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).

You both should read +John Chrysostomos' Homily XVI on Romans, which deals with Rom:ix. Its far too long to copy here, but +John Chrysostomos speaks of how "election" is a fact meaningful only in terms of God's perfect "foreknowledge" of everything. And of course "foreknowledge" itself is a human term which is of necessity innappropriate when dealing with an ineffable and eternal God.

I'll give you just a snip here:

"For “the children,” he says, “being not yet born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, it was said unto her that the elder shall serve the younger:” for this was a sign of foreknowledge, that they were chosen from the very birth. That the election made according to foreknowledge, might be manifestly of God, from the first day He at once saw and proclaimed which was good and which not. Do not then tell me that thou hast read the Law (he means) and the Prophets, and hast been a servant for such a long time. For He that knoweth how to assay the soul, knoweth which is worthy of being saved. Yield then to the incomprehensibleness of the election. For it is He alone Who knoweth how to crown aright. How many, for instance, seemed better than St. Matthew; to go by the exhibition of works then visible. But He that knoweth things undeclared, and is able to assay the mind’s aptitude, knew the pearl though lying in the mire, and after passing by others, and being well pleased with the beauty of this, He elected it, and by adding to the noble born free-will grace from Himself, He made it approved. For if in the case of these arts which are perishable, and indeed in other matters, those that are good judges do not use the grounds on which the uninstructed form their decision, in selecting out of what is put before them; but from points which they are themselves well aware of, they many times disparage that which the uninstructed approve, and decide upon what they disparage: and horse-breakers often do this with horses, and so the judges of precious stones, and workmen in other arts: much more will the God that loveth man, the infinite Wisdom, Who alone hath a clear knowledge of all things, not allow of man’s guesses, but will out of His own exact and unfailing Wisdom pass his sentence upon all men. Hence it was that He chose the publican, the thief, and the harlot; but dishonored priests, and elders, and rulers, and cast them out. And this one may see happening in the martyrs’ case also. Many accordingly of those who were utterly cast aside, have in the time of trial been crowned. And, on the other hand, some that have been held great ones by many have stumbled and fallen. Do not then call the Creator to account, nor say, Why is it that one was crowned and another punished? For He knoweth how to do these things with exactness. Whence also he says, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.” That it was with justice, you indeed know from the result: but Himself even before the result knew it clearly. For it is not a mere exhibition of works that God searcheth after, but a nobleness of choice and an obedient temper (gnwmhn eugnwmona) besides. For a man of this kind, if he should ever sin through some surprise, will speedily recover himself. And if he should even stay long haply in a state of vice, he will not be overlooked, but God Who knoweth all things will speedily draw him out. And so he that is herein corrupted, even if he seem to do some good things, will perish, in that he doth this with an ill intention. Hence even David, after committing murder and adultery, since he did this as being carried away by surprise, and not from habitual practice of wickedness, speedily washed it out. The Pharisee, however, who had not perpetrated any such crime (Luke xviii. 11), but even had good deeds besides to boast of, lost all by the bad spirit he had chosen.

Comments?

There are problems with the "foreknowledge" perspective. Please note these problems below by John Hendryx:

The Inconsistency of Synergists on Election & Foreknowledge

Synergists teach that ELECTION is as follows: God foreknew who would yield to the Spirit, and therefore elected to salvation all those whom He foresaw would do so. In this scheme the absolute free will of the natural man is necessary to preserve human responsibility. But this concept of foreknowledge actually grinds itself into nothing. There is no synergist living who can consistently believe this theory of foreknowledge, and still go around teaching his views as to salvation. Why so? Consider the following:

1. No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God is trying to save every man. Surely if God knows whom He can save or who will be saved, then who would say that He is trying to save more? Certainly, it is foolish to assert that God is trying to do something which He knew never could be accomplished. I have heard some synergists charge those who believe monergism that the Gospel preached to the non-elect is mockery since God has not elected them. If there is any validity in that objection, then it equally applies to them as well who preach to those who God knows won't be saved. God commands that the Gospel be preached to all, whether we clearly understand or accept His reasoning in the matter.

