Are Catholics Born Again?

Catholic Educators ^ | Mark Brumley

[NYer]

“Have you been born again?” the Fundamentalist at the door asks the unsuspecting Catholic. The question is usually a segue into a vast doctrinal campaign that leads many ill-instructed Catholics out of the Catholic Church. How? By making them think there is a conflict between the Bible and the Catholic Church over being “born again.”

To be honest, most Catholics probably do not understand the expression “born again.” Yes, they believe in Jesus. And yes, they try to live Christian lives. They probably have some vague awareness that Fundamentalists think being “born again” involves a religious experience or “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.” Many cradle Catholics, too, have had their moments of closeness to God, even of joy over God's love and mercy. They may even have had “conversion experiences” of sorts, committing themselves to take their faith seriously and to live more faithfully as disciples of Jesus. But the cradle Catholic probably cannot pinpoint any particular moment in his life when he dropped to his knees and “accepted Jesus” for the first time. As far back as he can recall, he has believed, trusted and loved Jesus as Savior and Lord. Does that prove he has never been “born again”?

Not “the Bible way,” says the Fundamentalist. But the Fundamentalist is wrong there. He misunderstands what the Bible says about being “born again.” Unfortunately, few Catholics understand the biblical use of the term, either. As a result, pastors, deacons, catechists, parents and others responsible for religious education have their work cut out for them. It would be helpful, then, to review the biblical — and Catholic — meaning of the term “born again.”

"BORN AGAIN" THE BIBLE WAY

The only biblical use of the term “born again” occurs in John 3:3-5 — although, as we shall see, similar and related expressions such as “new birth” and ,regeneration” occur elsewhere in Scripture (Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 1:3, 23). In John 3:3, Jesus tells Nicodemus, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The Greek expression translated “born again” (gennathei anothen) also means “born from above.” Jesus, it seems, makes a play on words with Nicodemus, contrasting earthly life, or what theologians would later dub natural life (“what is born of flesh”), with the new life of heaven, or what they would later call supernatural life (“what is born of Spirit”).

Nicodemus' reply: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” (John 3:4). Does he simply mistake Jesus to be speaking literally or is Nicodemus himself answering figuratively, meaning, “How can an old man learn new ways as if he were a child again?” We cannot say for sure, but in any case Jesus answers, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born again.”' (John 3:5-7).

Here Jesus equates “born again” or “born from above” with “born of water and the Spirit.” If, as the Catholic Church has always held, being “born of water and the Spirit” refers to baptism, then it follows that being “born again” or “born from above” means being baptized.

Clearly, the context implies that born of “water and the Spirit” refers to baptism. The Evangelist tells us that immediately after talking with Nicodemus, Jesus took his disciples into the wilderness where they baptized people (John 3:22). Furthermore, water is closely linked to the Spirit throughout John's Gospel (for instance, in Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:9-13) and in the Johannine tradition (cf. 1 John 5:7). It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that John the Evangelist understands Jesus' words about being “born again” and “born of water and the Spirit” to have a sacramental, baptismal meaning.

OTHER VIEWS OF "BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT"

Fundamentalists who reject baptismal regeneration usually deny that “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 refers to baptism. Some argue that “water” refers to the “water of childbirth.” On this view, Jesus means that unless one is born of water (at his physical birth) and again of the Spirit (in a spiritual birth), he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

A major problem with this argument, however, is that while Jesus does contrast physical and spiritual life, he clearly uses the term “flesh” for the former, in contrast to “Spirit” for the latter. Jesus might say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of flesh and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” — though it would be obvious and absurdly redundant to say that one must be born (i.e., born of flesh) in order to be born again (i.e., born of the Spirit). But using “born of water and the Spirit” to mean “born of the flesh and then of the Spirit” would only confuse things by introducing the term “water” from out of nowhere, without any obvious link to the term “flesh.” Moreover, while the flesh is clearly opposed to the Spirit and the Spirit clearly opposed to the flesh in this passage, the expression “born of water and the Spirit” implies no such opposition. It is not “water” vs. “the Spirit,” but “water and the Spirit.”

