as those first think, David indicates this very thing, when he saith,  The Queen stood at thy right hand, in gilded clothing; surrounded with variety (Psalm 44:10).  And in the Canticle of Canticles the Bridegroom speaketh these words:  One is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of her Mother, the chosen of her that bore her.  [Canticle of Canticles 6:8].  Again it is written, Clothed round about with varieties.  After her shall virgins be brought to the King (Psalm 44:15).  And further, young maidens without number [Canticle of Canticles 6:7]. Therefore amidst all, she is one, and one over all. If thou askest the reason of the name, it is evident.” (Bishop Saint Pacian [b. ?  A.D. - d. 390 A.D.], Bishop of Barcelona, Spain [360 A.D. - 390 A.D.], Epistola I, Contra Sympronianum, De Catholico Nomine, ¶ 7-8.  Letter I, Against Sympronian, a.k.a. Sympronianus, On the Catholic Name, ¶ 7-8 [375 A.D.]; De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis; emphasis added.)

Second - the term born again comes from the Greek phrase gennatha anothen  which occurs twice in the Bible:

3:3 apekriyh ihsouv kai eipen autw amhn amhn legw soi ean mh tiv gennhyh anwyen ou dunatai idein thn basileian tou yeou (Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament, John 3:3).

3:3 respondit Iesus et dixit ei amen amen dico tibi nisi quis natus fuerit denuo non potest videre regnum Dei (Latin Vulgate of Saint Jerome, John 3:3).

3:3  Jesus answered, and said to him:  Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God... (John 3:3).

3:5  Jesus answered:  Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5).

But how should it be translated?  The Greek word anwyen - sometimes can be translated again, but in the New Testament, it most often means from above. In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated “again” are in John 3:3 and 3:5; every other time it is given a different rendering.

Another term is regeneration. When referring to something that occurs in the life of an individual believer, it only appears in Titus 3:5:

3:5  Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver [water] of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;

In other passages, the new birth phenomenon is also described as receiving “newness of life”:

 6:4  For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)

Also, as receiving the circumcision of the heart:

"...the circumcision is that of the heart...”  (Romans 2:29).

 2:11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ:
 2:12   Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.  (Colossians 2:11-12)

Plus, becoming a “new creature”:

5:17  If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new.  (2 Corinthians 5:17).

6:15   For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.  (Galatians 6:15).

These different ways of talking about being born again describe effects of the Sacrament of Baptism, which Christ speaks of in John 3:5 as being born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

3:5 apekriyh ihsouv amhn amhn legw soi ean mh tiv gennhyh ex udatov kai pneumatov ou dunatai eiselyein eiv thn basileian twn ouranwn

3:5 respondit Iesus amen amen dico tibi nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei

(N.B. Saint Jerome deviates from the Greek gennhyh [born] and uses renatus [renewed or regenerated].

3:5  Jesus answered:  Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5).

Both the Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament and Another Greek New Testament use the term born  (gennhyh) of (ex) water (udatov) and (kai) Spirit (pneumatov).

Therefore, in both Greek texts, the literal phrase is  born of water and [Holy] Spirit, indicating ONE birth which is of water/Spirit.  In other words, there is only ONE birth which is a water birth by the power of the Spirit or in virtue of the Spirit, i.e. by the power of God the Holy Ghost Who is called “the Sanctifier”.

Theologically, it is God the Holy Ghost Who “sanctifies” the soul of a person who is Baptized by water - the Sacrament of Baptism.  But the effects of the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism also extends to the physical body which, in virtue of the Sanctification of the Soul, thereby becomes the “Temple of the Holy Ghost”.

In this way is Original Sin, inherited from Adam, washed away from the Soul which is now purified and becomes a child of God and has the opportunity to go to Heaven provided that said Soul dies in the state of Sanctifying Grace, i.e. without any Mortal Sin(s) on the Soul.

Saint Peter mentions this transformation from all sins (Baptism of those who have attained the use of reason remits not only Original Sin but also all actual sins of commission and omission, whether mortal and/or venial) to the State of Sanctifying Grace which is what he calls the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

 2:38   But Peter said to them:  Do penance, and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins:  and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost [Sanctifying Grace].

It should be noted that in those infant days of the Christian Catholic Church, the science of theology was only in its most basic stage and a much more precise terminology of such Truths awaited a time of much more intense prayerful study and learning such as witnessed during the golden age of the Scholastics, Thomists, etc.

