Are Catholics "born again"?

[tequilamac]

I guess you’re the best judge of who is and who is not following Christ. I too believe that Jesus will not know the time until it comes. Can you support this please. I am simply encouraging any who chooses to read a Bible study. I have been under the impression that we are all grown-ups in here. Anyone reading it is obviously free to* believe* as they choose.

But then do you even know what I am suggesting when I say we are in Daniel’s “time of the end”, or are you simply speculating about what you think I believe?

Good heavens man, your attempt to make yourself mysterious is NOT a sign of the Holy Spirit. You go on with long posts, with tons of scripture that relates to who knows what. We are not sola scripturists. We are not OT literalists. We follow the Pope. Perhaps you would go a lot farther on this forum if you considered who your audience is. When we read scripture, the interprettion is often not going to be the same as a sola scripturist’s. So it is counter productive to throw lots of scripture our way.

Instead of all this- why not attempt to say EXACTLY what you mean and nothing more.

 

[JohnWilliams]

And you know all the ‘futurists’ (I must admit for the first time that I’ve never seen this term before you used it here) who’ve read his book?

Get a grip bro. You’re foaming too. Did I say I knew all the futurists that read the book?
Stop to ponder whose influence is in control of your writing right now. What do you feel inside bro?

That must be an impossibly small sampling of ‘futurists’ who’ve read his book, then!
Well, if you’re in favor of folks repudiating their infant baptism…

See what I mean?

 

[djrakowski]

Get a grip bro. You’re foaming too. Did I say I knew all the futurists that read the book?
Stop to ponder whose influence is in control of your writing right now. What do you feel inside bro? See what I mean?

Oh, good heavens. Now, because I make an assertion that you don’t care to address, I’m being influenced by Satan? Now you have the ability to read souls?

You said that all the futurists that you know who’ve read the book came away convinced. But, your sample size is small. Do all of the futurists who read this book come away convinced? You can’t possibly know, so your small sample size is hardly convincing, since it doesn’t comprise a large enough percentage of those who’ve read the book. How do you know that there’s an overwhelming percentage of those who’ve read the book who don’t buy into its premise?

What I feel inside is the need to correct your mistaken impressions and false statements about Catholicism.

 

[jim1130]

"JohnWilliams:

I believe we are in the time of the end. I believe that the Lord returning his people to our covenant land in fulfillment of so much prophecy marked our entry into the time of the end.

orionthehunter:

I believe you know nothing. I take Christ at His Holy Word when He admonished us that we will not know when He will come again. For you to claim something in direct contradiction to His Holy Word makes you a false prophet and thus an anathema (to be shunned by all who follow Christ). I suggest all good Christians should ignore this poster.

I did.

Matthew 24:36. But of that day and hour no one knoweth: no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.

I second OrionTheHunter and will join the silence toward this poster.

 

[tequilamac]

Wow, dalcent, how in the world did you force yourself to read through all that nonsense? Thanks for doing us the favor of showing why the rest of us needn’t bother following JohnWilliams’ advice.

I for one can only make it through the first two or three chapters of his posts before I give up. But then I am an impatient sort lacking in charity.

 

[JohnWilliams]

Good heavens man, your attempt to make yourself mysterious is NOT a sign of the Holy Spirit.

Who better to judge of the “sign of Holy Spirit” too!

You go on with long posts, with tons of scripture that relates to who knows what.

It’s a drag when scripture gets in the way of a perfectly good doctrine isn’t it? Used to happen to me too.

We are not sola scripturists. We are not OT literalists.

Nor I except those passages that are meant to be literal.

We follow the Pope. Perhaps you would go a lot farther on this forum if you considered who your audience is. When we read scripture, the interprettion is often not going to be the same as a sola scripturist’s. So it is counter productive to throw lots of scripture our way.

Why not discuss the scripture presented? Surely you’re not asking me to only post Catholic doctrine, and then as a non-Catholic to boot?

Instead of all this- why not attempt to say EXACTLY what you mean and nothing more.

I said that I believed we entered Daniel’s “time of the end” with the events in Israel in 1948 and 1967 that fulfilled so much prophecy. I made no claim in regard to knowing how long this end may be.

