1

1

“Born Again” Experience or Baptismal Regeneration?(by Robert Arakaki)

Soon after the Berlin Wall came down many American Evangelicals saw Eastern Europe as a mission fieldripe for the Gospel. However, they overlooked the fact that Orthodox Christianity had already beenthere for over a thousand years! Mihai Oara wrote “Conversions and Conversions: Romanians betweenOrthodoxy and Evangelicalism” which describes how Evangelicals sought to evangelize Eastern EuropeanOrthodox.

The typical narrative of conversion goes:

I grew up as an Orthodox, but I really did not know Jesus Christ. I used to drink, smokeand beat my wife. I was really disgusted with my life, until one day a Baptist friendinvited me to an evangelistic service. There I heard the gospel for the first time in my lifeand I decided to give my life to Jesus. I talked with the Orthodox priest in our parish buthe told me not to join a sect, because the salvation comes from kissing the icons andthrough good works. My family and friends thought I was crazy, but my life wascompletely changed and I decided to follow Christ in the baptismal water. In the newchurch I found real love and friendship and the pure Gospel, unadulterated by humantraditions. Source

Within this conversion story are certain Evangelical themes: (1) growing up in an empty ritualistic church,(2) hearing the Gospel for the first time, (3) having a life changing “born again” experience, (4) gettingbaptized to demonstrate this new life, and (5) the pure Gospel versus human traditions. ManyEvangelicals oppose the idea of sacramental grace, i.e., that one is born again or spiritually changedthrough the sacrament of baptism. They believe that baptism is valid only if one has had a genuine bornagain experience. This leads them to encourage Orthodox converts to get rebaptized.

The Evangelicals’ hostility to sacramental baptism and their insistence that their Orthodox convertsundergo rebaptism present a serious challenge that requires a response from the Orthodox. Addressingthe Evangelical challenge to Orthodox baptism requires answering the following questions: (1) Whatevidence is there for the Orthodox sacramental understanding of baptism? (2) What evidence is there forthe Evangelical born-again experience? And (3) Which approach reflects the historic Christianunderstanding of baptism? It should be kept in mind that Evangelicalism is a diverse movement withinProtestantism. In this article I attempt to speak to the mainstream of modern American Evangelicalism.

Baptismal Regeneration in Orthodoxy

Does the Orthodox Church teach that we are born again through baptism? The answer is: Yes. This canbe found in the prescribed prayers for baptism.

But do thou, O Master of all, show this water to be the water of redemption, the waterof sanctification, the purification of flesh and spirit, the loosing of bonds, the remissionof sins, the illumination of the soul, the laver of regeneration, the renewal of the Spirit,the gift of adoption to sonship, the garment of incorruption, the fountain of life. Forthou hast said, O Lord: Wash ye, be ye clean; put away evil things from your souls. Thouhast bestowed upon us from on high a new birth through water and theSpirit. (Hapgood ed., p. 278)

O Master, Lord our God, who through the Font bestowest heavenly Illumination uponthem that are baptized; who has regenerated thy newly-baptized servant by water and

2

2

the Spirit, and hast granted unto him (her) remission of his (her) sins…. (Hapgood, p.283) Source

From the prayers used in the sacrament of baptism it is clear that the Orthodox Church believes that oneis born again through baptism.

Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church

One reason Orthodoxy believes that we are born again through baptism is because this is what the earlyChurch believed. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) affirmed baptismal regeneration in his First Apology:

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertaketo be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, forthe remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they arebrought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in whichwe were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of theuniverse, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive thewashing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enterinto the kingdom of heaven.” (First Apology LXI; emphasis added)

Irenaeus of Lyons (fl. c. 175-c. 195) also taught baptismal regeneration:

And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which, was after Adam, havingfallen into transgression, needed the laver of regeneration, [the Lord] said to him [uponwhom He had conferred sight], after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, “Go toSiloam, and wash;” thus restoring to him both [his perfect] confirmation, and thatregeneration which takes place by means of the laver. (Against Heresies 5.15.3;emphasis added)

Basil the Great (c. 329 – c. 379) in On the Holy Spirit wrote:

First, it is necessary that the old way of life be terminated, and this is impossible unless aman is born again, as the Lord has said. Regeneration, as its very name reveals, is abeginning of a second life. (§35; emphasis added)

Here Basil understands “born again” in the sense of one life ending (life under the pagan gods) andanother life beginning (life under Christ).

