Are Catholics "born again"?

[djrakowski]

ALLFORHIM, you posted another lengthy discourse in someone else’s words in defense of sola scriptura. Did you come to that conclusion with you, the Bible and the Holy Spirit, or did you learn this from someone else? If you’ve learned this from someone else, then you relied upon an extra-Biblical tradition to guide you.

Each religious tradition has an unwritten set of rules that guide them in the interpretation of scripture. To say otherwise is denying the obvious. If it were not so, then everyone who felt guided by the Holy Spirit would have equal claim to the truth, considering that they’ve all claimed to use the same sources. This can’t be true if everyone is supposedly using the same sources and coming to different conclusions. Either that, or truth is relative to the individual.

 

[runandsew]

The strongest evidence for the authority of the Bible is the fact that Jesus used Scripture as the final court of appeal in every matter under dispute. When disputing the Pharisees on their high view of tradition, He proclaimed, “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition…” (Mark 7:13).

Jesus did not use scripture and the final court of appeal in every matter. Yes he say “you nullify the word of God”
but at other times he would say “but I say” this is an oral authority outside of scripture. And when he was attacking the “tradition” of the Pharisees, he was not condeming all tradition but bad “man made traditions”. The word of God comes in two forms, written and unwritten. When the Church speaks with authority it is Christ speaking through her. Therefore it is the word of God, since Christ is God.

 

[mrs_abbott]

What is a mainstream interpretation? How does one determine which of the myriad interpretations offered by mainstream theologians is correct? If they differ, they can’t all be right!

Mainstream interpretation is individual translation, subject, of course, to scrutiny.
Who knows whose interpretation is correct? How do we know that they haven’t been ill-informed?
Of course they’re not all right. I think the CC has a good grasp of it but they are not very detailed when it comes to interpretting scripture.

 

[djrakowski]

Mainstream interpretation is individual translation, subject, of course, to scrutiny.

Subject to the scrutiny of whom? If the individual is free to interpret scripture on his own, trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide him into all truth, then he needs the scrutiny of nobody. Or else, he’d be relying upon an extra-Biblical tradition

Who knows whose interpretation is correct? How do we know that they haven’t been ill-informed?

Because God gave power to the Church, founded on St. Peter, and promised to guide it into all truth. It seems quite plain to me.

Of course they’re not all right. I think the CC has a good grasp of it but they are not very detailed when it comes to interpretting scripture.

What do you mean? Can you cite specific examples of where they’re not detailed enough?

 

[mrs_abbott]

He said “my words,” not “the Bible.” The Bible contains part of Christ’s words, as is stated specifically in the last chapter of St. John’s gospel:

John 21:25 (DRB) - “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

The scriptures also tell us what is more reliable:

1 Timothy 3:15 (DRB) - “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” This does not say that the scriptures are the pillar and ground of truth, so it makes no sense to claim otherwise, regardless of what you personally believe to be more reliable.
Because scripture explains that this is left to the Church (1 Timothy 3:15 - see above), and he gave authority to Peter, including the power to bind and loose:

Matthew 16:18-19 (DRB) - “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

So it all boils down to that the CC’s Magisterium reserves the sole right for interpretting scripture in matters of faith and morals and man is in error when trying to do so because he is not infallibly led by the Holy Spirit?
To me it doesn’t seem like the CC derives hardly any of its teachings from the Bible then. It’s all oral tradition and Church Fathers and Magisterium. Whenever a Bible argument is presented, other sources are cited for “back-up”.
It’s confusing?!

 

[runandsew]

Mainstream interpretation is individual translation, subject, of course, to scrutiny.
Who knows whose interpretation is correct? How do we know that they haven’t been ill-informed?
Of course they’re not all right. I think the CC has a good grasp of it but they are not very detailed when it comes to interpretting scripture.