The Lord asked Daniel to seal up the book and the words, and then confirmed that it was done in a later verse as I posted above.
When do you believe the Lord lifted/will lift the seal. When was/will be Daniel’s “time of the end”? What does your Church teach in regard to these verses?

 

[Church_Militant]

Am I the only one who sees how far off topic this thread has been hijacked?

Are Catholics Born Again?

Just like with non-Catholics…some are, some aren’t.

Am I? Most definitely!

Do I agree with any of the n-C/a-C propaganda that has been lately propagated in this thread?

Not a chance…
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[MariaG]

But you completely misunderstand that Paul was speaking of a circumcision of the heart, and not about a literal circumcision at all. Your verse reinforces baptism after a believer has made a decision for Christ, and has a circumcision of the heart. You continue to blatantly misinterpret to suit your doctrinal goals. I understand doctrinal scales on eyes. I was among the indoctrinated until last spring. Again, your verse:

col 2:11-12
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

You wrote:

“It is quite clear that Paul is comparing circumcision to baptism. When did most Jews get circumcized? As 8 day old infants.”

The opposite is “quite clear”. You completely misunderstood this verse. Circumcision made without hands. This would be a circumcision of the heart.

Again, respectfully, you give me your interpretation you can bold the words all you like, but it is still your personal interpretation of scripture. Again, I tell you respectfully that the Catholic Church and many Protestant churches disagree with your interpretation.

Again, I will offer to you testimony from Early Christians that show that infant can be born again into the body of Christ. Can you offer anything but your own opinion on scripture? I rely on scripture, the leading of the Holy Spirit and my interpretation is confirmed by the writings of Early Christians.

So why should I believe your interpretation when you offer nothing that I believe I do not already have, and in fact offer less? You only have given me your own interpretation and testimony that you speak from the leading of the Holy Spirit. I give the same AND I show that in fact, early Christians and Christians for over 1600 years interpret as I do, contrary to your interpretation.

And you are comfortable with this interpretation of yours that has come along and do not even try to seek out a christian source to show that your interpretation of Scripture is correct?

From CA Library Early Teachings on Infant Baptism
Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

May God bless you and keep you safe,
Maria

 

[jim1130]

Am I the only one who sees how far off topic this thread has been hijacked?

Are Catholics Born Again?

Just like with non-Catholics…some are, some aren’t.

Am I? Most definitely!

Do I agree with any of the n-C/a-C propaganda that has been lately propagated in this thread?

Not a chance…
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

No, but you are the first to actually document the obvious. This thread has become an abomination. MariaG is trying to get back on track, but I believe it is a waste of time based on JW’s obstinate posts (went down hill after his posts of # 251, # 256 & # 264). Peace.

 

[JohnWilliams]

Matthew 24:36. But of that day and hour no one knoweth: no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.

I second OrionTheHunter and will join the silence toward this poster.

That’s a pretty compelling verse, but why not try it in context?

Mat 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh:
Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Do you see a difference between our being able to know “when it is near, even at the doors”, as opposed to our knowing the day and the hour?

 

[JohnWilliams]

But then we have strayed from the thread subject. Do Catholics believe that being born again is something that was only possible after Christ died on the Cross?

 

[tequilamac]

That’s a pretty compelling verse, but why not try it in context?

Mat 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh:
Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Do you see a difference between our being able to know “when it is near, even at the doors”, as opposed to our knowing the day and the hour?

Sorry, JW, you can keep trying but your interpretation of scripture is probably not going to do much for us. We are lost causes for that kind of thing.

 

[Church_Militant]

Who better to judge of the “sign of Holy Spirit” too!

If you say so…I think I’ll leave all that judging to the one whose job it is. (Matthew 7:1-2)

It’s a drag when scripture gets in the way of a perfectly good doctrine isn’t it?

Wouldn’t know…hasn’t happened to me since I came home to the faith.

Used to happen to me too

I can’t tell. Looks to me kinda like it’s happening to you worse than ever. Probably need to check that…

Nor I except those passages that are meant to be literal.

And you discern this just exactly how…since you are now your own infallible interpretter…

Why not discuss the scripture presented? Surely you’re not asking me to only post Catholic doctrine, and then as a non-Catholic to boot?