Furthermore, the Greek of the text suggests that “born of water and the Spirit” (literally “born of water and spirit”) refers to a single, supernatural birth over against natural birth (“born of the flesh”). The phrase “of water and the Spirit” (Greek, ek hudatos kai pneumatos) is a single linguistical unit. It refers to being “born of water and the Spirit,” not “born of water” on the one hand and “born of the Spirit” on the other.

Another argument used by opponents of baptismal regeneration: “born of water and the Spirit” refers, correspondingly, to the baptism of John (being “born of water”) and the baptism of the Spirit (being “born of ... the Spirit”), which John promised the coming Messiah would effect. Thus, on this view, Jesus says, “Unless a man is born of water through John's baptism and of the Spirit through my baptism, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

We have already seen that, according to the Greek, “born of water and the Spirit” refers to a single thing, a single spiritual birth. Thus, the first half of the phrase cannot apply to one thing (John's baptism) and the second half to something else entirely (Jesus' baptism). But even apart from the linguistical argument, if “born of water” refers to John's baptism, then Jesus is saying that in order to be “born again” or “born from above” one must receive John's baptism of water (“born of water ...”) and the Messiah's baptism of the Spirit (“. . . and Spirit”). That would mean only those who have been baptized by John could enter the kingdom of God—which would drastically reduce the population of heaven. In fact, no one holds that people must receive John's baptism in order to enter the Kingdom — something now impossible. Therefore being “born of water . . .” cannot refer to John's baptism.

The most reasonable explanation for “born of water and the Spirit,” then, is that it refers to baptism. This is reinforced by many New Testament texts linking baptism, the Holy Spirit and regeneration. At Jesus' baptism, the Holy Spirit descends upon him as He comes up out of the water (cf. John 1:25-34; Matt 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22). Furthermore, what distinguishes John's baptism of repentance in anticipation of the Messiah from Christian baptism, is that the latter is a baptism with the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:31; Acts 1:4-5).

Consequently, on Pentecost, Peter calls the Jews to “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins” and promises that they will “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38), thus fulfilling the promise of John. Peter clearly teaches here that the “water baptism,” to which he directs the soon-to-be converts, forgives sins and bestows the Holy Spirit. Christian baptism, then, is no mere external, repentance-ritual with water, but entails an inner transformation or regeneration by the Holy Spirit of the New Covenant; it is a “new birth,” a being “born again” or “born from above.”

In Romans 6:3, Paul says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (RNAB). Baptism, says Paul, effects union with the death and resurrection of Christ, so that through it we die and rise to new life, a form of “regeneration.”

According to Titus 3:5, God “saved us through the washing of regeneration (paliggenesias) and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” Opponents of baptismal regeneration argue that the text refers only to the “washing (loutrou) of regeneration” rather than the “baptism of regeneration.” But baptism is certainly a form of washing and elsewhere in the New Testament it is described as a “washing away of sin.” For example, in Acts 22:16, Ananias tells Paul, “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling upon his name.” The Greek word used for the “washing away of sins” in baptism here is apolousai, essentially the same term used in Titus 3:5. Furthermore, since “washing” and “regeneration” are not ordinarily related terms, a specific kind of washing — one that regenerates — must be in view. The most obvious kind of washing which the reader would understand would be baptism, a point even many Baptist scholars, such as G.R. Beasley-Murray, admit. (See his book Baptism in the New Testament.)

In 1 Peter 1:3, it is stated that God has given Christians “a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” The term “new birth” (Gk, anagennasas, “having regenerated”) appears synonymous with “born again” or “regeneration.” According to 1 Peter 1:23, Christians “have been born anew (Gk, anagegennamenoi, “having been regenerated”) not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and abiding word of God.” From the word of the Gospel, in other words.

Opponents of baptismal regeneration argue that since the “new birth” mentioned in 1 Peter 1:3 and 23 is said to come about through the Word of God, being “born again” means accepting the Gospel message, not being baptized. This argument overlooks the fact that elsewhere in the New Testament accepting the gospel message and being baptized are seen as two parts of the one act of commitment to Christ.

