Are Catholics Born Again?

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

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).

WHO is a "true" Christian, by YOUR definition? I hope you see where I am going with this. It IS presumption if you THINK you are a TRUE Christian and CANNOT POSSIBLY fall.

Doesn't the Catholic Church "guarantee" your salvation as long as you follow the rules and regulations? Isn't the Catholic Church being presumptuous in saying they are the only true Church and there is salvation in no one else?

Election and perseverance are tricky things. Each person must examine themselves to see if they are in the faith-over and over again. There is a test you can take yourself to see if you are in the faith at Are You Born Again? These are fair questions to see whether you are in the faith.

You look at someone who has been "born again" as falling away from the faith. I look at it as they were never born again, choosen of God and elected in the first place. My view is consistent with 1 John. In my mind we should live with the assurance that God will see us home all the while continuously asking His pardon.

If one is truly elected I am not being presumptuous about anything except believing that my Lord Jesus will watch over me and will lead me home. I do not think this is unreasonable. David said this in the 23rd Psalms. Would you say David was being presumptuous?

I can understand from a "free will" perspective this is awful since God gives us the freedom to do whatever we want-including falling away from Him. This version denies God's sovereign ability to maintain our salvation-but what the hey-we have free will right? Personally you need to ask yourself exactly who are you relying on to see you home?

Are you saying that Christians CANNOT be swayed by the lure of the material? Are you saying that Christians CANNOT deny the faith when persecuted? Ridiculous.

Of course Christians can fall into sin. I never stated that they couldn't. I'm saying that a true Christian will never fall away. They will repent and come back to the fold simply because God brings them back to His glory. Peter denied our Lord Jesus three times but he came back around. Jonah ran in the other direction but he came back. Samson gave into his lust and pride but he humbled himself before God. True believers always come back when they fail and it is only because God brings them back.

BTW-I am very fortunate to know when and under what circumstances I was born again. Most people are not afford this opportunity simply because they have greater faith than I. It is a sad thing for Christians to question their salvation or their "born again" experience in my mind. Paul told the Corinthians that they should see evidence of their spiritual growth. If you cannot see HOW you are different from the world, you should sincerely examine yourself to see if you are in the faith.

Besides, if you end up saying you are born again and will go to heaven if you do A, B, and C; then you've just reduced the gospel to works.

John taught that one could know that one was saved (i.e. having everlasting life). John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. Do you differ with his teaching.

First, I presume you meant "1 John", not John.

Second, I do not disagree with John's teaching, but with your interpretation of what John is saying here.

What ARE the things that John has written that we may know we "have" eternal life? Clearly, John is not ONLY telling us to "believe" in Christ. As we will soon find out, 1 John is a very "Catholic" writing...

"The way we may be sure that we know Him is to keep His commandments. Whomever says "I know Him", but does not keep His commandments IS A LIAR, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:3-4)

OBEY the Commandments. Sounds like what Jesus said to the Rich Young Man...

"This is the way we may know that we are in UNION with Him; whoever claims to abide in Him OUGHT TO HAVE LIVED JUST AS HE LIVED". (1 John 2:5b-6).

Must I detail HOW Christ lived? The self-sacrifice that He demands of His disciples? The picking up of one's cross DAILY (in Luke)? Obedience to the Father's will, correct?

"Whoever does the will of God remains forever" (1 John 2:17)

"Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He made us; eternal life." (1 John 2:24-25)

One must REMAIN IN CHRIST - their whole lives! Not just one moment in time, the day of being "saved"...

"The children of God and the children of the devil are made plain; no one who fails to act in righteousness belongs to God, nor anyone who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10).

In case you think we merely take on Christ's righteousness as some sort of coat to cover us, here a few verses before:

"The person who acts in righteousness IS righteous, JUST as HE is righteous." (1 John 3:7)

"If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of God remain in him? Children, let us love NOT IN WORD OR SPEECH, BUT IN DEED AND TRUTH." (1 John 3:17-18) You think James would have approved of these verses?

"Now this is how we shall know that we belong to the truth and reassure our hearts before Him in whatever our hearts condemn, for God is greater than our hearts and knows everything. Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence in God and receive from Him whatever we ask, BECAUSE we KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS and DO WHAT PLEASES HIM. And His commandment is this: we should beleive in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ AND LOVE ONE ANOTHER JUST AS HE COMMANDED US. (recall, He said we are to love others as He love the Apostles - that is how much we are COMMANDED to love - Jn 15:10) Those who keep His commandments remain in Him, and He in them, and the way we know that He remains in us is from the Spirit that He gave us." (1 John 3:19-24)

"We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to US (Church authority) while anyone who does not belong to God REFUSES to hear US" (1 John 4:6) What have Catholics been saying all along?

"No one has sen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and His love is brought to PERFECTION IN US." (1 John 4:12)

"God is LOVE, and whoever remains in LOVE remains in God and God in Him. In THIS is love brought to perfection among us, that we have confidence on the day of judgment because as He is, so are we in this world."

I think this is enough, althought there is more. This last verse is why we can have confidence in the Lord. If we are in Him, shown by our love of others, than we are "assured" of salvation. By our obedience to the Commandment to Love, we can be assured of salvation. It is quiet clear, Quester, that 1 John is not a good place to find "salvation by faith alone". Anyone who actually reads 1 John cannot help but come away with the idea that one must love as Christ did to enter into union with Him upon our death. We receive this promise as long as we CONTINUE to obey this commandment - an easy command to bear.

Brother in Christ

Doesn't the Catholic Church "guarantee" your salvation as long as you follow the rules and regulations?

No. We can have a "moral" confidence that we will "attain" eternal life by keeping Christ's commandment to love (see 1 John 3:19-24, for example). But the rule of thumb is that no one is absolutely guaranteed salvation (an exception would be a person who was truly desired and received baptism and then subsequently and immediately died without the opportunity to commit a sin).

Each person must examine themselves to see if they are in the faith-over and over again

I agree. We call this an "examination of conscience", where we consider whether we have committed mortal sins - a serious, willful turning from God. We analyze (with the Spirit's promptings) whether we truly are walking in love, as Christ was (again, see 1 John 3:19-24)

You look at someone who has been "born again" as falling away from the faith. I look at it as they were never born again

By taking this position, Harley, you cannot KNOW that your first "born again" experience "took", now, can you? You can't have it both ways. Either we totally rely on God to enact our baptism - or we take the works approach and rely on ourselves to see whether our baptism "took". It's one or the other. Your position claims then denies eternal salvation.

My view is consistent with 1 John. In my mind we should live with the assurance that God will see us home all the while continuously asking His pardon.

John NEVER presumes that a person is SAVED eternally, UNLESS He loves AS CHRIST DID! That is how we know we are heading to eternal life. Baptism is merely the first step. The confusion is the word "saved". Being saved merely means being HEALED. This, I believe, is the Protestant confusion. They equate eternal salvation with being spiritually healed. Cannot one person become "sick" spiritually AGAIN? Certainly. This is why the Church has been given the authority to forgive sins - to heal, as Christ did in Mark 2 - by forgiving sins - as in James 5 - forgiving sins. Since the POSSIBILITY of NOT loving like Christ did exists (even for us "saved" men), we cannot have total confidence - but we can have what Catholics call "moral" confidence - I'm pretty sure that if I persevere, if I continue to love others, I will be saved eternally. This is not presumption. This is reliance upon God to grant me continued graces to persevere, because I realize without Him, I CANNOT love.

David doesn't give the appearance of absolute salvation. He throws his HOPE in the Lord. Hope is not assured. We place our trust that the Lord will reach down to us and aid us. We have confidence that He will help us. But to say that we are saved "no matter what"? No.

This version denies God's sovereign ability to maintain our salvation-but what the hey-we have free will right? Personally you need to ask yourself exactly who are you relying on to see you home?

If God CHOOSES to give man free will, how does that infringe on God's Sovereign Will? By demanding that God CANNOT give man free will, you limit the infinite, Sovereign God, don't you?

I'm saying that a true Christian will never fall away.

Again, how do you KNOW you are a true Christian, as defined above? You yourself earlier stated that a person's baptism might not have "took" - that he might never have been saved to begin with. With that in mind, Harley, YOU yourself might be one of them very people. You do not have access to the Book of Life, so you don't know if you were ever "saved" to begin with!

True believers always come back when they fail and it is only because God brings them back.

Of course. But we don't KNOW that we will do the same. Our lives are not over yet, nor do we know we are of the elect. That is the bottom line. Because you say you do that now doesn't mean you will in 5 years...

It is a sad thing for Christians to question their salvation or their "born again" experience in my mind. Paul told the Corinthians that they should see evidence of their spiritual growth. If you cannot see HOW you are different from the world, you should sincerely examine yourself to see if you are in the faith.

I don't question my baptism. I KNOW it was effective. However, I know that is just the first step in my walk, my spritual journey. As 1 John states over and over, unless we love like Christ, we are NOT "saved", your definition. Unless we become holy and righteous, we will not come into union with Christ in heaven. Again, 1 John 2:3-6 is pretty clear on this.

Yes, we should examine where we stand spiritually. BUT, if one take the idea that one is eternally saved, WHAT IS THE POINT??? If God has destined Harley to heaven, and you take your idea on God's foreordaining things to its logical conclusion, WHY would you bother worrying about your spiritual growth??? Will IT help you get to heaven any better? If you are already "destined" for heaven, monitoring your spritual walk is meaningless - as you cannot do anything to change the outcome. THIS, brother, is where we part ways. I think on many issues, we agree, but on this "eternal salvation is guaranteed" thing, it's not in the Scriptures.

Besides, if you end up saying you are born again and will go to heaven if you do A, B, and C; then you've just reduced the gospel to works.

I agree. Fortunately, Catholics don't say that. WE love IN CHRIST. We abide in Christ, so when we obey the Commandments, it is God WITHIN us that allows us to do so. Thus, being an amalgated person, the indwelling of the Trinity and me, I, Joe, can love.

The person who acts in righteousness IS RIGHTEOUS, JUST AS HE is righteous (1 John 3:7b)

Thus, my deeds of love (the word "work" has negative connotations in Romans - it implies an obligation that God owes me) are Christ's AND mine.

Brother in Christ

My point is that one can know that one is in possession of the salvation of God (per John). Such a thing is not at all presumptive.

Oh. I then agree. However, keep in mind that this is a PRESENT possession. By falling away (which CAN happen), by not following Christ's command to love (seen throughout John's writings), then we NO LONGER have salvation. MY point was that salvation is NOT guaranteed - we must persevere throughout our journey - continuing to love just as Christ did - all the way to the cross.

I believe that I can know that God has saved me ...

Us Catholics are always confused by this term "saved", because it ALSO means "to heal". Certainly, one can be healed, and then become sick again, correct? We can move forward in our walk (as you did today), but in 5 years, something might happen to dislodge your faith (heaven help us that this does not happen) and you may fall away - returning to the life of the 'world' - the vomit, as Peter calls this. When Catholics hear "saved", we are thinking of eternal heaven, usually. We realize that this is not automatic - although we CAN judge that we are CURRENTLY on the right path TODAY.

P.S. Please offer a prayer for the child I mentioned ... and his mother and family.

After signing off with this letter, I will say my evening rosary for this child and his family. Good evening.

Brother in Christ

" My claim was that the Orthodox and Catholic sacramental view of the interrelationship of these two distinct realities is superior"

How do you back up that claim?

"I did suggest that your view of how baptism works, if applied to Christology, would, if one were consistent, be Nestorian."

In my view, soteriology and Christiology are not strictly analogous.

"for it is the union of the two natures in Christ that makes possible the "re-creation" of the creature that permits water and bread and wine to functin as we Catholics and Orthodox believe they do."

And that would be well and good if Scripture consistently backed up your view, but as we have seen form Cornelius, it does not. Paul, was sent to preach the Gospel, he called himself the spiritual father of the Corinthians - yet he GAVE TAHNKS that he never baptized anyone! How could he possibly say that if baptism is, as you believe, the door through which one must pass to enter eternal life?

"since you constructed a straw man (claiming that I failed to distinguish physical and spiritual) instead of responding to my actual claim."

No straw man. Actually what I was showing was evidence that the the Bible teaches that physical things can be a "shadow, copy or pattern" of spiritual things without being united with them to such an extent that the symbol/reality line become indistinguishably blurred.

"But unless and until you accurately reproduce my claim, further discussion is useless."

You seem always ready to throw down the gauntlet! Why? You're very prickly - but I can't help but like you. You've got spirit!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.