The context of Christ’s teachings in John 3:3 is emphasized in even more details in John 3:5, the two primary details being born again (John 3:3), specifically by Baptism by water - the physical matter - which God the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier, uses to Sanctify by a Spiritual washing or cleansing of the Soul from every sin, in infants and all others - Original Sin; in those who have attained the use of reason - all actual sins as well.

It was shortly before Christ taught Nicodemus about the necessity and regenerating effects of the Sacrament of Baptism, that Christ Himself was Baptized by Saint John the Baptist.

Consider what happened: Christ went into the water, and as He is Baptized, the Heavens open, and God the Holy Ghost descends upon Him in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father speaks from Heaven:

Matthew

“13   Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him.
14   But John stayed him, saying:  I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?
15   And Jesus answering, said to him:  Suffer it to be so now.  For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice.  Then he suffered him.
16  And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water:  and lo, the heavens were opened to him:  and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.
17   And behold a voice from heaven, saying:  This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:13-17).

Mark

“9  And it came to pass, in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
10  And forthwith coming up out of he water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit as a dove descending, and remaining on him.
11  And there came a voice from heaven:  Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased”  (Mark 1:9-11).

Luke

“21   Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened;
22   And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon him; and a voice came from heaven:  Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased” (Luke 3:21-22).

John

“32   And John gave testimony, saying:   I saw the Spirit coming down, as a dove from heaven, and he remained upon him.
33   And I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me:   He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34   And I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God” (John 1:32-34).

2 Peter

“17 For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (2 Peter 1:17).

What Happens at Baptism

This scene gives us a graphic depiction of what happens at Baptism: We are Baptized with water, symbolizing our dying with Christ:

“Know you not that all we, who are Baptized in Christ Jesus, are Baptized in his death?” (Romans 6:3).

Our rising with Christ to the newness of life

“4  For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.
5  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection” (Romans 6:4–5).

We receive Sanctifying Grace and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost

“12 For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ.
13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

“For as many of you as have been Baptized in Christ, have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27).

We are adopted as God’s heirs

 “15   For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of Sons, whereby we cry:  Abba (Father).
 16   For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the Sons of God.
 17   And if Sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ:  yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him” (Romans 8:15–17).

After our Lord’s teaching that it is necessary for salvation to be born from above by water and the Spirit (John 3:1–21).

“After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptized” (John 3:22).

Then we have the witness of the early Church concerning baptismal regeneration:

“Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

The Fathers of the Catholic Church were unanimous in teaching this.

Fathers of the Catholic Church

Saint Justin Martyr, 151 A.D.

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Catholics] teach and say is true...  are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which We were Ourselves regenerated. For in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [Matthew 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said:  Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:3]" (Saint Justin Martyr [b. Sichem, a.k.a. Neapolis, or Flavia Neapolis, modern day Nablus, Palestine c. 100 A.D. - d. Rome, Italy c. 165 A.D.], First Apology, Chapter 61, Christian Baptism; 151 A.D.).

Bishop Saint Irenæus of Lyons, c. 190 A.D.

“Then he [Naaman] went down, and washed in the Jordan seven times  [2 Kings 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being Baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared:  Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5]” (Bishop Saint Irenæus of Lyons [b. Proconsular Asia c. 130 A.D. - d. Lyons, France either on Monday, June 28, or Monday, August 23, in about 202 A.D.], Bishop of Lyons, Father of the Catholic Church.  He was a Disciple of Bishop Saint Polycarp [c. 69 A.D. - d. martyred on Saturday, February 23, 166 A.D.].  Saint Polycarp, in turn, was a Disciple of Saint John the Apostle, Evangelist and author of the Apocalypse [b.  ?  A.D. - d. Ephesus, c. 101 A.D.], who made Saint Polycarp the Bishop of Smyrna.  Saint Polycarp is an Apostolic Father of the Catholic Church. Fragment 34, c. 190 A.D.).

Bishop Saint Cyprian of Carthage, 252 A.D.