Perhaps because you don’t wanna discuss scripture, but your fallible interpretation of same. Yours is no better than your hero Schofield.

I said that I believed we entered Daniel’s “time of the end” with the events in Israel in 1948 and 1967 that fulfilled so much prophecy. I made no claim in regard to knowing how long this end may be.The Lord asked Daniel to seal up the book and the words, and then confirmed that it was done in a later verse as I posted above.When do you

believe the Lord lifted/will lift the seal. When was/will be Daniel’s “time of the end”? What does your Church teach in regard to these verses?Ok, enjoy…You wanna talk discuss that you need to c&p that and open a new thread over in apologetics on it.

Here: it’s completely off topic.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[JohnWilliams]

If you say so…I think I’ll leave all that judging to the one whose job it is. (Matthew 7:1-2) Me too.
Church Militant;1731242:

Here: it’s completely off topic.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

I did try to steer the thread back on course just before you posted, with the following post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1731234&postcount=325

 

[dalcent]

Look I have seen your style of blind flailing in doctrinal defense…

JW, your guru is plain daft and you two seem well matched. My short analysis shows it for what it is: sub-Catholic, substandard, infantile. I’m not angry; nor even bemused now; just sad for your lack of commonsense.

We are born-again and confess Jesus as Lord.

 

[tequilamac]

Me too.
I did try to steer the thread back on course just before you posted, with the following post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1731234&postcount=325

Bible Prophecy for Free!- this statement comes from your link.

1. free advice is worth what you pay for it.
2. Catholics are just not into the end times stuff no matter how you dress it up. We pray:

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

 

[MariaG]

Hello,
You are on slippery ground here because we can say the same thing about the CC.
Again we can say the same thing about the CC

But we have also provided writings from early Christians who taught as we teach. Respectfully, you only can say that the Holy Spirit leads you and provide not one writing that supports your view that was written before 1500 years ago.

We both claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. One of us is wrong. Show early writings of Christians to show that in fact you are not the ones will false teachings that have come along because we can show you writings of Early Christians who teach that baptism is when one is born again and this gift should also be given to infants.

I agree, but we are told to raise our children up the way they should go and they will return(paraphrasing, in Proverbs somewhere)If you are a saved parent of course you are going to raise that child to love and know who Jesus Christ is and what He did for us. What happens when a person is baptized in the CC and then their parents dont teach them a thing about the CC(it happens)and they join a cult and committ suicide. You are telling me that person is going to go to heaven because they were baptized as a baby in the CC. Do you really believe that?

NO. We do not really believe that.

PLEASE, listen. We have discussed this before.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach or believe that just because someone is baptized one is guareenteed heaven. It does not matter if they are an adult or an infant. Both are capable of still ending up in hell. We do not believe in once saved always saved.

A person must choose to continue to walk in the Grace of God after baptism in order to go to heaven.

According to the bible there has to be a profession of faith/believe and true repentance. A baby cant do that until they understand and are taught by their parents(or someone else)what it all means

According to your interpetation of the bible. It is NOT “according to the Bible”. It is according to your interpretation of the Bible. Again, please offer a early Christian source who interprets scripture in the manner you do, excluding infants.

AMEN, yes and we all have sinned and we all can be regenerated by believing in Christ. I think Im missing your point of these verses in regards to your argument.

Hopefully, you will see the points we have been trying to make above.

1. We do not believe that baptism is a guareenteed ticket to heaven.
2. You have offered you INTERPRETATION of the Bible, not what the bible says. Please provide a source from the early Christians that supports your interpretation of scripture.
3. For the most part, how an adult becomes born again, we agree on. Repent and be baptized.
4. We disagree with you that one can ONLY be born again in this manner, Infants and children under the age of reason may also be born again through Baptism.
5. We both claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. So who is right and how can one be sure since people can be misled? (How about trying to find an authoritative Christian source befoe the 1600’s who taught that infants could not be born again into the body of Christ?)