In Mark 16:16, for instance, Jesus says, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” “Believing”, i.e., accepting the Gospel, entails accepting baptism, which is the means by which one “puts on Christ” (Gal. 3:27) and is buried and raised with him to new life (Rom 6:3-5; Gal 2:12). Acts 2:41 says of the Jewish crowd on Pentecost, “Those who accepted his message were baptized . . .” It seems reasonable to conclude that those whom 1 Peter 1:23 describes as “having been born anew” or regenerated through the “living and abiding word of God” were also those who had been baptized. Thus, being “born of water and the Spirit” and being “born anew” through “the living and abiding word of God” describe different aspects of one thing — being regenerated in Christ. Being “born again” (or “from above”) in “water and the Spirit” refers to the external act of receiving baptism, while being “born anew” refers to the internal reception in faith of the Gospel (being “born anew” through “the living and abiding word of God”).

Moreover, baptism involves a proclamation of the Word, which is part of what constitutes it (i.e., “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”). To accept baptism is to accept the Word of God. There is no need, then, to see the operation of the Word of God in regeneration as something opposed to or separated from baptism.

Some Fundamentalists also object that being “born again” through baptismal regeneration contradicts the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace through faith. Implicit here is the idea that Christian baptism is a mere “human work” done to earn favor before God. In fact, Christian baptism is something that is done to one (one is baptized — passive), not something one does for oneself. The one who baptizes, according to the Bible, is Jesus Himself by the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 1:33). It makes no more sense to oppose baptism and faith in Christ to one another as means of regeneration than it does to oppose faith in Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit to one another. There is no either/or here; it is both/and.

THE CATHOLIC VIEW OF BEING "BORN AGAIN"

Following the New Testament use of the term, the Catholic Church links regeneration or being “born again” in the life of the Spirit to the sacrament of baptism (CCC, nos. 1215,1265-1266). Baptism is not a mere human “work” one does to “earn” regeneration and divine sonship; it is the work of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, which, by grace, washes away sin and makes us children of God. It is central to the Catholic understanding of justification by grace. For justification is, as the Council of Trent taught, “a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ” (Session 6, chapter 4). Baptism is an instrumental means by which God graciously justifies — that is, regenerates — sinners through faith in Jesus Christ and makes them children of God.

Catholic teaching is not opposed to a “religious experience” of conversion accompanying baptism (of adults) — far from it. But such an “experience” is not required. What is required for baptism to be fruitful (for an adult) is repentance from sin and faith in Christ, of which baptism is the sacrament (CCC, no. 1253). These are grace-enabled acts of the will that are not necessarily accompanied by feelings of being “born again.” Regeneration rests on the divinely established fact of incorporation and regeneration in Christ, not on feelings one way or the other.

This point can be driven home to Evangelicals by drawing on a point they often emphasize in a related context. Evangelicals often say that the act of having accepted Christ as “personal Savior and Lord” is the important thing, not whether feelings accompany that act. It is, they say, faith that matters, not feelings. Believe by faith that Christ is the Savior and the appropriate feelings, they say, will eventually follow. But even if they do not, what counts is the fact of having taken Christ as Savior.

Catholics can say something similar regarding baptism. The man who is baptized may not “feel” any different after baptism than before. But once he is baptized, he has received the Holy Spirit in a special way. He has been regenerated and made a child of God through the divine sonship of Jesus Christ in which he shares. He has been buried with Christ and raised to new life with Him. He has objectively and publicly identified himself with Jesus' death and resurrection. If the newly baptized man meditates on these things, he may or may not “feel” them, in the sense of some subjective religious experience. Nevertheless, he will believe them to be true by faith. And he will have the benefits of baptism into Christ nonetheless.

A "BORN AGAIN" CHRISTIAN?

When Fundamentalists call themselves “born again Christians,” they want to stress an experience of having entered into a genuine spiritual relationship with Christ as Savior and Lord, in contradistinction to unbelief or a mere nominal Christianity. As we have seen, though, the term “born again” and its parallel terms “new birth” and “regeneration” are used by Jesus and the New Testament writers to refer to the forgiveness of sins and inner renewal of the Holy Spirit signified and brought about by Christ through baptism.

How, then, should a Catholic answer the question, “Have you been born again?” An accurate answer would be, “Yes, I was born again in baptism.” Yet leaving it at that may generate even more confusion. Most Fundamentalists would probably understand the Catholic to mean, “I'm going to heaven simply because I'm baptized.” In other words, the Fundamentalist would think the Catholic is “trusting in his baptism” rather than Christ, whereas the informed Catholic knows it means trusting in Christ with whom he is united in baptism.