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313 – 386) in his Catechetical Lectures referred to baptism as the “laver ofregeneration” (Lecture 18.32) and closes the lecture with an extended quote from Titus 3 and Ephesians1 in which baptism is referred to as the “washing of regeneration.” In Lecture 17.35 Cyril makesreference to the “season of baptism” – Holy Week preceding Easter Sunday – when the baptismalcandidates would appear before the clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons. Jerusalem then was a majorpilgrimage center for Christians. The practice of the clergy – bishop, priest, and deacon – administeringbaptism is also found in Tertullian’s On Baptism (§17). Ignatius of Antioch pointed out that baptismrequired the consent of the bishop (Smyrnaeans §8).

Thus, the consensus of early Christians supports baptismal regeneration. In early Christianity baptism isunderstood as the beginning of a new life in Christ, i.e., being regenerated or “born anew.” There is noevidence of salvation in Christ being separated from the sacrament of baptism or salvation being definedin terms of just a spiritual experience.

3

3

Baptismal Regeneration in the Bible

The Greek word for “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσια, palinggenesia) appears only two times in the NewTestament: Matthew 19:28 and Titus 3:5. In Matthew 19:28 “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσια) refers to therenewal of creation at Christ’s second coming. This parallels Peter’s proclamation of the eschatologicalrenewal of creation in Acts 3:21 and the promise of a new heaven and a new earth in Revelation 21:1.

The reference to “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσια) in Titus 3:4-7 is of greater relevance to the questionabout baptismal regeneration. Paul writes:

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because ofrighteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through thewashing of rebirth (διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας) and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whomhe poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having beenjustified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life (Emphasisadded; NIV).

Here baptismal regeneration is linked to the bestowing of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament ofchrismation. In baptism we are joined to Christ thereby acquiring the status of adopted children of God;in chrismation our spirit is renewed through our receiving the Holy Spirit. This baptism/chrismationpairing was the common practice of the early Church. The Orthodox Church still retains this pairing, theLatin Church separated confirmation from baptism sometime after the seventh century (Louth p. 184).

Baptismal Regeneration in John’s Gospel

Many Evangelicals refer to Nicodemus’ night time conversation with Jesus in John 3 to support theirteaching on being “born again.” The passage reads:

In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unlesshe is born again.” (John 3:3; NIV)

The question for us is does John 3 teach baptismal regeneration or the Evangelical born againexperience? The Greek here is “γεννεθη ανωθεν” (gennethe anothen) which has been translated “bornfrom above” or “born again.” This ambiguity is because the Greek “ανωθεν“(anothen) can be translatedeither “above” or “again.” In Galatians 4:9, Paul uses the word “ανωθεν” in the sense of “again”; he asksthe Galatians if they wanted to serve their former deities again. So while the English rendering “bornagain” is not a strict literal translation of the Greek, it conveys the underlying meaning adequately andagrees with the sense of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus.

The key exegetical question for John 3:5-8 is what “born of water” and “born of Spirit” mean.

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he isborn of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth tospirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The windblows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes fromor where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” (NIV)

One way to read John 3 is in terms of the sacraments of baptism (born of water) and chrismation (bornof the Spirit). One of the reasons why we need take seriously the possibility of the connection between“born of water” with water baptism is the fact that Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in the first halfof John 3 is immediately followed by the story in the second half of John 3 where it is emphasized thatboth John the Baptist and Jesus were baptizing where there was “plenty of water” (John 3:22-26).

4

4

Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown notes that in light of the Old Testament “born of the Spirit”could be understood covenantally (1966:139). He points to passages where the nation of Israel wasreferred to God’s first born child (Exodus 4:22, Deuteronomy 32:6, and Hosea 11:1; see also Isaiah 63:8,64:8). Unlike pagan mythology which viewed the king as a direct offspring of the gods, the Israelites sawthe monarch’s sonship in terms of the anointing that made a man a king (Brown p. 139; 2 Samuel 7:14,Psalms 2:7 and 89:27). Thus, as an educated Jew Nicodemus would have been well aware of the promiseof the eschatological outpouring of the Holy Spirit. We find this promise fulfilled in Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances where he calls the disciples his brothers and breathes on them bestowing theHoly Spirit (John 20:17, 22; Brown 1966:140). This suggests that the Christian sacrament of chrismationhas roots going back to the Old Testament.