One way you can tell how the Church interprets individual scripture passages is to go to the end of the catechism and look up the index of citations. There you will find every scripture passage used in the catechism listed in order of the books in the Bible. Not every scripture passage in the bible is footnoted, but there are a great many passages used in the catechism.

 

[runandsew]

Mainstream interpretation is individual translation, subject, of course, to scrutiny.
Who knows whose interpretation is correct? How do we know that they haven’t been ill-informed?
Of course they’re not all right. I think the CC has a good grasp of it but they are not very detailed when it comes to interpretting scripture.

You can tell how the Church interprets individual scripture passages by going to the end of the catechism and look up the index of citations. There you will find every scripture passage used in the catechism listed in order of the books in the Bible. Not every scripture passage in the bible is footnoted, but there are a great many passages used in the catechism.

 

[mrs_abbott]

runandsew:
One way you can tell how the Church interprets individual scripture passages is to go to the end of the catechism and look up the index of citations. There you will find every scripture passage used in the catechism listed in order of the books in the Bible. Not every scripture passage in the bible is footnoted, but there are a great many passages used in the catechism.

Thanks runandsew. I guess it all comes down to trusting our leaders and assuming that they’re doing what’s right.
What if they are ever in error?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

ALLFORHIM, you posted another lengthy discourse in someone else’s words in defense of sola scriptura. Did you come to that conclusion with you, the Bible and the Holy Spirit, or did you learn this from someone else? If you’ve learned this from someone else, then you relied upon an extra-Biblical tradition to guide you.

I do have an opinion on this but it would be taken in such an offensive way I cant ever say it. It is biblical but the catholics here would be all over me and I dont want to offend or deal with the fall out. So I respectfully will remain silent.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

ALLFORHIM, you posted another lengthy discourse in someone else’s words in defense of sola scriptura. Did you come to that conclusion with you, the Bible and the Holy Spirit, or did you learn this from someone else? If you’ve learned this from someone else, then you relied upon an extra-Biblical tradition to guide you.

Each religious tradition has an unwritten set of rules that guide them in the interpretation of scripture. To say otherwise is denying the obvious. If it were not so, then everyone who felt guided by the Holy Spirit would have equal claim to the truth, considering that they’ve all claimed to use the same sources. This can’t be true if everyone is supposedly using the same sources and coming to different conclusions. Either that, or truth is relative to the individual.

 

[djrakowski]

I do have an opinion on this but it would be taken in such an offensive way I cant ever say it. It is biblical but the catholics here would be all over me and I dont want to offend or deal with the fall out. So I respectfully will remain silent.

If it is truly Biblical, as you say, then no Catholic here would ever be offended by it.

This is really important, because truth matters: how does one determine which of the myriad interpretations of sacred scripture are correct? Are there secondary doctrines on which Christians are free to disagree? If so, where are those listed in scripture?

• Is it valid to baptize infants, or must one wait until they’ve made a personal decision to follow Christ?
• Is Christ truly present in the elements of communion, or is it merely a symbolic meal of remembrance?
• Which of the views of the end times is correct - premil - postrib, midtrib, or pretrib, post-mil, a-mil?
• Is baptism necessary for salvation, or is it a symbolic entrance into the community of believers?
• Can men be ordained to the ministry, or are women also permitted?
• Should the church be organized with an authoritative hierarchy, or should each church govern itself without any hierarchical oversight?
• Are we snow-covered heaps of dung, as Luther believed, or does God actually make us righteous?
• Do our works contribute to salvation, or are they meaningless?
• Can you lose salvation, or are you saved forever no matter what you do once you’ve accepted Christ?

I could go on and on with more examples, but I think you understand what I mean. Each of the conflicting positions listed above is held by a variety of non-Catholic churches, but obviously, not each of them can be true when they’re in such obvious conflict.

When this happens, and all have claimed to be led by the Holy Spirit into a correct interpretation of sacred scripture, what then? Who’s right, and who’s wrong?