The Catholic, then, should do more than simply point to his baptism; he should discuss his living faith, trust and love of Christ; his desire to grow in sanctity and conformity to Christ; and his total dependence on Christ for salvation. These are integral to the new life of the Holy Spirit that baptism bestows. When the Fundamentalist sees the link between baptism and the Holy Spirit in the life of his Catholic neighbor, he may begin to see that St. Paul was more than figurative when he wrote, “You were buried with Christ in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col 2:12).

[DBeers]

Blessings!

I tend to consider those that preach against the Church Christ established, His Church, to objectively be 'progressive' as defined below. What religious persuasion/group/sect do you belong to -I will be happy to point out the progressive errors you either ignore or are not aware of...

• 2 John 1-13

  9 Anyone who is so "progressive" as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.

  10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him;

  11 for whoever greets him shares in his evil works.

[57chevypreterist]

I belong to the church of Jesus Christ, that is, the body of Christ, believers in Him, regardless of sect or denomination or "title". The "church of God, which He bought with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).

And I belong through faith in Jesus Christ, through His atonement on the cross, not because of any sacramental "ticket punching" such as baptism (but rather, in spite of).

Blessings!

[wmfights]

"Don't forget capitalization here--catholic vs Catholic."
________________________________

Excuse the typo, I did not mean to hurt your feelings.

[Rutles4Ever]

As far as the silliness of "the sin of presumption",

Is this why St. Paul was working out his salvation in "fear and trembling"?

Jesus came to take away the sin that separates us from eternal life with God the Father.

He came to fulfill the Old Covenant and restore the Temple of God, where man could enter back into friendship with the Creator. To do so required becoming the Paschal sacrifice, but He didn't do it just to do it. Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world, effectively commuting the death sentence handed down to us through Adam and Eve, but not rendering us guiltless for all time to follow. Faith in and of itself is useless unless the works of mercy follow.

I mean, really, why make the Apostles fishers (a kind of WORK) of men? Peter proclaimed his faith in Christ and - by your reasoning - he should have just retired to the countryside, content in his guaranteed salvation. Jesus sent them out to spread the Gospel. Would they be equally well off in the eyes of God had they refused to do the work and said, "our faith is enough"?

Read carefully the parable of the virgins with the lamps. Oh, how they were all so CERTAIN they would be prepared for the bridegroom. Even the wise ones fell asleep, but they were prepared in that the oil of their works illuminated their faith, upon which the bridegroom (Christ) would recognize them (us). The foolish ones, however, had the mentality of having "just enough" oil to get by. The bare minimum. Kind of like "accepting Jesus Christ" and then pretending it was enough...

The Old Covenant would have made all of Israel priests to the world. They were not up to the task, and following the worship of the golden calf, God found a priesthood among the loyal Levites. The priesthood of Israel would have to wait, and even the Levites would one day lose their blessing (hmmm - that means that something received as a gift from God can be lost? Like faith? Like the inheritance of heaven, perhaps?)

For the rest, God had no choice but to bring a stern, but loving Law of Moses which would prepare these unprepared Israelites for the coming of the Messiah. The priesthood of Israel - and then the Levites alone - would become the priesthood of the entire world - the universal priesthood - the "CATHOLIC" priesthood.

[SoothingDave]

1Jo 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

I would suggest a closer examination of the verses I posted. John states nothing about water here to be born of God.

Try not taking the verses in isolation. This doesn't cancel out the other verse saying one must be born of water and the Spirit, it complements it. Scripture is additive, not subtractive.

SD

[Jaded]

From your link

Ephesians 2:8-15 (New International Version)

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Here's another:

James 2:14-17

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

The Apocrypha were apart of the Jewish Text. They were removed after Jerusalem was sacked and the Temple destroyed. The Protestants followed along. If Luther had had his was Revelations would not be in the finished Protestant Bible either.

[HarleyD]

"To imply that being born of God requires a conscious decision to "accept Jesus Christ" as our Savior would seem to leave out the mentally handicapped ...