“When those who have been Baptized abroad outside the [Catholic] Church, and have been stained among heretics and schismatics with the taint of profane water, when they come to Us and to the Church which is one, ought to be Baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to lay their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost [Acts 8:17] unless they receive also the Baptism of the [Church] Church. For then finally can they be fully Sanctified, and be the Sons of God, if they be born of each Sacrament since it is written  Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God  [John 3:5]” (Bishop  Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a.k.a. Thaschus Cæcilius Cyprianus, [b. 190  A.D. - d. Martyred on Saturday, August 14, 258 A.D.]. He converted to the Catholic Church later in his life time.  He was Ordained a Priest in 247 A.D. and Consecrated as the Bishop of Carthage in about 249 A.D.  His martyrdom is described in an anonymous work Acta Proconsularia. Letter 71, ¶ 1, To Stephen, Concerning a Council, 252 A.D.).

Bishop Saint Augustine, 408 A.D.

Bishop Saint Augustine also taught:   “But the possibility of regeneration through the office rendered by the will of another, when the child is presented to receive the Sacred Rite, is the work exclusively of the Spirit by whom the child thus presented is regenerated. For it is not written, ‘Except a man be born again by the will of his parents, or by the faith of those presenting the child, or of those administering the ordinance,’ but, Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God  [John 3:5].  By the water, therefore, which holds forth the Sacrament of Grace in its outward Form, and by the Spirit who bestows the benefit of Grace in its inward power, cancelling the bond of guilt, and restoring natural goodness [reconcilians bonum natura], the man deriving his first birth originally from Adam alone, is regenerated in Christ alone” (Bishop Saint Augustine, a.k.a. Aurelius Augustinus [b. Tagaste, Africa, Saturday, November 13, 354 A.D. - d. Hippo Regia, Africa, Wednesday, August 28, 430 A.D.], Bishop of Hippo Regia, Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church, the Doctor of Grace, a protégé of Patriarch Saint Ambrose [b. in Gaul, possibly at Trier, Arles, or Lyons in 340 A.D. - d. at Milan, Italy on Friday, April 4, 397 A.D.] Patriarch of Milan [374 A.D. - Friday, April 4, 397 A.D.], Letters 98:2; 408 A.D.).

Bishop Saint Augustine, 419 A.D.

“Moreover, from the time when He said Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God  [John 3:5], and again, he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it [Matthew 16:25] and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall save it [Luke 9:24], no one becomes a member of Christ except it be either by Baptism in Christ or death for Christ” (Bishop Saint Augustine, Book I, Addressed to Renatus, the Monk, 1:10; 419 A.D.  N.B.  Bishop Saint Augustine is teaching the validity of the Baptism of Blood, that is, martyrdom, which may take the place of Baptism by water).

Regeneration

The truth that regeneration comes through Baptism is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible.

“Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to His mercy, He saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation [regeneration] of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5).

“Know you not that all we, who are Baptized in Christ Jesus, are Baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him by Baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:3-4).

The teaching that Baptism unites us with Christ’s death and resurrection so that we might die to sin and receive a new life is a key part of the theology of Saint Paul:

“In Whom [Christ] also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ:  Buried with Him in Baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, Who hath raised him up from the dead.  And you, when you were dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh; he hath quickened together with Him, forgiving you all offences” (Colossians 2:11-13).

Some people miss the fact that Baptism gives us Sanctifying Grace, a participation in the very life of God, because such people think that Baptism is only an external symbol - an outward sign. But Scripture is clear that Baptism is much more than an outward sign - rather, it is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, which gives Sanctifying Grace.

“But Peter said to them:  Do penance, and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins:  and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost [i.e. Sanctifying Grace]” (Acts 2:38).

When Saint Paul was converted, he was told:

“And now why tarriest thou?  Rise up, and be Baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking His Name” (Acts 22:16).

Saint Peter said:

“Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.  Whereunto Baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:20-21).

Martin Luther wrote in his Short Catechism that baptism “works the forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants eternal life to all who believe.”

His recognition that the Bible teaches baptismal regeneration has been preserved by Lutherans and a few other Protestant denominations. Even some Baptists recognize that the biblical evidence demands the historic Catholic teaching of Baptismal regeneration. Notable individuals who recognized that Scripture teaches Baptismal regeneration include Baptist theologians George R. Beasley-Murray and Dale Moody.

Nevertheless, many Protestants have abandoned this biblical teaching, substituting man-made theories on regeneration. There are two main views held by those who deny the Scriptural teaching that one is born again through Baptism.

1) The “Evangelical” view, common among Baptists.
2) The “Calvinist” view, common among Presbyterians.

Protestant Evangelicals claim that one is born again at the first moment of faith in Christ. According to this theory, faith in Christ produces regeneration.