Evangelical scholar Leon Morris noted that the Christians of John’s time would naturally have associatedJohn 3:5 with the sacrament of baptism but then notes that Nicodemus could in no way have understoodit that way as well (p. 217). For Morris rebirth by water and Spirit simply meant a new existence as aresult of divine activity: “Jesus is referring to the miracle which takes place when the divine activity re-makes a man. He is born all over again by the very Spirit of God.” (p. 218) This spiritual reading of John 3goes back to Calvin for whom real water was not necessarily involved as “water” referred to thepurifying action of the Spirit. Calvin in his commentary on John 3 wrote: “By water, therefore, is meantnothing more than the inward purification and invigoration which is produced by the Holy Spirit.”(Emphasis added.) This dichotomy can also be seen in the Baptist New Testament scholar G.R. Beasley-Murray’s Baptism in the New Testament (1962) in which he was willing to recognize the efficacy of theHoly Spirit but not the rite of baptism (p. 230). This non-sacramental understanding opens the door to avague and subjective understanding of the Holy Spirit. Its implicit Gnosticism is rather unlikely given theApostle John’s struggle against the early Gnostic heresy which stressed the spiritual over bodilyreality. Early Christians’ sacramentalism which understood divine grace, i.e., the Holy Spirit, to be atwork in the physical matter, e.g., water (John 3:5), bread (John 6:48-53), mud (John 9:15), would havepresented an effective deterrence against the Gnostic heresy.

Early Christian Baptism

Leon Morris disputes the sacramental reading of John 3 pointing out that the Christian sacrament ofbaptism was “non-existent” at the time of Nicodemus’ visit with Jesus (pp. 217-218). While that may betrue in the strict sense, all the elements are also present in the story: (1) the inquirer (Nicodemus), (2)the catechist (Jesus), (3) the sacrament of baptism (water baptism by Jesus’ disciples), and (4) thesacrament of chrismation (the work of the Spirit).

Early Christian initiation followed the two-fold pattern set in John 3: “born of water” and “born of theSpirit.” People were first baptized (born of water) then anointed with holy chrism (oil) which conferredthe Holy Spirit on the newly baptized (born of Spirit). Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical lecturesdescribed early Christian initiation in terms of the baptism/chrismation pairing:

For as Christ after His Baptism, and the visitation of the Holy Ghost, went forth andvanquished the adversary, so likewise ye, after Holy Baptism and the Mystical Chrism,having put on the whole armour of the Holy Ghost, are to stand against the power of theadversary, and vanquish it, saying, I can do all things through Christ which strengthensme. (Lecture 21.4; NPNF Vol. VII p. 149-150)

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225) described a similar baptism/chrismation pairing in the early Church. In OnBaptism (§7) he described the process:

After this, when we have issued from the font, we are thoroughly anointed with ablessed unction . . . . (Emphasis added.)

5

5

A careful reading of Tertullian’s description of baptism shows that he does not hold to a symbolic view ofbaptism like today’s Evangelicals.

Thus, too, in our case, the unction runs carnally, (i.e. on the body,) but profits spiritually;in the same way as the act of baptism itself too is carnal, in that we are plunged in water,but the effect spiritual, in that we are freed from sins (Italics in original; bold added).(On Baptism §7; emphasis added)

We see here Tertullian understanding baptism as spiritually efficacious. He does not present baptism asjust a symbol as modern day Evangelicals would. As a matter of fact he boldly affirms a sacramentalunderstanding of baptism – physical matter capable of conferring divine grace. In the early baptismalrites it was the practice for the priest to pray over and bless the water to be used for baptism. Tertullianexplains the blessing of the baptismal waters of this drawing on Genesis 1 which recounts the Holy Spirithovering over the primeval waters.

. . .that the Spirit of God, who hovered over (the waters) from the beginning, wouldcontinue to linger over the waters of the baptized. But a holy thing, of course, hoveredover a holy; or else, from that which hovered over that which was hovered overborrowed a holiness, since it is necessary that in every case an underlying materialsubstance should catch the quality of that which overhangs it, most of all a corporeal ofa spiritual, adapted (as the spiritual is) through the subtleness of its substance, both forpenetrating and insinuating. Thus the nature of the waters, sanctified by the Holy One,itself conceived withal the power of sanctifying. (On Baptism §4; emphasis added)

This twofold sacrament of baptism/chrismation agrees with Jesus’ disciples administering water baptismin John 3:22 and John the Baptist’s announcement that as the Messiah Jesus administers the Spiritbaptism (John 1:33, Matthew 11, Mark 1:8. Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5). The baptism/chrismation pairing isalluded to in Acts 2:38, 19:5-6, Romans 5:1-5, Ephesians 1:13-14, and Titus 3:4-7.