I don't believe that being "born of God" requires anything on our part. That includes making a "conscious decision to accept Jesus Christ" OR a "cooperating" decision to be baptized into the Church. These are works and man can do nothing that pleases God prior to being born again.

Being born of God is God's act alone. God gives His elect a "new heart and spirit" as stated in Ezekial 36 solely based upon His grace and His grace alone.

[bremenboy]

"First of all, how wonderful that you can speak for Christ in saying that Catholics aren't born again! Tell me, am I going to heaven? I mean, you obviously have insight into such matters..."

Pe 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

are you going to heaven?

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


What does the Greek word Baptizo really mean?



The term Baptizo (baptizo) and its other forms are used 125 times in the New Testament. Not one time are they translated anything like "sprinkle." They are either transliterated "baptize" or "baptism" or else translated "dip" as in Luke 16:24, John 13:26 and Revelation 19:13. Occasionally they are translated "wash" as in Mark 7:4&8 and Hebrews 9:10. Since they are speaking about washing cups and pots, etc., this can only be understood in the sense of immersion. Below is a small sampling of definitions for the word "baptizo" as found in the Lexicons. More Lexicons could be cited.


1) Bagster: "to dip; to immerse"

2) Bloomfield: "to immerse; to sink"

3) Bretschneider: "to dip or wash repeatedly: to immerse into water, or submerge"

4) Bullinger: "to dip or dye; immerse"

5) Constantine: "immerse, submerge"

6) Cremer: "immerse, submerge"

7) Dawson: "to dip or immerse in water"

8) Donnegan: "to immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to submerge; to sink"

9) Dunbar: "to dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, or sink"

10) Ewing: "to cover with water or some other liquid"

11) Green: "to dip, immerse"

12) Greenfield: "immerse; immerge; submerge; sink"

13) Grimm: "dip repeatedly; immerge; submerge"

14) Groves: "to dip; immerse; cover with water"

15) Hendricks: "to plunge; immerse; cover with water"

16) Jones: "plunge; dip; bury; overhelm"

17) Leigh: "the native and proper signification of it is to dip into water, or to plunge under"

18) Liddell and Scott: "to dip in, or underneath water"

19) Maltby: "immerse; to plunge; to immerse"

20) Norell: "plunge; immerse; cover with water"

21) Parkhurst: "to dip, immerse, or plunge in water"

22) Pickering: "to dip, immerse, submerge; to plunge, sink"

23) Robinson: "to immerse, to sink"

24) Robson: "immerse; sink"

25) Scapula: "to dip, or immerse"

26) Schleusner: "properly, to immerse, to dip in, to dip into water, from Bapto, and corresponds to the Hebrew ‘tabal.’" II Kings 5:14

27) Schrevelius: "to dip, immerse; wash; cleanse"

28) Sophocles: "to dip; to immerse; to sink"

29) Stockieus: "generally, and by force of the word, it has the notion of dipping in and immersing."

30) Thayer: "to dip repeatedly; to immerge; to submerge"




The leaders of the great churches which sprinkle also testify that immersion is the Bible’s way of baptism.



1. Melanethon - Baptism is immersion in water, which is performed with the accompanying benediction of admiration: "I baptize thee etc..... Plunging signifies ablution from sin and immersion into the death of Christ." (Catechesis De Sacramentis, Opera Omnia, Vol. I., Pg. 25.)


2. John Wesley (Methodist) in his Journal, Feb. 21, 1736, said: "Mary Welck, age eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion." Wesley’s Notes on the New Testament on Romans 6:4 - "‘We are buried with Him’ - alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion."


3. Dr. Wall, an Episcopalian, says: "Pouring was the substitute for baptism which Calvin first adopted and his sprinkling was only the substitute of a substitute and was the most scandalous thing ever adopted for baptism."


4) Brenner, (Catholic): "For thirteen hundred years baptism was an immersion of the person under water."


5) MacKnight, (Presbyterian): "In baptism, the baptized person is buried under the water. Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under water."


6) Georger Whitefield, (the colleague of Wesley), preached from Romans 6:4 and said: "It is certain that in the words of our text there is an allusion to the manner of baptism, which was by immersion."


7) Calvin Institutes, (Presbyterian), Chapter 15: "It is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church."


8) Beza: "Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain that immersion is signified."