 

[MariaG]

Mark 13:31
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”
Passing tradition down orally leaves room for omission. Once the Bible was written, we had oral tradition converted to the written Word. To me, that’s more reliable than oral tradition.

But no where in the Bible does it say this. No where in Scripture does it ever tell us that the written is more reliable than the Oral. In fact, Christ never told the apostles to go and write the bible. He said, go and preach. Orally.

The oral words, passed down as Tradition, are also God’s words. No where does scripture make the claim that all the oral tradition has now been written down.

Then how can the Church know that what they know about Christ is true? Particularly the stuff not written in the Bible? I, personally, see the Bible as a big history book linking us to the time of Christ (NT) and knowing what led up to His coming (OT).

Because of the promises that WERE written down. The Spirit will lead and guide you. Many non-Catholics can see and apply this to themselves personally but do not allow God to be big enough to lead and guide an entire Church.

They wrote it down so that we would have some direction in life and would know that we were saying about God was true.

But where is it written down that it all has been written down now? They did write things down for direction. But they also spent many months with each group PREACHING. Many things did not get written down. Much of what got written was to correct misunderstandings after they had left. If people understood the teaching, like infant baptism, little if anything was written.

So honest, God-fearing, bible-studying Christians who are legitimately led by the Holy Spirit are in error?

You tell me. Can two honest God fearing people who “feel” they are led by the spirit come to two separate conclusions that contradict each other and both be legitamately led by the spirit in this instance?

One can be led by the Holy Spirit and still be misled at other times.

Either AFH is right and baptism is not when one is born again and infants may not be baptized and I(and the Catholic Church are wrong. Or she is wrong. Both of us cannot be teaching the truth on this issue.

In my opinion, she has partial truth. The part about how adults come to Christ. She is lacking the truth about how infants are allowed to come to Christ and become part of His body through baptism.

 

[MariaG]

Mark 13:31
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”
Passing tradition down orally leaves room for omission. Once the Bible was written, we had oral tradition converted to the written Word. To me, that’s more reliable than oral tradition.

But no where in the Bible does it say this. No where in Scripture does it ever tell us that the written is more reliable than the Oral. In fact, Christ never told the apostles to go and write the bible. He said, go and preach. Orally.

The oral words, passed down as Tradition, are also God’s words. No where does scripture make the claim that all the oral tradition has now been written down.

Then how can the Church know that what they know about Christ is true? Particularly the stuff not written in the Bible? I, personally, see the Bible as a big history book linking us to the time of Christ (NT) and knowing what led up to His coming (OT).

Because of the promises that WERE written down. The Spirit will lead and guide you. Many non-Catholics can see and apply this to themselves personally but do not allow God to be big enough to lead and guide an entire Church.

They wrote it down so that we would have some direction in life and would know that we were saying about God was true.

But where is it written down that it all has been written down now? They did write things down for direction. But they also spent many months with each group PREACHING. Many things did not get written down. Much of what got written was to correct misunderstandings after they had left. If people understood the teaching, like infant baptism, little if anything was written.

So honest, God-fearing, bible-studying Christians who are legitimately led by the Holy Spirit are in error?

You tell me. Can two honest God fearing people who “feel” they are led by the spirit come to two separate conclusions that contradict each other and both be legitamately led by the spirit in this instance?

One can be led by the Holy Spirit and still be misled at other times.

Either AFH is right and baptism is not when one is born again and infants may not be baptized and I(and the Catholic Church are wrong. Or she is wrong. Both of us cannot be teaching the truth on this issue.

In my opinion, she has partial truth. The part about how adults come to Christ. She is lacking the truth about how infants are allowed to come to Christ and become part of His body through baptism.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Sola Scriptura

When in 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses on the church door at Wittenberg he was merely disputing abuses in the Roman Catholic practice of “indulgences.” The dispute intensified and widened, however, until Luther and his followers found it necessary to break entirely with Rome. So began the Protestant Reformation, and the doctrinal issues which separated the Reformers from medieval Catholicism are the same issues which divide Protestants and Catholics today. While the doctrine of salvation (i.e., justification) became the central issue under dispute, the underlying question of religious authority was also a major concern.

