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).

King David murder a person, knew the seriousness of his crime, and yet did it anyway

And then repented...

...when you accepted Christ didn't He forgive ALL your sins?

The ones that I have asked for forgiveness, yes. My future sins, thus, are discounted, although they will be forgiven IF and when I ask with contrition.

God leads. Jesus leads. The Holy Spirit leads. We don’t say “take over” to God.

I thought it meant the same thing.

While we are being led we may say we are not going to do something (like Jonah) or we may wish to not listen and run ahead like the Israelites at Ai, but God will bring us back to the right track.

Again, you are presuming that God WILL lead us in the same way that He leads figures of the past. Again, you have assigned yourself a member of the elect. Can we presume that GOD makes this decision?

The fact that you see the Spirit as only a “life indwelling” being reduces the Holy Spirit to nothing more than a conscience

The Spirit is much more. He is God. He is the Sanctifier. He has inspired Scripture, guides the Church, makes Christ present through the Sacraments, and makes those who desire to be transformed into another Christ. A conscience is a "voice", which may be misinformed, wrong. The Spirit is a spirit of truth. He also, as I said, the One who actually ENABLES us to obey the commandments, have faith, love and repent.

Ezekiel states that God would give us a new heart and a new spirit that WOULD CAUSE us to walk in His statues and be obedient.

Do you think he meant "against one's will"? While God gradually has revealed Himself to us, we DO know that man has free will to decide to follow God's ways or not. Both Moses and Joshua present the two choices to the People of Israel. The first Psalm also presents the same choice. Ezekiel is presuming that the new heart will be THE force behind our obedience to God, rather than our own damaged wills - which, we agree, cannot lead us to God alone. We will no longer be "hearts of stone", one that cannot come to God.

Regards

Yes but there's a difference.

Individuals holding heretical beleifs within the church are INDIVIDUALS they are nt preaching a false doctrine.

Protestant churches with heretical DOCTRINES are out there evangelizing false doctrines to the masses.

The truth is within the Catholic, and Orthodox church, for individuals to find, whether they find it is still up to them. (Freewill yet again).

Yet members of these protestant churches would have to hold TRUTHFUL convictions (abortion is a sin) which would be heretical to their own church's false doctrine, in order to find the truth.

Once again ... any church could choose to call itself 'Protestant'.

That doesn't mean that it is.

Any believer in any church must 'test the doctrines' of that church by scripture to determine whether or not it is of God.

If one's church's doctrine does not conform to the scriptures, ... then you should look for a 'true' church.

The scriptures are the ultimate objective baseline against which one might make such a determination.

"I believe the ONLY reason a person perseveres is simply because God has transformed them so they will perform good works. It goes back to Augustine's interpretation of Ezekiel 36 where God states that He will put a new heart in us and cause us to walk in His statues."

One of the holy hermits of the Egyptian desert in the 4th century was a black monk named Abba Moses the Lybian. Even during his lifetime he was renowned for his holiness and his wisdom in matters of theosis. In his opinion, "The strength of those who wish to acquire the virtues is as follows: if they fall, let them not lose their courage, but let them be sure to make a new beginning at their endeavor. Insofar, then, as we put all our energy into practicing the virtues, let us await the Lord, showing Him a generous resolve and calling on His aid, and without fail He will strengthen us with His mercy and bestow His Grace on us in abundance, in which case we will accomplish every good easily and without exertion."

"Once again ... any church could choose to call itself 'Protestant'.

That doesn't mean that it is.

Any believer in any church must 'test the doctrines' of that church by scripture to determine whether or not it is of God.

If one's church's doctrine does not conform to the scriptures, ... then you should look for a 'true' church.

The scriptures are the ultimate objective baseline against which one might make such a determination."

Here's a question for you from another Orthodox Christian. If the very earliest Fathers of the Church, men who lets say knew the apostles, were their disciples, carried on active communications with them in writing and in person, declared that The Church was hierarchial and that those who did not accept the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist were not part of The Church, would you say that they were wrong or deluded in some fashion?

And then repented...

And that's my point.

The ones that I have asked for forgiveness, yes. My future sins, thus, are discounted, although they will be forgiven IF and when I ask with contrition.

Then Christ did not really die for ALL your sins-only the ones you know about.

Again, you are presuming that God WILL lead us in the same way that He leads figures of the past.

Absolutely. He state it to be so. If you don't believe it throw out the 23rd Psalms and the Lord's Prayer for starters.

Do you think he meant "against one's will"? While God gradually has revealed Himself to us, we DO know that man has free will to decide to follow God's ways or not.

Yep. There are only two wills-your's and God's. Which way do you want to be lead.

The greates and the first of the Desert Fathers, +Anthony the Great teaches us:

"Leading the repentant man to undertake spiritual work, the Holy Spirit, Who called him to repentance, also grants him His comforts and teaches him not to turn back nor be attached to anything of this world. To this end, He opens the eyes of the soul and gives her to see the beauty of the purity reached through the works of repentance. In this way He kindles in it zeal for complete purification both of itself and of the body, that the two may be one in purity. For this is the aim of the teaching and guidance of the Holy Spirit - to purify them completely and bring them back to their original state, in which they were before the Fall, by destroying in them all adulterations introduced by the devil's envy, so that nothing of the enemy should remain therein. Then the body will become obedient to the dictates of the mind in all things, and the mind will masterfully determine its food and drink, its sleep and its every other action, constantly learning from the Holy Spirit to "keep under" the "body, and bring it into subjection" (I Corinthians 9:27) as did Apostle Paul."