9) Philip Schaff: "The baptism of Christ in the river Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the New Testament, are all in favor of immersion, rather than sprinkling, as is freely admitted by the best exegetes, Catholic and Protestant, English and German. Nothing can be gained by unnatural exegesis. The aggressiveness of the Baptists had driven Pedobaptists to the opposite extreme."


10) Dr. Doddridge, a Greek scholar who gave us one of the best, if not the best translations of Acts extant, says regarding Romans 6:4: "Buried in Baptism," "It seems but the part of candor to confess that here is an allusion to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion."


11) Cardinal Gibbons (Roman Catholic): "For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity, baptism was ususally conferred by immersion; but since the 12th century, the practice of baptizing by affusion has prevailed in the Catholic Church, as this manner is attended with less inconvenience than baptism by immersion."

12) MacKnicht (a Presbyterian commentator) says: "In baptism the baptized person is buried under the water. Christ submitted to be baptized; that is, to be buried under the water."


13) Stoudza, a native Greek, says, "The verb ‘baptize’ has only one meaning; Baptism and immersion are identical."


14) Weiss, (Luthern) says: "After confessing their sins they went down, man by man, into the water of the Jordan, in order to immerge newborn, a people prepared for the Lord."


15) Neander (Luthern Historian), in "History of the Christian Church and Religion," Vol. 1, Page 311: "Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected."


16) Bishop Burnett, (Episcopalian), in "Exposition of the 39 Articles." Article 27: "There is no express precept, or rule, given in the N.T. for the baptism of infants."


17) Dr. Wall, (Episcopalian), in "History of Infant Baptism," introduction, Page 1: "Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the Apostles, there is no express mention of any infant."

[wmfights]

"How do you know what belongs in the Bible? There are TONS of writings besides the Bible, so how come you still use the same Bible"
__________________________________

The truth of the Bible being the inerrant word of GOD is self evident. If you could stand back and look at your comments defending your church 2000 years ago you could have been a Pharisee.

[HarleyD]

You and other Catholics are the ones stating it only refers to water. And you accuse me of taking verses in isolation?

What exactly does it mean to be born again?

[Rutles4Ever]

That's why we know from the scriptures that Jesus assured us that we could have everlasting life through faith in Him (not works, see Eph. 2:8-10).

But according to James, faith without works is not faith. And Paul was "working out" his salvation in fear and trembling. And Paul admonished that those who do not work, "shall not eat".

I can't illuminate my lamp of faith without oil. I can't run the engine without gasoline. The lamp and the vehicle are not what they seem to be because they cannot function as they are intended without fuel. In the same way, faith is withered and worthless without the fuel of works. God spits out the lukewarm, and all that...

[DBeers]

And I belong through faith in Jesus Christ, through His atonement on the cross, not because of any sacramental "ticket punching" such as baptism (but rather, in spite of).

Well that did not take long. LOL -you are a wolf in sheeps clothing...

[Dark Skies]

I don't think ANY of us can say who is or is not saved--that gets into doing Christ's job, quite a dangerous thing to do...

Yep. It gets kind of close to passing judgment.

Thanks for your post. I am Protestant but I also feel close to the Catholic Church. I occasionally attend Mass with a friend and even say Rosary with Mother Angelica sometimes).

[DBeers]

You and other Catholics are the ones stating it only refers to water. And you accuse me of taking verses in isolation?

What exactly does it mean to be born again?

---read post # 91...

[SoothingDave]

And we are not made righteous by participating in the sacraments and doing good works (as noble as those things may be). We are only made righteous through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, through which His righteousness is inputed to us.

It's really a shame that you can't comprehend that these two things are not in opposition to the other. One is how the other is accomplished.

Sacraments are how Christ's atonement is made real in our souls. It is how we are truly made righteous.

Not just "imputed" to be righteous. My God is strong enough to actually transform us.

SD

[PetroniusMaximus]

Marjoe Gortner

I just finished doing some reserach on him!


(What a terrible actor he turned out to be.)

[SoothingDave]

You and other Catholics are the ones stating it only refers to water.

Uh, no we aren't. I thought you understood us better than that. We don't believe Baptism, or being born again is only about water.