Many Evangelicals understand baptism as “an outward sign of an inward grace.” For them salvation is inthe experience of inward grace, not in the baptismal rite. The value of baptism lies in it showing theworld that something has happened inside the believer. The Evangelical rejection of the sacramentalunderstanding of baptism is based on a false dichotomy of baptism as magical rite versus baptism aspurely symbolic. This reluctance to attribute efficacy to the baptismal rite resembles early Gnosticism’sspirit-matter dichotomy. Where Evangelicalism takes an either-or approach to the sacraments (opposingthe physical elements against divine grace), Orthodoxy takes a both-and approach that views thephysical elements as capable of conveying divine grace. Orthodoxy’s sacramental worldview is rooted inthe mystery of the Incarnation in which the eternal Word of God became flesh.

Regeneration Understood Covenantally

This outward versus inward dichotomy can be bridged with the Reformed teaching on baptism as acovenant rite. One valuable contribution the Reformed tradition made to Christian theology is thehighlighting of the biblical concept of covenant. It can serve as a bridge between Evangelicalism’sinsistence on faith as a subjective experience and the historic understanding of baptism as efficacioussacrament. New life in Christ can be understood as a change in covenant affiliation: from living underSatan’s rule to living under Christ’s lordship. Conversion can be understood as a change from life apartfrom Christ to life in Christ. If faith is present then baptism is more than a ritual; it is a moment ofpersonal encounter with Christ.

The Reformed tradition’s Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter 20 “Of Holy Baptism” defines baptismalregeneration in covenantal terms.

6

6

Now to be baptized in the name of Christ is to be enrolled, entered, and received intothe covenant and family, and so into the inheritance of the sons of God; yes, and in thislife to be called after the name of God; that is to say, to be called a son of God; to becleansed also from the filthiness of sins, and to be granted the manifold grace of God, inorder to lead a new and innocent life (Book of Confessions p. 100; emphasis added).

Another major Reformed confession, the Westminster Confession, Chapter 30 “Of Baptism” definesbaptismal regeneration in covenantal terms.

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for thesolemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto hima sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, ofremission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newnessof life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his churchuntil the end of the world (Book of Confessions pp. 154-155; emphasis added).

Orthodoxy understands baptism as being more than a church ritual. Orthodoxy’s covenantalunderstanding of baptism can be seen in the questions asked of the candidate before baptism:

Dost thou renounce Satan, and all his Angels, and all his works, and all his service, and all hispride?

Hast thou renounced Satan?

Dost thou unite thyself unto Christ? and

Hast thou united thyself unto Christ?

(in Hapgood p. 274).

All four of these questions are asked three times and must be answered three times. This threefoldrepetition is a way of showing that the baptism is not a spontaneous whim but a serious commitment. Inthe case of a child, the godfather or godmother will answer for him (her); this sponsor is also responsiblefor the child’s spiritual growth and wellbeing. The assumption is that the child will be brought up in theChristian faith and one day will claim it as their own.

Is there biblical support for a covenantal understanding of regeneration? There are biblical passages thatsupport this. John 1:12 reads:

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right(εξουσιαν) to become children of God…. (Emphasis added; NIV)

John could have used the word “dynamis” (from which we get “dynamite”) which means power or force,but instead he chose to use the word “exousia” which means authority. The word “authority” suggeststhat faith in Christ result in our being adopted into God’s family, that is, covenantal adoption. That achange in status is involved is supported by the Evangelical scholar Leon Morris (p. 98, Note 72). RomanCatholic scholar Raymond Brown was reluctant to understand “exousia” in semi-judicial terms (p. 11),but was open to understanding sonship in covenantal terms.

John 1:12 can be understood both covenantally and sacramentally. Becoming a child of God meansbeing adopted into God’s family, i.e., entering into a covenant with God. In ancient times the suzeraininvited people to enter into a covenant with him, that is, to receive him as their king and to become partof his household. What John does in his Gospel is reframe covenant relationship in terms of uniting

7

7

one’s self with the incarnate Son of God. The radical element in John’s theology is God’s giving the Spiritto men as when the risen Christ breathed on his disciples. In the post-resurrection accounts theconferring divine sonship can be seen in Christ’s referring to the disciples as his brothers and his tellingthem that his Father is now their Father (John 20:21-22). The conferring of the Holy Spirit not only fulfillsthe Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messianic Age, it also fulfills Jesus’ teaching about thecoming life in the Trinity in John 14 to 17.