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

That’s because your eyes are scaled over when, even as your own support for your position failed, you couldn’t see it.
I even used your own favorite verse to reinforce baptism after a circumcision of the heart but you clearly will not see it.
I believe infant baptism is fine and likely the Lord appreciates the gesture.
I don’t believe we have to pretend that it is based in scripture when it is, at best, elusive.

Again, I can claim the same about you. Show me a Christian source that supports your INTERPRETATION of Scripture.

As for the Lord “appreciating the gesture”, I am not sure I get you. This is not a game. This is not just a symbolic act. Baptism is a miracle of God in which God removes original and any personal sin (if there is any).

I am a blood bought, Spirit Taught, Bible thumping Christian.

AND the good Lord has seen fit to lead me to a Church that can not only make the claim of being spirit led, it can back it up with writings from early Christians.

So Far, all I have read is your interpretation of Scripture and not one source from early christians, who wrote alot, that agrees with your interpretation of Scripture.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Orionthehunter]

I see that Maria and AllforHim want to get this thread back on track after being rudely interrupted.

In Baptism we are all born again. The question is whether or not we remain in a state of Grace such that we remain in communion with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And, after giving into sin (by definition a willful decision to separate ourselves from God), we have need to be born again and have our sin washed away.

In addition to Baptism, the Church has two sacraments of healing. Confession and Annointing of the Sick. And this healing renews us such we are “born again.” From the Catechism

1421 The Lord Jesus Christ, physician of our souls and bodies, who forgave the sins of the paralytic and restored him to bodily health, has willed that his Church continue, in the power of the Holy Spirit, his work of healing and salvation, even among her own members. This is the purpose of the two sacraments of healing: the sacrament of Penance and the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.

Sacrament of Penance

1422 "Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God’s mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion."4

1423 It is called the sacrament of conversion because it makes sacramentally present Jesus’ call to conversion, the first step in returning to the Father5 from whom one has strayed by sin.

It is called the sacrament of Penance, since it consecrates the Christian sinner’s personal and ecclesial steps of conversion, penance, and satisfaction.

1427 Jesus calls to conversion. This call is an essential part of the proclamation of the kingdom: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.” In the Church’s preaching this call is addressed first to those who do not yet know Christ and his Gospel. Also, Baptism is the principal place for the first and fundamental conversion. It is by faith in the Gospel and by Baptism that one renounces evil and gains salvation, that is, the forgiveness of all sins and the gift of new life.

1428 Christ’s call to conversion continues to resound in the lives of Christians. This second conversion is an uninterrupted task for the whole Church who, “clasping sinners to her bosom, [is] at once holy and always in need of purification, [and] follows constantly the path of penance and renewal.” This endeavor of conversion is not just a human work. It is the movement of a “contrite heart,” drawn and moved by grace to respond to the merciful love of God who loved us first.

1429 St. Peter’s conversion after he had denied his master three times bears witness to this. Jesus’ look of infinite mercy drew tears of repentance from Peter and, after the Lord’s resurrection, a threefold affirmation of love for him. The second conversion also has a communitarian dimension, as is clear in the Lord’s call to a whole Church: “Repent!”

St. Ambrose says of the two conversions that, in the Church, “there are water and tears: the water of Baptism and the tears of repentance.”

Annointing of the Sick

1499 “By the sacred anointing of the sick and the prayer of the priests the whole Church commends those who are ill to the suffering and glorified Lord, that he may raise them up and save them. And indeed she exhorts them to contribute to the good of the People of God by freely uniting themselves to the Passion and death of Christ.”

Additionally, partaking of the Eucharist also contains an element of making us born again as it cleanses us from our venial sins.

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is “given up for us,” and the blood we drink “shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins.” For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:

For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord’s death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.

 

[JohnWilliams]

JW, your guru is plain daft and you two seem well matched. My short analysis shows it for what it is: sub-Catholic, substandard, infantile. I’m not angry; nor even bemused now; just sad for your lack of commonsense.

But then you went on your silly little tirade pretending you knew what you were talking about and ignored completely the basis which you claimed did not exist. Like I said brother, I understand completely.

We are born-again and confess Jesus as Lord.

Let’s get back to the thread subject.

Do Catholics believe being born again is something that happened to a person’s heart, only after Christ died on the Cross?