2. No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew which sinners would be lost and then say it is not within God's will to allow these sinners to be lost. Why did He create them? Let the Synergist consider that question. God could have just as easily refrained from creating those that He knew would go to Hell. He knew where they were going before He created them. Since He went ahead and created them with full knowledge that they would be lost, it is evidently within God's providence that some sinners be lost, He evidently has some purpose in it which we human beings cannot fully discern. The Christian humanist can complain against the truth that God chose to allow some men a final destiny of Hell all they want, but it is as much a problem for them as for anyone. As a matter of fact, it is a problem which synergists must face. If he faces it, he will have to admit either the error of his theology or deny foreknowledge all together. But he might say that God had to create those that perish, even against His will. This would make God subject to Fate.

3. No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then teach that God punished Christ for the purpose of redeeming every single man that ever lived. Surely we should credit God with having as much sense as a human being. What human being would make a great but useless and needless sacrifice? Synergists say that God punished Christ for the sins of those whom He knew would go to Hell. This theory of the atonement--although synergists do not mention this--involves the matter of Christ's suffering exclusively for the purpose of man's salvation--the substitutionary aspect. They fail to have any appreciation for aspect of propitiation.

4. No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God the Holy Spirit does all He can do to save every man in the world. The Holy Spirit would be wasting time and effort to endeavor to convert a man who He knew from the beginning would go to Hell. You hear Synergists talk about how the Spirit tries to get men to be saved and if they don't yield to him they will "cross the line" and offend the Spirit so that He will never try to save them again. Bottom line, the Synergist makes a finite creature out of the Divine Godhead.

"The ONLY reason the Eucharist was even mentioned has nothing to do with Ratramnus, who was an ordinary monk of no ranking. His opinion was universally refuted and was never taken seriously. The Fourth Lateran Council is addressing Berengar of Tours, a leader of the St. Martin of Tours school - thus, he had a bit more standing....Berengar of Tours, evidently, believed in what is called consubstantiation - which Luther did

It doesn't matter whether the Council was addressing Ratramnus or Berengar. My point has been and the evidences shows (at least to me) there was always at least some confusion on the Eucharist until the Lateran Council. Berengar of Tours is just another example of this evidence. The only reason these things rises to Council level is because there is enough squawking below.

Sure some believed (perhaps most) in the Real Presence. Others did not. Berengar, Ratramnus, Tertullian, and Luther are examples of those who did not. Yet I keep hearing over and over EVERYBODY agreed. Ratramnus and Berengar MUST have had a following to have wound up being mentioned in history. I doubt if Ratramnus was some monk sitting by himself in a cold castle drinking hot cocoa and muttering to himself the Eucharist is just a symbol. And there would have been a lot of squawking with Luther's consubstantiation if his following (former Catholics) believed in the Real Presence.

Oh, HD, this doesn't even pass the milk through the nose test if the author truly understands that God is ineffable! To a Western, thoroughly committed to anthropomorphism audience, this might, wrongly, resonate, but to any Eastern Christian, comments like

"The Holy Spirit would be wasting time and effort to endeavor to convert a man who He knew from the beginning would go to Hell. You hear Synergists talk about how the Spirit tries to get men to be saved and if they don't yield to him they will "cross the line" and offend the Spirit so that He will never try to save them again." or

"No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God is trying to save every man. Surely if God knows whom He can save or who will be saved, then who would say that He is trying to save more?"
are laughable. The problem with some apologists is that they set up straw men and then crow when they knock them down.
God isn't "trying" to do anything. This writer knows absolutely nothing about Eastern Christianity.

"Now, how about this from Homily XII on Hebrews by +John Chrysostomos:

"Wherefore we ought always to “guard” ourselves, test at any time we should fall asleep. For “Lo” (it is said) “he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” (Ps. cxxi. 4), and “Do not suffer thy foot to be moved.” (Ps. cxxi. 3.) He did not say, ‘be not moved’ but “do not thou suffer,” &c. The suffering depends then on ourselves, and not on any other. For if we will stand “steadfast and unmoveable” (1 Cor. xv. 58), we shall not be shaken.
What then? Does nothing depend on God? All indeed depends on God, but not so that our free-will is hindered. ‘If then it depend on God,’ (one says), ‘why does He blame us?’ On this account I said, ‘so that our free-will is no hindered.’ It depends then on us, and on Him For we must first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own. He does not anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged. But when we have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us.