Baptismal Regeneration According to Paul

In Romans 6 and 7 Paul uses language that alludes to regeneration: being dead then being made alive,and burial and resurrection.

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just asChrist was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a newlife. (Romans 6:4; NIV)

Here Paul frames baptism within the context of authority relations. He talks about not letting sin “reignin your mortal body” (Romans 6:11-13). The Greek word for “reign” is “βασιλευετω” (basileueto) whichhas the same Greek root for “king” “βασιλευ” (basileus). This covenant framework was reflected In theway baptism was done in the early Church, especially in vows leading to a change in loyalties from thepagan gods to Jesus Christ the risen Lord.

Paul presents baptism as rescue from slavery. This is consistent with the Christus Victor motif whichpresents humanity as in captivity to the Devil until Christ came to rescue us.

But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedlyobeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free fromsin and have become slaves to righteousness. (Romans 6:17; NIV)

Baptism is much like the switching of citizenship from one country to another.

In Romans 7 Paul explains baptism using the analogy of the death of a spouse which brings about thetermination of a marriage contract. Upon being released from her marital commitments the woman isfree to live a new life. This analogy is intended especially for his Jewish audience who made thetransition from the old covenant under Moses to the new covenant under Christ.

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you mightbelong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bearfruit to God. (Romans 7:4; emphasis added; NIV)

The death Paul is writing about here is not so much a biological death but a legal/covenantal death. It isa lot like the owner of the store deeply in debt who agrees to an M&A (merger and acquisition) with amajor corporation. After the M&A his store ceases to exist as independent entity, all assets andliabilities become part of the new owner. The good news is that new Owner assumes responsibility forthe old debts and the “bad” news is that the former owner is now answerable to the new Boss, JesusChrist.

However, a change of legal status is not enough, we also need a new life within us. In the early Churchand in the Orthodox Church today becoming a Christian involves two sacraments: baptism andchrismation. This new life comes through the Holy Spirit. In Romans 5:5 Paul notes that “God haspoured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.” (NIV) In Romans 8 Paulexplains how having the Holy Spirit indwelling us enables us to live in accordance to the law of Christ.

8

8

The theme of baptismal regeneration can be found in Colossians 2:11-13.

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature (flesh), not withthe circumcision by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, havingbeen buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power ofGod, who raised him from the dead.

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature (flesh),God made you alive with Christ. (Emphasis added; NIV)

Here we find Paul explaining the meaning of baptism not in terms of a subjective experience but in termsof being joined to Christ’s death and resurrection. The covenantal understanding of baptism can be seenin Paul’s equating Christian baptism to Jewish circumcision. Under the Mosaic covenant one became aJew through circumcision but under the new covenant of Christ one becomes a Christian throughbaptism. While there is a symbolic element in baptism, Evangelicals have emphasized it to the point theyhave in effect excluded the sacramental and covenantal aspects.

Salvation Equals Experience?

Evangelicalism’s doctrine of the born again experience is the result of a trajectory of doctrinal evolutionfrom the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s to English Puritanism in the 1600s to the American revivalsin the early 1800s. Historically, Christians accepted the teaching of baptismal regeneration. For themthere was no hard and fast distinction between regeneration, justification, and sanctification. This ismuch like the way the Apostle Paul conflated baptism with justification and sanctification in 1Corinthians 6:11.

In the Middle Ages there emerged among the Scholastics a debate arose over whether the infusion ofsupernatural habits (virtue) was theologically prior or posterior to the divine acceptation (McGrath Vol. 1,p. 145, 154). In response to this debate Martin Luther created a new doctrine sola fide which rearrangedthe way the order of salvation was understood. Alister McGrath in Iustitia Dei notes:

The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate andsystematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration (Vol. 1, p. 186;emphasis in original).

The significance of the Protestant distinction between iustificatio and regeneratio is thata fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into the western theological traditionwhere none had existed before (Vol. 1, p. 184; emphasis in original).

Luther’s doctrine of sola fide was based on justification being separate from sanctification andregeneration. While Luther continued to hold to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, this alterationof the traditional order of salvation would in time open the way to new understandings of Christiansalvation.

