Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are Catholics Born Again?
Catholic Educators ^ | Mark Brumley

Posted on 11/11/2005 5:51:08 AM PST by NYer

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

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

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

"BORN AGAIN" THE BIBLE WAY

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

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

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

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

OTHER VIEWS OF "BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CATHOLIC VIEW OF BEING "BORN AGAIN"

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

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

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

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

A "BORN AGAIN" CHRISTIAN?

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

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

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


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Current Events; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant; Ministry/Outreach; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: baptism; bible; bornagain; catholics; scripture; spirit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 701-702 next last
To: Dark Skies

But not as Christ commanded. He said do this in remembrance of me--not symbolically once or twice a year. "Keep the Sabbath holy," and how better than to A) do what Christ commanded, and "do in remembrance" of Him, and B) remember that most holy sacrifice He made.


81 posted on 11/11/2005 9:38:43 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

And many Reformers kept many of the beliefs and/or practices of the Church, they just changed what they didn't like.


82 posted on 11/11/2005 9:39:52 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The only thing wrong about this article is that speaks about the "Fundamentalist at the door." Fundamentalists seldom come to one's door. Jehovah's Witnesses do, or young Mormon "elders." They hardly qualify as Fundamentalists.

-Theo


83 posted on 11/11/2005 9:55:49 AM PST by Teófilo (Visit Vivificat! - http://www.vivificat.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
you should recognize that Peter was only one of 13 apostles

What happened to Matthias?

At any rate, Peter was the only Apostle who:

1. was the first mentioned in any list of the Apostles.

2. was explicitly given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

3. was explicitly called "rock".

4. healed with his shadow.

5. raised a person from the dead.

6. walked on water.

7. first confessed the divinity of Christ

8. was crucified

9. was given primacy to resolve conflicts with the bishopric.

10. was charged by Christ with the task of tending His sheep. 11. was given the order by God to make the Church universal ("catholic"), and not reserved for the Jews.

Not one other apostle was blessed in this regard. He was clearly singled out and to assert otherwise is simply denial.

84 posted on 11/11/2005 9:56:00 AM PST by Rutles4Ever ("Fizellas! Looks like you guys are up to no good. Well, THIS gang used to be like that TOO, 3, 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Seems like the apostles seem to think that you need to be BORN of God

Yes.

and it has nothing to do with water.

This is unsupported by the verses you quote. In fact, it is contradicted. "...unless one is born of water and the Spirit..."

SD

85 posted on 11/11/2005 10:01:07 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199

I am always amazed at these threads that turn into Catholic vs Protestant debates. Arguing about Holy matters is legalistic and unseemly. Such discourse ignores the supreme fact that God is love, not doctrine. One cannot argue one's way into Grace.


86 posted on 11/11/2005 10:07:13 AM PST by Dark Skies (" For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. " Matthew 6:21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
Only one who can ever tell you FOR SURE if you are going to heaven is Christ. [snip], but MEN can NEVER say "Do this and you will go to heaven," as only Christ can say that.

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

If you are trusting in the sacramental "ticket punches" of the Catholic rite, instead of (or in addition to) faith in Christ's sacrifice on the cross on YOUR behalf, then you are NOT assured of eternal life according to the scriptures (see John 3:16).

I like the anti-Catholic site to which we were directed--those are some really ground-breaking arguments against the Church (arguments, when investigated, hold no water).

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

Seriously, it's not an "anti-Catholic" website as you claim; rather, it is a website dedicated to presenting the truth of scripture to Catholics so that they may compare the scriptures to the teachings of the Catholic church and make informed judgments regarding the Christian faith.

Here's a question:

If the Bible is the Final Authority, where did the Bible come from? And why does the Protestant Bible have 7 fewer books than the original Catholic version?

I'm sure that you are aware that the scriptures were complied by the early Christian church fathers.

As far as the Apocrypha, those books were not part of the original Jewish sacred texts (i.e, the Old Testament) and have therefore been discounted as a part of the Canon of scripture.

Blessings!

87 posted on 11/11/2005 10:07:54 AM PST by 57chevypreterist (Remember, your orthodoxy was once heresy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Golly. In grammar school I was always taught that “and” meant there were TWO things.

[16] And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;

Golly, it looks like there ARE two things happening at a Baptism!