And secondly the other explanation may be given, that he speaks of all as His, whose the greater part is. For it is ours to choose and to wish; but God’s to complete and to bring to an end. Since therefore the greater part is of Him, he says all is of Him, speaking according to the custom of men. For so we ourselves also do. I mean for instance: we see a house well built, and we say the whole is the Architect’s [doing], and yet certainly it is not all his, but the workmen’s also, and the owner’s, who supplies the materials, and many others’, but nevertheless since he contributed the greatest share, we call the whole his. So then [it is] in this case also. Again, with respect to a number of people, where the many are, we say All are: where few, nobody. So also Paul says, “not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
And herein he establishes two great truths: one, that we should not be lifted up: even shouldst thou run (he would say), even shouldstthou be very earnest, do not consider that the well doing is thine own. For if thou obtain not the impulse that is from above, all is to no purpose. Nevertheless that thou wilt attain that which thou earnestly strivest after is very evident; so long as thou runnest, so long as thou willest.
He did not then assert this, that we run in vain, but that, if we think the whole to be our own, if we do not assign the greater part to God, we run in vain. For neither hath God willed that the whole should be His, lest He should appear to be crowning us without cause: nor again our’s, lest we should fall away to pride. For if when we have the smaller [share], we think much of ourselves, what should we do if the whole depended on us?"

Sure some believed (perhaps most) in the Real Presence. Others did not. Berengar, Ratramnus, Tertullian, and Luther are examples of those who did not.

With all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about. Questioning whether Christ is present with the bread or if He is alone does not deny His Real Presence. You are trying mightly to deny a simple obvious truth - the Church has always believed in the Real Presence. Your denial only tells me that your heart and mind is hardened to the obvious.

Luther ALWAYS believed in the Real Presence. Perhaps you don't know as much about the men of the Reformation as you think. What Luther is questioning is the Catholic use of Aristotilean philosophy to explain WHAT HAPPENS during the consecration - is the Bread no longer bread? Or is it bread AND the Lord? This does not deny His presence in either case!

This is akin to you listening to two children argue about whether the ice cream in their hand is chocolate or vanilla - and based on this conversation, YOU come in and conclude they are denying it is ice cream, calling the object in their hands pickles... Please. Some common sense is warranted here. It is quite simple. Berengar did NOT deny the Real Presence, nor did Luther!

Regards

No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God is trying to save every man.

How sad that you don't know what love is. Love DEMANDS a choice. IF God loves and desires to share that love with mankind, then He takes the chance of rejection. Certainly, God is trying to save each man. But each man does not desire to be saved - the Scripture is clear that we must choose. And if we turn from God, God leaves us to our own devices - our own punishment in of itself - because Hell is the state of existence WITHOUT God, without Love, without our ultimate sense of purpose or reason for existence. It's all about Love. Love is the driving principle WITHIN the Trinity, and it pours itself out into creation, desiring to share of Itself among men. But WE must willingly accept this love.

No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew which sinners would be lost and then say it is not within God's will to allow these sinners to be lost. Why did He create them? Let the Synergist consider that question. God could have just as easily refrained from creating those that He knew would go to Hell.

Where does that leave the Calvinist? That God created a man SPECIFICALLY to torture that person forever? That is not the God of the Scriptures.

No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then teach that God punished Christ for the purpose of redeeming every single man that ever lived

Again, you don't know what love is. Christ died out of love for mankind. God wasn't punishing Jesus Christ! A ridiculous assertion. Jesus Christ WILLINGLY went to the cross out of love - KNOWING that some men would not use this grace won at Calvary. Is Calvinism so devoid of love? How sad...

No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God the Holy Spirit does all He can do to save every man in the world

Again, presuming that God WILLINGLY allows man to choose. Are you going to deny that man has been given a choice? There are too many Scriptures that talk about choice. And once you understand how love works, you will understand that God comes to all, even those He foreknows will reject Him. The Seed of the Sower falls on ALL Ground - and much does NOT come to bear fruit. For those who have ears, hear it.