Jerald Brauer’s “From Puritanism to Revivalism” (1978) helps us understand the historical roots ofEvangelicalism’s “born again doctrine.” In the 1600s the English Puritans in their quest to further reformthe church introduced a new criterion for church membership: a personal conversionexperience. Baptism and assent to the church’s teachings were no longer enough, what was needed wasbeing able to testify to an experience of converting grace. (See also Brauer’s 1976 article.)

The nature of the Puritan conversion experience can be expressed rather simply. It is aprofound, overwhelming, totally transforming experience in which a person believes he

9

9

has experienced death and rebirth through the powerful working of the Spirit of God(Brauer 1978:230).

The Puritan emphasis on conversion as subjective experience gave rise to personal testimonies thatpinpointed the date and even the hour of the moment of conversion (Brauer 1978:241).

The Puritans changed justification into a multi-step process that took place over time. Their high view ofthe church led them to situate conversion within the church under the supervision of theminister. Under the later revivals conversion became instantaneous and independent of the church andits pastoral leadership. The early Puritans emphasized the conversion experience as a means to furtherthe reform of the church. But for the later revivalists the conversion experience was an end in itself. Theconversion experience became the bedrock on which the church was built; not having this experiencedisqualified one from church membership and even from the ministerial office (Brauer 1978:236-238). This was an unprecedented extreme unknown to historic Christianity. Such was the importance ofthe born again experience that it became the touchstone for Evangelical spirituality and theology.

Historic modes of thought developed by centuries of Christian history, both symbols and discursivethought patterns, were subsumed under the centrality of the conversion experience. It became thetouchstone in terms of which all doctrines, traditions, offices, and institutions were to be tested. Thisrepresented a further shift in goal from concern for the covenantal community with its modes of thoughtand action and from the holy commonwealth, to a primary concern for the individual’s conversion(Brauer 1978:242).

The born again experience was not central to the original Protestant Reformation led by Luther andCalvin (Brauer 1978:234). The English Puritans affirmed Luther’s doctrine of sola fide but applied itsubjectively. The Puritans’ emphasis on the personal appropriation of justification, i.e., conversion assubjective experience, marked a break from classical Protestantism.

. . . Puritans emphasized the personal appropriation of justification more than itsgivenness. Under the onslaught of doubt, Luther could say, I have been baptized, andCalvin could rest in the mystery of God’s mercy through eternal election, but the Puritanrehearsed the personal experience of conversion. Thus the stress on the personalappropriation of salvation tended to outweigh the classical Reformation’s emphasis onthe givenness, the objectivity of God’s action in salvation. This, rather thanpredestination, was the center of Puritan experience and theology (Brauer 1978:234).

Thus, Puritanism can be seen as a transitional movement standing between the magisterial Reformationof the 1500s and the revivalist Christianity that emerged on the American frontier in the early1800s. Brauer writes:

If it is viewed from the perspective of the magisterial reformation worked out by Lutherand Calvin, Puritanism can be seen as a gradual subjectivizing of the Reformationfaith. On the other hand, if it is viewed from the perspective of the Great Awakeningand subsequent Revivalism, Puritanism is understood as a much more objective, lessindividualistically oriented movement (1978:240; emphasis added).

The New England Puritans’ subjective understanding of converting grace was what lay behind the Half-Way Covenant controversy in the late 1600s and the Great Awakenings in the early 1700s. Then in the1800s when people began migrating over the Appalachians into frontier areas they became free fromthe supervision of the trained clergy a situation which allowed for new doctrines and spiritualities. It wasin the frontier revivals that “mourners bench” was invented that would in time evolve into the “altarcall” so widely associated with Evangelicals and the Baptists. The revivals and the “anxious bench” were

10

10

designed to create a conversion experience among those in attendance. Revivalist Charles Finney‘spopular New Measures, e.g., the “anxious bench” influenced many Reformed churches that Mercersburgtheologian John Williamson Nevin was provoked to write The Anxious Bench as a rebuttal and as anapologia for the catechumenate (See Borneman). With the rising prominence of the “born again”experience came a denigration of sacramental baptism. Baptism came to be seen as an outward sign ofthis experience but not integral to this experience of grace. The priority given to this inward experiencerendered outward acts like baptism secondary at best or superfluous at worst. This low view of baptismwould have been shocking in the early Church but it explains the hostility modern day Evangelicalsdisplay to Orthodox baptism.

The Uncertainty of Salvation

Orthodoxy takes issue with the presumptuous certainty with which Evangelicals say that they are goingto heaven or that someone they know is already in heaven. With respect to the eternal destiny ofindividuals the proper Orthodox answer is: It’s a mystery. We trust in God’s great mercy and wehave confidence in Christ’s power to save us. To believe in Christ is follow him, follow his teachings, joinone’s self to Christ, and become part of his body, the Church. Being a Christian is not easy for it meansdenying one’s self and taking up one’s cross daily (Luke 9:22). What matters is not so much the spiritual“born again” experience (as beneficial it may be) but faithful obedience to Christ all the days of ourlife. To put it another way, one can have a genuine faith encounter with Jesus Christ of what Evangelicalscall the “born again” experience; this marks the beginning of a life of faith and discipleship in the contextof the Church.

In the Gospels are numerous cautions against presumption of salvation. John the Baptist warned theJews that being born a Jew would not guarantee their salvation (Luke 3:8). Jesus warned that thePharisees’ zealousness in keeping the Law of Moses was not enough to get one into heaven (Matthew5:20). He also warned that those doing signs and wonders could end up in hell (Matthew 7:21-23). Oneof the most direct teachings on the question of who gets into heaven is found in Jesus’ teaching onsalvation being like a narrow door that only a few will enter (Luke 13:22-30).

In 2 Timothy 2:11-13 Paul reminds Timothy of his rebirth through baptism, the call to discipleship, and awarning against abandoning the faith.

Here is a trustworthy saying:

If we died with him, [baptism]

We will also live with him;

If we endure, [Christian discipleship]

We will also reign with him.

If we disown him, [apostasy]

he will also disown us.

If we are faithless,

he will remain faithful, [Christ’s steadfast love]

for he cannot disown himself. (2 Timothy 2:11-13; NIV)

What Paul wrote here is radically at odds with the easy believism that pervades much of contemporaryAmerican Evangelicalism. Paul did not teach: once saved, always saved. Rather, he taught the Christianlife as being like a race. So a good Orthodox answer to the question: “Are you saved?” can be to quotethe Apostle Paul:

11

11

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I presson to take hold of that which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not considermyself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind andstraining towards what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for whichGod has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:12-14; NIV)

For Paul salvation is not something he already has in his pocket, it is something he is moving towards. Itis a “goal” and a “prize.” This is so different from Evangelicalism’s easy believism where people aretaught with a short prayer they are guaranteed to get into heaven and there is nothing left to do but towait for the Rapture. Bible study support groups or sermons on practical Christian living or missions tripwhile good do not affect one’s getting into heaven. This attitude is reinforced by the “once saved,always saved” doctrine held by many Evangelicals.

Conclusion

The sacrament of baptism is more than a mere ritual. It is a covenant act in which one joins one’s self toJesus Christ. Personal faith and the grace of the Holy Spirit make baptism a personal encounter with therisen Christ. In Orthodoxy baptism comprises a confession of faith in Jesus Christ and submitting one’slife to Christ’s lordship thereby entering into the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God here is seen assynonymous with having Christ as one’s king. The covenantal dimension of baptism means that baptismis more than a subjective individualistic expression of faith in Christ but an act of joining the Church, thebody of Christ. Baptism marks the end of an old life and the start of a new life, hence the phrase “bornagain.”

Orthodoxy’s sacrament of baptism being rooted in Scripture and the Tradition of the early Church cannotbe considered “mere human tradition.” The Orthodox understanding of baptismal regeneration reflectsthe historic understanding of baptism. Evangelicalism’s individualistic subjective understanding ofbaptism because it is recent is at odds with historic Christianity. Many nominal Orthodox Christians areunaware of Orthodoxy’s ancient spiritual heritage. These spiritual treasures are there to be reclaimed bythe Orthodox and shared with others.

Saying No to Rebaptism

Orthodoxy does not object to spiritual experience but it does object to the way Evangelicalism has madethe born again experience foundational to being a Christian and the way it delinks the born againexperience from the sacrament of baptism. Anyone who doubts Orthodoxy’s openness to spiritualexperience is encouraged to read Gregory of Palamas and Symeon the New Theologian.

Should an Orthodox Christian seek rebaptism if after years of sporadic attendance and spiritualindifference they come to a renewed faith? If baptism is a sacrament as taught by the Orthodox Churchthen the answer is: No. For an Orthodox Christian to seek rebaptism is a serious sin. It is wrong becauseit entails a rejection of the Church’s teaching on baptism. Also, the Nicene Creed teaches that werecognize “one baptism for the remission of sins.” Baptism is an unrepeatable sacrament, once done itcan never be repeated.