Luther was convinced that the authority structure of Catholicism (Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium or Teaching Office) was illegitimate. He maintained that the church fathers, the papacy, and church councils were fallible, and had, in fact, erred. During his debates with Catholic theologians, Luther formulated the principle of sola scriptura (solely Scripture) which recognized Scripture alone as the supreme and infallible authority for the church and individual believer. All ecclesiastical authorities were to be judged by Holy Writ, and never the reverse. The principle of sola scriptura rejected both the idea that the Roman church possessed revelation apart from Scripture, and that the church was the infallible interpreter of Scripture.

Since the Reformation, theologians from a wide variety of persuasions have appealed to an equally wide variety of sources as the ultimate religious authority. These include reason, experience, creeds, church consensus, and the individual conscience. While recognizing that these have importance, historic Protestantism has continued to assert that the Bible alone is the final authority in matters of faith and practice. On this point, however, some questions are often raised: How do we arrive at this principle of sola scriptura? How does the Bible derive its authority? And, where does Scripture teach this principle?

To answer these questions it is important to recognize that Christian theology views authority as a chain. For the Christian, the absolute authority is God Himself. More specifically, it is the triune God who reveals Himself, for authority and revelation are correlates. While God revealed Himself in deed and in word in the Old Testament, His greatest and clearest self-disclosure is found in the incarnate Logos – the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1,14; 14:6-10). Jesus Christ, who both reveals God and is God, is the imperial authority for the church and individual believer (Heb. 1:1-3). However, Christ the Living Word has delegated His authority to His apostles, who – through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – have recorded the written word (John 14:26; 2 Pet. 1:21). Thus, Scripture has become our authority because as an infallible record of God’s self-revelation it perpetuates Christ’s personal authority. Scripture is objectively the Word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16), and is therefore authoritative!

to be continued

The problem with this summary is it not in fact scriptural. No where does scripture tell us that the apostles wrote the written word for the “final authority”. No where. But we do see where scripture tells us that faithful men should be entrusted with the teachings.

There is a chain of command. That chain of command goes from God, to the apostles and to those whom they entrusted with these teachings.

God left us a living breathing authority. Not a book that self-interprets itself. Scripture is an awesome God-inspired work. But Scripture was not delegated to be in authority over anyone. God left His people to be the authority, guided by His word.

God Bless,
Maria

ps, do you notice how you have to use the words of others and not just scripture alone to explain your position? So in fact you are not following scripture alone but the interpretation of someone who uses scripture?

There are no words anywhere in scripture that tell us scripture is the final authority. In fact we do find if there is a disagreement with your brother, we don’t search the scriptures for who is right, we “take it to the Church”.

Nor is there anyone before Luther who ever said that scripture alone is what God intended. This is the biggest false doctrine that has ever “come along” in the history of Christianity.

 

[djrakowski]

There are no words anywhere in scripture that tell us scripture is the final authority. In fact we do find if there is a disagreement with your brother, we don’t search the scriptures for who is right, we “take it to the Church”.

This is an outstanding point! It bears backing with a scripture quote (I hope you don’t mind, MariaG!)

Matthew 18:15-17 (NIV) - “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

Notice the incredulity with which Jesus addresses those who fail to listen “even to the church” - as if he couldn’t believe that anyone would fail to listen to the judgments of the church he was about to establish.

Again, excellent point, MariaG!

 

[runandsew]

Thanks runandsew. I guess it all comes down to trusting our leaders and assuming that they’re doing what’s right.
What if they are ever in error?

Then I guess that Jesus lied when he said that they would be led in all truth, and if he lied then he can not be God, since God can not lie.
If that is the case, then the whole Bible is false, and Christianity if also false.
It is not “trusting our leaders”, it is trusting God, which said that the church would be sent the Holy Spirit to lead it in all truth. It is called faith.