The Calvinist position is the reverse:  Regeneration precedes and produces faith in Christ. Calvinists (some of whom also call themselves Evangelicals) suppose that God “secretly” regenerates people, without their being aware of it, and this causes them to place their faith in Christ.

To defend these theories, Protestant Evangelicals and Calvinists attempt to explain away the many extremely clear verses in the Bible that very distinctly teach Baptismal regeneration. One strategy such Protestant have is to say that the water in John 3:5 refers not to Baptism but to the amniotic fluid present at childbirth. This is a gross absurdity!

Their position is that Christ was really saying - but in totally different words: “You must be born of amniotic fluid and the Spirit.”

The respected Protestant Greek lexicon, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, fails to turn up any instances in ancient, Septuagint, or New Testament, Greek where “water” (Greek: hudor) refers to “amniotic fluid” (VIII:314–333).

Protestant Evangelicals and Calvinists try to deal with the other verses where new life is attributed to Baptism either by ignoring them or by arguing that it is not actually Baptism by water that is being mentioned. The problem for them is that water is explicitly mentioned or implied in each of these verses.

In Acts 2:38, people are exhorted to take an action: “Be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” which does not refer to an internal Baptism that is administered to people by themselves, but the external Baptism administered to them by others.

Such an anti-Scriptural mis-interpretation of Baptism by water by such Protestants ultimately leads them to deny any kind of Baptism of any Children and/or Adults of any age!  In other words, logically speaking, the only ones who are “baptized” according to their absurd anti-Christ theory are newborn infants whose parents, apparently, are members of their heretical sect?

We are told at the conversion of Saint Paul that:

“Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing.  But they leading him by the hands, brought him to Damascus.  And he was there three days, without sight, and he did neither eat nor drink...  And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house.  And laying his hands upon him [Saul], he said:  Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, He that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest; that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.  And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was Baptized.  And when he had taken meat, he was strengthened.  And he was with the disciples that were at Damascus, for some days”  (Acts 9:8-9; 17-19).

In another Scripture, physical water is mentioned twice, paralleling Baptism with the flood, where “eight souls were saved by water” (1 Peter 3:20) which then explains that “whereunto Baptism being of the like form [i.e. physical water], now saveth you also” (1 Peter 3:21) by the power of Christ rather than by the physical action of water washing “away of the filth of the flesh” (1 Peter 3:21).

The anti-Baptismal regeneration position is not only ridiculous, it is also indefensible, because, among other things, it has not even one Scriptural basis of any kind anywhere in the Bible.

The Protestant Claim that Catholics are not Born Again is 100%, Totally False

Therefore, the Protestant Claim that Catholics are not born again is 100%, totally false, because it is true that Catholics are in fact “born again”!  Why?

Because all Christian Catholics have been validly Baptized, all Christian Catholics have been born again.

Instead, Catholics should ask Protestants: “Are YOU born again - the way the Bible understands born again?”

IF the Protestant has not validly received the Holy Sacrament of Baptism, in accordance with the way in which the Apostles, and after them, their Episcopal Successors, Baptized BY WATER, the Protestant has NOT been born again “the Bible way,” regardless of what the Protestant may think or how the Protestant might otherwise try to argue.

Protestant Deceptive Practices

Those Protestants who try to “win” an argument by yelling, screaming, pounding their fist on a table or on a podium, or whatever, or who put up their hand trying to erect an invisible wall to prevent the Catholic from talking and trying to explain the Truth to them, are guilty of deceptive practices!  Why?

Because the non-Christian Protestant (all Protestants are non-Christians) who tries to “talk over” what a Christian Catholic (all Catholics are Christian Catholics) is saying, or the non-Christian Protestant who increases the volume of his/her voice to try to “drown out” the voice of the Christian Catholic, or the non-Christian Protestant who yells or screams to try to “silence” the Christian Catholic or otherwise tries to “intimidate” the Christian Catholic, or the non-Christian Protestant who bangs one or both fists on whatever - having the temper-tantrum of a 2-year old because said Protestant is frustrated with the Christian Catholic, or the non-Christian Protestant who tries to build an “invisible wall”, or a “sound-proof isolation booth”, or otherwise tries to prevent the Christian Catholic from speaking, is engaged in a falsehood known as a “fallacy”, specifically, in this case, the fallacy known as the Argumentum Ad Baculum, a.k.a. the Argument to Force.