88 posted on 11/11/2005 10:08:17 AM PST by Rutles4Ever ("Fizellas! Looks like you guys are up to no good. Well, THIS gang used to be like that TOO, 3, 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
This is unsupported by the verses you quote. In fact, it is contradicted. "...unless one is born of water and the Spirit..."

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

89 posted on 11/11/2005 10:13:34 AM PST by HarleyD (1 John 5:1 - "everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

Are you suggesting at this point in time Jesus became "born of God"?

What precisely does it mean to be "born of God"?


90 posted on 11/11/2005 10:15:48 AM PST by HarleyD (1 John 5:1 - "everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: bremenboy
are catholics born agian? no

You are quite confused. The Church that Christ established is the only authority regarding both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition -the truth about being "born again" has been passed down from Christ legitimately in combination of both Scripture & Tradition. All other sects (which it appears you may be member of one) maintain some aspects of the complete truth; however, it is only His Church , the Catholic Church, that holds and maintains the complete and authentic truth -and has done so wiithout error for 2000 years...

I suggest that if you want to continue attacking His Church that you would at least learn something more substantial about Her. He provided and provides us much more than the readers digest version of scripture many sects labor over as if it was a cafeteria menu type self improvement guide...

Here is some further information from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to get you started on learning what the truth really entails:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - III. How is the Sacrament of Baptism Celebrated?

Christian Initiation

1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

1230 This initiation has varied greatly through the centuries according to circumstances. In the first centuries of the Church, Christian initiation saw considerable development. A long period of catechumenate included a series of preparatory rites, which were liturgical landmarks along the path of catechumenal preparation and culminated in the celebration of the sacraments of Christian initiation.

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. the catechism has its proper place here.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Article 2

1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - II. The Signs and the Rite of Confirmation

1298 When Confirmation is celebrated separately from Baptism, as is the case in the Roman Rite, the Liturgy of Confirmation begins with the renewal of baptismal promises and the profession of faith by the confirmands. This clearly shows that Confirmation follows Baptism. When adults are baptized, they immediately receive Confirmation and participate in the Eucharist.

.

91 posted on 11/11/2005 10:18:32 AM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

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

Peter is also the most mentioned Apostle in the New Testament. Jesus also, obviously, had a separate or deeper relationship with Peter ("You are Peter, on on this rock I will build my Church," not "You are John" or "You are Thomas").

The reason the "Roman branch" didn't rise for several hundred years because Christianity was illegal, and Christians, lest you forget, were persecuted. After Constantine and Theodosius legalized and made Christianity the official religion of Rome is when it "rose," not from some diabolical scheme or somesuch nonsense.

Now, the RCC doesn't have a monopoly, of course, on the faith. The "deposit of truth," sure, but faith? Nah.

And since you reject the "monopoly" (i.e. authority) of the RCC, what Bible do you use? The Bible compiled by the RCC with 7 books removed? How do you know what belongs in the Bible? There are TONS of writings besides the Bible, so how come you still use the same Bible minus 7 books? Who decides/decided what goes in it?


92 posted on 11/11/2005 10:29:03 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Dionysiusdecordealcis
Since you are so sure you are sure, what are you going to do about Jesus' warning that those who were sure are in for a surprise (Mt 25:31ff)? Sorry to rain on your presumption-party but Jesus had some pretty stern words for people like you. I'd say he seems to be saying that he gets to decide who's a sheep and who's a goat and that there be some big surprises for those who were really, really sure. They were sheep.

As far as the silliness of "the sin of presumption", you completely misunderstand the Mosaic Covenant, the New Covenant, and Jesus' mission as Messiah.

Jesus came to take away the sin that separates us from eternal life with God the Father. Either He took it away by His sacrifice on the cross and His high priestly work or He did not. If He didn't, then He was a false prophet. If He did, then we now have eternal life through faith in Him. We are all born wicked; either we are righteous (and have therefore received the inheritance promised to the saints, eternal life) or we are not. And we are not made righteous by participating in the sacraments and doing good works (as noble as those things may be). We are only made righteous through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, through which His righteousness is inputed to us.

The Old Covenant (i.e., Mosaic Covenant) was insufficient to take away sin. That is why the Old Covenant Jews did NOT have everlasting life apart from Messiah. That is why Jesus came to die on the cross--to take away our sins! (The sins that prevent us from entering into eternal life to begin with.)