 

[lak611]

Then I guess that Jesus lied when he said that they would be led in all truth, and if he lied then he can not be God, since God can not lie.
If that is the case, then the whole Bible is false, and Christianity if also false.
It is not “trusting our leaders”, it is trusting God, which said that the church would be sent the Holy Spirit to lead it in all truth. It is called faith.

:clapping: :bowdown2:

 

[dalcent]

This may be the most bigoted “Christian” link I have ever read. I quote:

For an Evangelical, becoming “born again” often happens like this: He goes to a crusade or a revival where a minister delivers a sermon telling him of his need to be “born again.”

“If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and believe he died for your sins, you’ll be born again!” says the preacher. So the gentleman makes “a decision for Christ” and at the altar call goes forward to be led in “the sinner’s prayer” by the minister. Then the minister tells all who prayed the sinner’s prayer that they have been saved—“born again.” But is the minister right? Not according to the Bible."

Whoever wrote that will be judged accordingly, and I am glad I will not be in their shoes at judgment.

JohnWilliams cited the above Catholic view of the evangelical born-again experience. Personally, having been that type of Christian for a decade I think it is entirely accurate.

Nonetheless, would ANY evangelical Christian care to state what he/she thinks the Catholic explanation of being born-again is. Personally I don’t think any of them know.

 

[East_Anglican]

I think the plain truth is that some evangelical Protestants have been taught that John 3:3 refers to “asking Jesus into their heart with a penitents/sinner’s prayer” and they’ve had this drummed into them over so many years that:-
no biblical/historical/theological argument against this is ever go to sound right to them.

After all, it’s the ‘faith once delivered’ to them, and the biblical model is ‘another gospel’ to them. That’s their perspective and its very ingrained.

Oh, the ‘authority of evangelical theology’.

There’s all kinds of stuff we’re all told that isn’t scriptural. Because we are told it by someone in authority we believe it. I have discovered that some Protestants have a far more extreme doctrine of Papal infallability then Roman Catholics have. In some Protestant churches, people can say anything from behind a pulpit and it is excepted as truth how ever unscriptural or bonkers it is.

 

[East_Anglican]

Hi,
Well, actually it would be on the authority of Jesus Christ:thumbsup: As far as the sinners’s prayer. They/we/me would more likely get that idea from the Book of Romans. 10 8-13
10:8
But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:
10:9
**That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. **10:10
**For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. **10:11
As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
10:12
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
10:13
for, “**Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” **

The verses I bolded all mention using your mouth or calling or confessing. I guess evangelicals calls it a prayer because that is how we talk to God. Seems pretty simple to me and I personally have not had this ingrained into me.As a matter of fact, I grew up Epsicopalian and I NEVER EVER HEARD THE SALVATION MESSAGE EVER!! The first I ever heard it was from my siblings and I didnt get it because I didnt believe it. Once the Holy Spirit came into me(my confessing Jesus as Savior and repenting and asking forgiveness) He made Scriptures very clear when I read them. I will admit I do not understand all Scripture and never will, but I assure you the Salvation Message was crystal clear to me. Actually the only true way to understand the bible in the first place is having the Holy Spirit in you to guide you. Someone who does not have the Holy Spirit in them cannot understand the spiritual truths of the bible.

You can only say JESUS IS LORD by The Holy Spirit and if you confess Jesus as Lord you have the Holy Spirit so you are saved.

Confessing the lordship of Christ is not the same as praying “Lord Jesus I admit I’m a sinner and I repent and ask you into my life as your Lord and saviour, Amen” The amount of people that are called saved due to being coerced into saying that without any conviction whatsoever is horrendous.

Some churches believe you have to respond to an ‘alter call’ and say it after the bloke leading the meeting to be saved. Unscriptural!

You made a good attempt at showing a scripture refferance to the ‘sinners prayer’, now can you show a refferance to what us Protestants call Alter Calls?