Comments?

Here's a question for you from another Orthodox Christian. If the very earliest Fathers of the Church, men who lets say knew the apostles, were their disciples, carried on active communications with them in writing and in person, declared that The Church was hierarchial and that those who did not accept the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist were not part of The Church, would you say that they were wrong or deluded in some fashion?

From what I understand ... even these early Fathers ... these very disciples of the Apostles ... did not agree at all points of their teachings.

I would say that I trust the Apostles and the Holy Spirit which inspired their writings to most infallibly transmit the teachings God requires of us.

I do not believe that God left any vital christian teaching out of the canon.

After all ... there is some reason why God inspired that the writings which were canonized were ... and why those writings which wern't canonized weren't.

Would not you agree ?

One can lose their rewards but never their salvation.

WHERE exactly does the Scripture differentiate between "salvation" and "rewards"? This is another Protestant twisting and reading into the text what is nowhere found. Whenever sin is discussed, "rewards" are not what is at stake, but "salvation"!

Communion, we are told in scripture, is a proclamation of our Lord Jesus’ return (1 Cor 11:23). Nothing more.

Ah. In the mold of Calvin. What does "THIS IS MY BODY" mean, then? What is interesting about this stance is that it is even less documented then "man has no free will"! You enjoy taking stances AGAINST hundreds of years of Christian practice, don't you?

Regards

David didn't HAVE to repent - that's MY point. He CHOSE to follow the righteous way, rather than the way of the wicked.

Then Christ did not really die for ALL your sins-only the ones you know about.

Of course He died for ALL sin, mine, yours, and the heathens. The difference is (and I have said this before) is realizing TWO terms for redemption: Objective Redemption, which is Christ's one time fully effective death which satisfies the Father's Justice totally. Subjective Redemption is calling Christ's work to OUR specific utilization. Certainly, understand that the Spirit moves us by His gifts of faith, hope, and love. But IF Christ died for ALL sin and it is applied to ALL men regardless of the condition, then there is NO ONE in Hell. I don't think Calvinists hold to that position, true? Are you saying that Christ only died for SOME sins? The Scripture says ALL sins in 1 John. (sins of the world).

We both agree that repentence, asking forgiveness, is the means by which sin is forgiven. But this is NOT a one-time action! Paul and John BOTH teach us to ask for forgiveness - CHRISTIANS, mind you, for their sins. Why on earth would "saved" Christians need to be forgiven again??? Why does Jesus, in John's Gospel, give the power to forgive sins AFTER the RESURRECTION? Why, in James 5, do the elders have the power to forgive sins to "save" already "saved" Christians??? Because, as the Church has always taught, our relationship with God is not static. A cursory reading of even the OT shows that the people of God (the Church) have turned away, cried out, begged for forgiveness, received forgiveness, and re-established the covenant agreement with God. This cycle continues for us on an individual scale, as is obvious from our own personal experience. We sin, we realize we did it, we are sorry, we turn to God, He forgives, and we resolve to try better, with God's graces. As our walk continues, we become better at this...

I wrote : Again, you are presuming that God WILL lead us in the same way that He leads figures of the past.

You replied : Absolutely. He state it to be so. If you don't believe it throw out the 23rd Psalms and the Lord's Prayer for starters.

Again and again and again, you are PRESUMING you are of the Elect! Can we agree that some WITHIN the Church will NOT be saved? That some are "tares", while others are "wheat"? The interesting thing about that parable is that wheat and tares are completely indistinguishable from each other UNTIL the Harvest! And so are we... As you know, our outward appearance to others does not guarantee the inner actuality of our own self. We can examine it today, but that doesn't guarantee the future will hold true. The Scripture clearly shows that Church members can falter and fall away. Are you going to now disagree with that? By saying "they never were saved to begin with", you try to have your cake AND eat it too! If the chance exists that YOU can falter, there goes "absolute assurance of salvation"...

There are only two wills-your's and God's. Which way do you want to be lead

God's. But again, He doesn't force us. God has been known to leave man to their own devices - those who turn against Him to do what THEY want to do are left to their desires...

Regards

I think I respond to your post with this other teaching from +Anthony.

"God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions.

He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God's goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind."

HD, does this change your opinion of +Anthony? This snip, by the way, is a very early formulation of what all the Eastern Fathers taught on this subject. As Jo Kus wrote as a Latin Catholic, at least for us in Eastern Christianity, it has never been about "reward" but rather theosis.

"From what I understand ... even these early Fathers ... these very disciples of the Apostles ... did not agree at all points of their teachings."

It is indeed true that there were differences in teaching on some issues among the Fathers. Orthodoxy has never taught that any individual Father was infallible, nor, to my knowledge, has Orthodoxy taught that any one Father has expressed some dogmatic Truth to the exclusion of others, as some argue Rome has done with +Augustine on the question of the Sin of Adam. What Orthodoxy teaches is that the consensus patrum is infallible. In that regard I can tell you that until the 16th century rise of Protestantism, no Father, Eastern or Western, ever denied the hierarchial structure of The Church (The bishop presiding in the place of Christ, surrounded by his monastics and clergy and people celebrating the Eucharist) nor did any of them ever deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Now these were both dogmatic points about what +Ignatius of Antioch called "our new religion" of which the Apostles and Paul were well aware, rejection of which earned the appellation "heretic". If there were an Apostolic problem with these dogmas, wouldn't one think that the issue would have arisen at some point before 1500 years had passed?

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.