Regards

Quite frankly, I don't know why you would feel the need to have Christ in the Eucharist when the Holy Spirit is sealed inside of us.

Ah, a valid question...

The Catholic Church calls the Eucharist the summit of our faith, the ultimate sacrament and reality. Why wouldn't a person desire to share communion with the one they love, Harley? The NT presents the image of Christ as the Bridegroom who is seeking TOTAL union with His Bride, the Church (us). WHY do married couples continue to share the marital act with each other even though they already "know" about each other's love, that they are in each other's presence?

Spouses share in each other's presence during that extraordinary time, that total giving to the other to renew and reaffirm their covenant of love in the most intimate exchange possible. The married couple is a dim image of the Trinity - that sharing of each other to the fullest expression that we are capable of.

The reception of the Eucharist is to a Christian's relationship with Jesus in the spiritual sense that the marital act is to the married couple (properly enacted) - a total giving and receiving and a reaffirmation of our covenant relationship in that most intimate expression. Through this act, Christ brings the HOLY SPIRIT! HE is the Sanctifier, He is the one who transforms us, makes us more holy. By this personal sharing of ourselves with God, we become more like Him. As the Eucharist is a symbol, also, we understand that it is a foretaste of what is to come in heaven - at the Wedding Banquet - we will share fullest communion with Him in heaven.

Thus, the Eucharist performs the closest unity with our Savior, foreshadows the Kingdom to come, and brings the Holy Spirit to us in a personal way to sanctify us. This goes beyond the "marking" that we receive during our Baptism, because sanctification is an ongoing, continuous process. The more we receive Christ into our hearts, the more we will become like Him.

Regards

HD, you're spinning, or at a minimum, selectively reading, Tertullian when you say he did not believe in the Real Presence. I do not understand Luther's "consubstantiation" to be a denial of the Real Presence, but rather of Transubstantiation.

I'm not spinning anything. You and I both know consubstantiation is not the same as transubstantiation.

You asked me early how I feel the Latin fathers fell into error. This is one of them. I think there is ample evidence to support there were some real divisions within the Church over this issue contray to what I keep hearing. During the period of the Fourth Lateran Council the Crusades had been going on for over a hundred years. It is a documented fact many were leaving the Church during this period simply because they did not wish to fight in the Crusades. It was also a time of the end of the Dark Ages when people were steeped in mysticism.

The Roman Catholic Church looking for money and manpower to fight the Holy Wars did what they could. I believe the Eucharist wasn't simply doctrinal insight of the Church. As cynical as this may sound it was an opportunity to make people stick around in Church. If grace could only be offered through the Church what other choice would people have?

It isn't a coincidence that the Fourth Lateran Council focus was on the Eucharist, classifying those leaving the Church as heretics, tithing to the Church, and immediate forgiveness for those wishing to fight in the Holy War. The more I read of these documents the more I become convinced. All of these things have nothing to do with scriptural insight (perhaps with the exception of the Eucharist) and everything to do with keeping people in the Church and fueling the cost of the war. Establishing the Real Present in the Eucharist was a convenient way of maintaining attendence. Certainly it would have been a mistake to say it was merely a symbol for how would that draw people to the Church. This is how error is introduced.

" So God doesn't know our choice???? Yet He foreknows us???? Doesn't this seem the least bit odd?"

No; "anticipate" in this instance means to act upon foreknowledge, not that he doesn't "know". The problem is language and unless one can accept, because we cannot ever understand or participate in, as humans, the the ineffable essence of God but rather only experience or encounter His energies, human language will never be enough to describe God. For this reason, the apophatic theology of the Cappadocian Fathers (and to an extent the experiences of those Eastern and Western Christians who have experienced the Uncreated Light of God as at Mount Tabor)is the only theology which gives a marginally satisfactory way to look at what God is in terms of theosis, or put another way, the fulfillment of why we were created, which, in the end, is precisely what we are talking about here.

When we use anthropormorphic terminology (which is pretty much all we have) and don't accept (again, we cannot "understand") the ineffability of God, we end up with a God who, in human terms and with a human heart, "damns" and "elects". The truth of the matter is that God does not "exist" in any sense that we can understand.

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.