An Orthodox Christian seeking rebaptism would be like an American teenager telling his parents thatalthough he grew up in America he doesn’t really feel American and for that reason he is seeking tobecome a naturalized American citizen. One can only imagine the look of surprise and incredulity on hisparents’ faces. Plus the feelings of being hurt and insulted. Then the perplexity because this idea has nolegal basis. The only way for the mixed up teenager to make this harebrained idea work would be toemigrate to another country, renounce his American citizenship, acquire citizenship in another country,then apply for US citizenship (providing the Dept. of Immigration and Naturalization Service approves the

12

12

application for citizenship). Similarly, for an Orthodox Christian to seek rebaptism at an Evangelicalcongregation would involve the repudiation of the Orthodox Church, abandoning Orthodoxy, andbecoming a Protestant. Taking part in a sacrament of a non-Orthodox church is grounds forexcommunication; it is a serious sin. One cannot receive Communion in an Orthodox church unless onehas first gone to confession with an Orthodox priest, confessed the sin and renounced the errors ofProtestantism.

Evangelicalism’s “born again” experience is a lot like a guy telling a girl: “I love you and I want to spendthe rest of my life with you!” The girl should respond with: “Are you proposing to marry me?” Orthodoxbaptism is like the wedding ceremony where the man and the woman make vows with profoundconsequences – they become “one flesh.” (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:15-17) So while Evangelicals may besincere in their attempts to reach out to Orthodox Christians, their teachings that Orthodox baptism isnot valid or that Orthodox Christians are not truly born again are attacks on Orthodoxy. They are seekingto replace the ancient Faith with one that is new and that separates people from the Orthodox Church.

Orthodox Revival?

Nominalism is a problem among Orthodox Christians but leaving Orthodoxy is not a goodsolution. Orthodox Christians who have backslidden, that is, fallen into patterns of sinful behavior, needto be confronted with the Gospel, go to Confession, and be restored to spiritual health through receivingthe Eucharist. Evangelicals often talk about the need for revival and this is what is happening in Romaniaand elsewhere. At the end of his article Mihai Oara describes the revival of Orthodoxy in Romania:

What is happening, however, is that nominal Orthodox Christians are becoming moredevout and starting to attend church services and participate in the sacraments. Everytime I visited Romania I found churches full at the main services, sometimes with crowdsoverflowing outside. A lot of new churches and monasteries are being built, so manythat I have recently read an article in a British newspaper which was complaining thatwhile Romanians are among the poorest in the European Union, they paradoxicallyspend too much of their money on building churches.

Orthodoxy needs revival! In Romania, in America and everywhere else. Lord have mercy!

References

Beasley-Murray, G.W. Baptism in the New Testament. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Borneman, Adam S. N.d. “The Enduring Legacy of Mercersburg: A Brief Introduction to JohnWilliamson Nevin and the Mercersburg Theology. In Churchhistory.org.

Brauer, Jerald C. 1978. “From Puritanism to Revivalism.” The Journal of Religion, Vol. 58, No. 3 (July),pp. 227-243.

Brauer, Jerald C. 1976. “Puritanism, Revivalism, and the American Revolution.” In Religion and theAmerican Revolution. Jerald C. Brauer, ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress Press.

Brown, Raymond E. 1966. The Gospel According to John I-XII. The Anchor Bible. Volume 29. New York,NY: Double Day.

Calvin, John. N.d. Commentary on John.

13

13

Hapgood, Isabel Florence. 1996. Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic ApostolicChurch. Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Source

Kurtz, Arnold. 1976. “Charles G. Finney – Prototype of the Modern Evangelist.”(November) MinistryMagazine.org

Louth, Andrew. 2007. Greek East and Latin West: The Church, AD 681-1071. Crestwood, NY: St.Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

McGrath, Alister E. 1986. Iustitia Dei: A history of the Christian doctrine of Justification. Vol. 1 – TheBeginnings to the Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morris, Leon. 1971. The Gospel According to John. The New International Commentary on the NewTestament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Oara, Mihai. “Conversion and Conversions: Romanians between Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism.”Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy blog.

Presbyterian Church (USA). 2004. Book of Confessions. Louisville, KY: Office of the General AssemblyPCUSA.

Wikipedia – “Symeon the New Theologian.”

Wikipedia – “Gregory of Palamas.”