The fallacy called the Argumentum Ad Baculum, a.k.a. the Argument to Force, is a fallacy by which the “born-again” Sophist appeals to some kind of physical force.  Such a fallacy fails to perceive reality since:

“To knock a person down when he differs from you in opinion may prove your strength, but hardly your logic.”

Examples of this fallacy include such things as those already cited in the above two paragraphs, as well as also shouting one’s phrases, thumping the pulpit, shaking one’s fist at an imaginary or real opponent, and other forms of violence, whether verbal, written, or physical, in any manner whatsoever.  These things are all part of the fallacy of the Argumentum Ad Baculum.
Administration of the Sacrament of Baptism

A “spade” by any other name is still a “spade”, both in terms of its ontological essence, as well as its metaphysical essence. In other words, a thing is what it is.

This is why Baptism by physical wet water is Baptism by physical wet water, not by some other kind of wet fluid or dry substance.

This is also why the solemn administration of the Sacrament of Baptism must be administered by a validly Ordained Catholic Priest or Prelate who follows the Liturgical Rite for Baptism which, in the West, is found in the Roman Catholic pre-Vatican 2 Ritual - Rituale Romanum - The Roman Ritual.

A “baptismal” ceremony by an invalid Priest or Prelate, or by any non-Catholic minister - e.g. a Protestant minister of whatever Protestant heretical cult, or by a valid Catholic Priest or Prelate who does not use the Roman Catholic pre-Vatican 2 Ritual - Rituale Romanum - The Roman Ritual - does not validly administer the Sacrament of Baptism which means the ceremony has no value in the sight of God despite any and all possible claims to the contrary because Original Sin and any actual sins still remain on the soul after such a Satanic farce!

Changes by Synod Vatican 2

N.B.  The term "Satanic farce" is used because, for one of several reasons, the Exorcisms of infants, children, and adults of all ages was thrown out, along with almost everything else that is Catholic, as the direct result of all of the anti-Catholic changes which were made at Synod Vatican 2 [Thursday, October 11, 1962 - Wednesday, December 8, 1965] by the majority of the Cardinals and Bishops in attendance who were one or more of the following:  Freemasons; Communists; Satanists; Homosexuals; Pedophiles; Modernist Heretics; etc., etc.

Or, to cite one of the Council Fathers who attended anti-Catholic Synod Vatican 2 [Thursday, October 11, 1962 - Wednesday, December 8, 1965]:

Synod Vatican 2 was “a sinister farce acted out by three thousand good-for-nothings, some of whom, despite the gold [pectoral] crosses on their chests, don’t even believe in the Trinity or the Virgin” (Bishop Antonio Romeo of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in Bob Considine’s column ON THE LINE in the NEW YORK JOURNAL AMERICAN of Friday, November 27, 1964).

A Cardinal said of Synod Vatican 2:

Synod Vatican 2 was "the greatest disaster in recent ecclesiastical history" (Giuseppe Cardinal Siri [b. Sunday, May 20, 1906 in Genoa, Italy - d. Tuesday, May 2, 1989], Archbishop of Genoa, Italy, from Pontiff, p. 369 - Gordon Thomas/Max Morgan Witts).

At the close of Synod Vatican 2, Father Joaquin Sáenz y Arriaga, S.J., PhD. (Philosophiæ Doctor - Doctor of Philosophy), Th. D. (Doctor Theologiæ - Doctor of Theology), J.C.D. (Juris Canonici Doctor - Doctor of Canon Law) [b. on Thursday, October 12, 1899 A.D.  - d. Wednesday, April 28, 1976 A.D.], who was Ordained a Jesuit Priest of the Roman Catholic Church, on Wednesday, April 30, 1930 and Celebrated his first Mass in the city of Guadalajara, Jalisco on Friday, May 2, 1930, issued a press release, signed by 28 conservative Catholic leaders, which attacked Synod Vatican 2 [Thursday, October 11, 1962 - Wednesday, December 8, 1965] for having “yielded to the pressures or to the money of Judaism”, not to mention the alleged “blackmail” under the guidance supposedly of a Jewish Cardinal, to wit:  the German Jesuit Cardinal - Augustin Cardinal Bea, S.J. [b. at Riedböhringen, Germany on Saturday, May 28, 1881 - d. at Rome, Italy on Saturday, November 16, 1968]!!!

It is what it is!

---

Additional articles for Question Box will be added when they become available.

Thank You for your interest!

---