It is about water and the Spirit, just like the verse says. When we are Baptised, we are externally washed in water. This is an outward sign, visible as a testimony to the public, of a very real inward cleansing of the soul, a making of a new person, and an indwelling of the Spirit.

The last thing a Catholic believes is that baptism is only about water. That is the Baptist position, that it is a symbol and effects nothing.

What exactly does it mean to be born again?

To be made a new creature in Christ, to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit, to be placed into a state of grace.

It does not mean that we are immune from the consequences of our actions in the future.

SD

[x5452]

Chrismation is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[jcb8199]

That's why we know from the scriptures that Jesus assured us that we could have everlasting life through faith in Him (not works, see Eph. 2:8-10)

So his exhortation to "take up your cross and follow me," "not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my father in heaven," and numerous other passages in which we are told that we must DO beyond having faith. The sheep and the goats is the first to come to mind ("but when did we not do those things?" and "but when did we do those things?")
See these scriptures for more info:
Jas 2:14-26 ... what good is faith w/o works?
Heb 10:26-27, Rom 8:12-13 ... must avoid sin.
Jas 5:20 ... “earning” forgiveness.
Lk 6:46-49; Mt 7:21; Mt 19:16-21; Jn 5:28-29 ... must do will of God.
1 Cor 9:27 ... “buffet my body ...”
Phil 2:12; 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2:6-13; Mt 25:32-46; Gal 6:6-10; Rev 20:12 ... works have merit.
1 Jn 2:3-6; 1 Jn 3:24; 1 Jn 5:3 ... keep commandments.


Let's see: I posted at 9:03 EST; you posted at 9:30 EST. I'm amazed that in 23 minutes you were able to read, study, digest, and refute with scripture the nine crucial questions posted therein (not to mention the fifteen articles). I'd love to see you post your scholarly rebuttal to each one of them! :)

I have obviously been to the site, as I knew it was anti-Catholic. I've read it. I've researched the rebuttals. That's the beauty of the Internets. For every claim that "justforcatholics" makes, I can find you 10 sites that refute them. It's not that hard, you just have to be willing to actually search for truth...

Seriously, it's not an "anti-Catholic" website as you claim; rather, it is a website dedicated to presenting the truth of scripture to Catholics so that they may compare the scriptures to the teachings of the Catholic church and make informed judgments regarding the Christian faith.
...and then not be Catholic anymore, right? That is the goal of the site--to present the "scriptural basis" for Christianity, and then compare it to the "un-Biblical practices" of the Catholic Church, picking and choosing from verses to substantiate the claim. Fine, Ephesians or Romans talk about "works" or "apart from the law," etc, but James is rather explicit about faith AND works. I like the term "Faith THAT works" because, again, not everone who says "Lord, Lord," will enter the Kingdom of Heaven...

This Site has 156 writings on it, some of which are in the Bible, some of which are not. They are some of the writings of which you speak. Who decided what made it into the Bible? First of all, ALL that is in the Bible is of God, but not all that is of God is in the Bible. 2 Tim. says it is PROFITABLE but not REQUISITE. John 20 and Acts 8 lend to the idea that not all is in the Bible. So, in comes Tradition--that which was taught "by word of mouth" (2 Thess.).

As for the "Jewish text" argument, the 7 books were in the Septuagint, which is the "Bible" the Apostles used (and we are talking Christianity here, not Judaism). Also, it is rather selective for Protestants to say that those 7 books don't belong, as EVERY book was chosen by various Councils, so to selectively boot some that the Church had been using since the beginning is rather...specious... Further, there are several New Testament verses which seem to refer to the Deuterocanonical books:
Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15:

Revelation 1:4 Grace to you . . . from the seven spirits who are before his throne. {see also 3:1, 4:5, 5:6}

Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

{see also Revelation 5:8}

Tobit 12:15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.

St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind. This saying of Paul is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for Protestants to interpret, given their theology:

1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

Luther and Wycliffe both included the Apocrypha in their Bibles, as well, not to mention several other early Protestant versions of the Bible. They have only recently (in terms of the general history of Christianity) been excluded. You might check out this site for a dialogue on the matter.

Hope that helps... In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "debate leads to inquiry and inquiry to truth, and that, I am sure, is the goal for both of us."