Study the book of Hebrews for more on this.

"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" --St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, 8:1

Blessings!

PS I'd rather be sure after the Judgment, not before.

The Judgment took place in AD 70. You quoted Matt. 25; read the whole Olivet Discourse (starting in context in Matthew 23) and you will see that Jesus Himself predicted that the judgment would occur with the destruction of the Temple (which signified the ending of the Old Jewish Covenant.)

93 posted on 11/11/2005 10:29:43 AM PST by 57chevypreterist (Remember, your orthodoxy was once heresy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Nihil Obstat

It's really inspiring to read Justin Martyr's writings. He details, for the benefit of the Roman rulers, what exactly the Christians were doing--such as meeting on the Day of the Sun, saying a prayer, greeting one another, reading from the writings they had available, mimicking the Lord's Supper, praying again, and going out to those who couldn't make it to share with them (sound familiar?)

He also makes a point of saying that they would rather die than not receive Communion (eukaristos), the Lord's Body and Blood (something that, unfortunately, many Catholics today don't take so seriously). It is really cool to read someone explaining, 1300 years ago, almost the exact thing we do in Mass on Sundays...


94 posted on 11/11/2005 10:34:00 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
At Baptism, we becomes sons or daughters of God, and receive the blessing of the Holy Spirit. We receive the vocation to be priests, prophets, and kings. In the same way, Jesus began HIS vocation as priest, prophet, and king among men.

Jesus' baptism sanctified the waters for all baptisms. He did not need baptism to be born of God. He was certainly already born of God because He was the beginning, and "in the beginning", the Word, begotten by God, eternal. We, in our mortal being, must be born of God through water and spirit - baptism - since we are not eternally made, constrained to temporal being until such time we are called into eternity. To prepare for that, we must be born of God, and not just man.

The Church, in practicing infant baptism, welcome us into God's family as spotless lambs, wiping away the stain of original sin and certainly not guilty of any other sin thereof. The graces are not something that need be won by OUR faith, but as Jesus healed the paralytic because of the faith of those who surrounded him, we are welcomed into the family of God by the faith of our loved ones who bring us to the sacrament for blessing.

To imply that being born of God requires a conscious decision to "accept Jesus Christ" as our Savior would seem to leave out the mentally handicapped who cannot make decisions for themselves and must rely ON THE FAITH OF THOSE AROUND THEM. To demand that one must be born of God by fiat implies that God loves not the imbecile, but only the learned who can rationalize their faith.

95 posted on 11/11/2005 10:34:16 AM PST by Rutles4Ever ("Fizellas! Looks like you guys are up to no good. Well, THIS gang used to be like that TOO, 3, 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
Good link here: http://mafg.home.isp-direct.com/peter02.htm

Here's what I like:
Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.
96 posted on 11/11/2005 10:36:53 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Dionysiusdecordealcis
Paul was writing to a pre-New Covenant body of believers. He was exhorting them to stay with their faith in Messiah Jesus (in lieu of the impending persecutions to the early church that were looming on the horizon for them), NOT to substitute good works for Jesus' atonement on the Cross.

You choose: Jesus' atonement, or your righteous acts, which are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."- St. Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, 2:8-9

Blessings!

97 posted on 11/11/2005 10:37:00 AM PST by 57chevypreterist (Remember, your orthodoxy was once heresy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

Good point. However, it often devolves in such a way b/c Protestants make a point of pointing out the "un-Biblical Catholic practices," which in turn inspires the Catholics to point out the Biblical basis, and so on. I would expect it on this thread, however, given the nature of the initial post: Are Catholics Born-Again? The question in itself is divisive, let alone the response.

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


98 posted on 11/11/2005 10:39:59 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: starfish923
I am absolutely certain that I have eternal life through Jesus'death on the cross, which took away my sins (sins which prevented me from entering into eternal rest with the Lord).

Do you have eternal life?

Blessings!

99 posted on 11/11/2005 10:40:41 AM PST by 57chevypreterist (Remember, your orthodoxy was once heresy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: opticks

You misunderstand Jesus mission as Messiah then.

See my post # 93.

Blessings!


100 posted on 11/11/2005 10:42:54 AM PST by 57chevypreterist (Remember, your orthodoxy was once heresy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 701-702 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson