Are Catholics "born again"?

[jim1130]

"jim1130:

My theory is that if household size and composition were mentioned in something other than the NT (i.e., Early Church Father writings such as the Didache), some would dismiss it as not inspired therefore an unsatisfactory answer and explanation. For me, “household” would be parents and their children with possibily extended family members. maybe multiple households got together from neighboring homes.

Without knowing the composition it may not be a good idea to build a doctrine around it. I don’t know their compositions but here are a couple of verses I found when I did a search for “household” (I am posting without having read any context):

Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.
blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act016.html#15
1Cr 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr001.html#16

Classic SS position. If it is not in the Bible then it does not count.

I am certain there is evidence that explains the household composition of that era. For example, we can look at the household of Jesus: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph: Son, Mom, Dad.

Why treat the Bible like Chiltons repair manual?

 

[JohnWilliams]

Build a doctrine around it?

You are right now yourself by rejecting it.

I don’t believe I have rejected it. I have emphasized what I believe it the importance of baptism after a person makes a decision for Christ Jesus and is born again in the spirit.

Give me a break.

Are you in study to be the next Pope? You sound like you are trying out for the role right now. (in a protestant understanding of the role)

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

 

[JohnWilliams]

Classic SS position. If it is not in the Bible then it does not count.

I would think that a classic SS position is that if doctrine is CONTRADICTED by scripture, it doesn’t count (or at least find out why it is). I don’t believe anyone has tried to make that case in this thread.

Relative Scriptural absence of infant baptism (if that is indeed the case) should get our attention, and we all agree that there is much Biblical confirmation for adult decision for Christ, and subsequent baptism. I am comfortable that I made a decision for my Savior and was baptized, as I am sure that you are comfortable that your position is secure.

We both enjoy lives in Christ Jesus.

 

[JohnWilliams]

Why treat the Bible like Chiltons repair manual?

I see a Church in desperate need of repair in terms of eschatology. While we would all like to believe that our’s is the one that is error free, this is anything but the case.

You won’t find Satan at an atheist convention, or in Hollywood. You will find him in the Church doing what he can to cart off Jesus goods.

What do you think all the "overcommeth"ing is about in Revelation Chapter 2?

 

[jim1130]

I would think that a classic SS position is that if doctrine is CONTRADICTED by scripture, it doesn’t count. I don’t believe anyone has tried to make that case in this thread.

Relative Scriptural absence of infant baptism (if that is indeed the case) should get our attention, and we all agree that there is much Biblical confirmation for adult decision for Christ, and subsequent baptism. I am comfortable that that I made a decision for my Savior and was baptized, as I am sure that you are comfortable that your position is secure.

We both enjoy lives in Christ Jesus.

But where does it say in the Bible not to baptize infants? If the position is that adults can be baptized because it speaks of adult baptism then there should also be a statement to theeffect not to baptize infants. Does the omission from the Bible disqualify the doctrine even though the Tradiion was practiced?

 

[JohnWilliams]

But where does it say in the Bible not to baptize infants?

I don’t believe anyone has tried to make that case as I said. And most all ageed that it is unlikely that a baby goes to perdition if it’s not baptized as earlier posts discuss.

If the position is that adults can be baptized because it speaks of adult baptism

Adult baptism is abundant in scripture as a result of the adult making a decision for Christ. That is how I was baptized 3 years ago at 54 years old, even though I had been baptized as an infant. I never made a decision for Christ before 3 years ago.

then there should also be a statement to the effect not to baptize infants.

And if baptising an infant would send it to perdition I am sure the Bible would have said so, don’t you think?

Does the omission from the Bible disqualify the doctrine even though the Tradiion was practiced?

You missed the beginning of my post. I believe doctrine is defective when it is CONTRADICTED by scripture. But I also look at false doctrine, that is not provable by scripture but merely by tradition, or “reason” as the Episcopal Church attests, as a serious matter. Read Revelation 2.

 

[MariaG]

I would think that a classic SS position is that if doctrine is CONTRADICTED by scripture, it doesn’t count. I don’t believe anyone has tried to make that case in this thread.

Relative Scriptural absence of infant baptism (if that is indeed the case) should get our attention, and we all agree that there is much Biblical confirmation for adult decision for Christ, and subsequent baptism. I am comfortable that that I made a decision for my Savior and was baptized, as I am sure that you are comfortable that your position is secure.

We both enjoy lives in Christ Jesus.

Respectfully, there are many who come here who say that if it is not explicitly taught in scripture it is against scripture.

But there is not, in fact, an absence of scripture about infant baptism. There is much implicit, talking of whole households.

For me however, the strongest scriptural source about infant baptism is from Paul when he compares baptism to circumcision.

:bible1: 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.

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

When one actually looks at the scripture that there IS that at least implicitly talks of infant baptism, and uses common sense to realize that there did not NEED to be explicit directions about baptizing infants. Why not? Because people saw with their own eyes whole families, including infants being born again through baptism.

There is absolutely not one ECF nor even a late church father who ever preached adult only believer’s baptism. This is a false doctrine that goes contrary to scripture and “keeps the little children” from being born again into the body of Christ. Look into the history of Christianity. You will find that it was not until the 1600’s that this doctrine was ever taught by Christians. I am perplexed by those who choose to be comfortable in their postion of adult only baptism instead of actually looking into history to confirm or deny the information on infant baptism.

Scripture warns us of false doctrines that will come along. We warn you this is a false doctrine (adults only deny infants baptism), yet people say they are comfortable with their “biblical belief”.

I am glad you are “comfortable” with your position. But frequently Christ does not call us to comfort, but rather challenges us to step outside of our “comfort zone”.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The new birth is neither dependent upon our conceptualizations of it nor upon our age. This is the last post I’ll make in this thread unless someone takes the theology and Trent seriously. You all are ignoring the obvious truths of Scripture and of Trent which I’ve posted twice before.

CDL

 

[jim1130]

I don’t believe anyone has tried to make that case as I said. And most all ageed that it is unlikely that a baby goes to perdition if it’s not baptized as earlier posts discuss. Adult baptism is abundant in scripture as a result of the adult making a decision for Christ. That is how I was baptized 3 years ago at 54 years old, even though I had been baptized as an infant. I never made a decision for Christ before 3 years ago. And if baptising an infant would send it to perdition I am sure the Bible would have said so, don’t you think? You missed the beginning of my post. I believe doctrine is defective when it is CONTRADICTED by scripture. But I also look at false doctrine, that is not provable by scripture but merely by tradition, or “reason” as the Episcopal Church attests, as a serious matter. Read Revelation 2.

Hope that you can access this site.

earlychurchfathers.org/belief.php?id=8&PHPSESSID=7473ac9c8f65bb9ef164c7ed583793bd

 

[JohnWilliams]

Respectfully, there are many who come here who say that if it is not explicitly taught in scripture it is against scripture.

I am sure you will agree that ALL** false** doctrine is extra-scriptural.

But there is not, in fact, an absence of scripture about infant baptism.

I don’t know and indicated thus.

There is much implicit, talking of whole households.

I dreged up a couple of verses without much help. Do you know of the composition of one such household to which you alude in which an infant is present?

For me however, the strongest scriptural source about infant baptism is from Paul when he compares baptism to circumcision.

:bible1: 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.

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

What is clear here is that Paul isn’t talking about physical circumcision at all. The operative words here: “were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands”
This is a reference to a circumcision of the heart - not physical circumcision. Your verse, and indeed this whole passage, seems to support adult decision and baptism - not infant baptism. It is about circumcision of the heart - repentence, salvation and relationship. This would not seem to be the stuff of infants.

When one actually looks at the scripture that there IS that at least implicitly talks of infant baptism, and uses common sense

“Common sense” killed the Episcopal Church USA

to realize that there did not NEED to be explicit directions about baptizing infants. Why not?

I don’t doubt that Jesus looks at it like an act of love and trying to please Him. But in scripture it is generally (almost exclusively) in the context of a decision for Christ by the candidate followed by baptism.

Earlier in the thread I talked a bit about dedication of infants by parents being perhaps a better way to put parents feet to the fire, rather than taking your baby in to Church to get processed. You can make all kinds of arguments but there is no shortage of Christians that believe that simply going through some motions will get saved - in all churches.

Is there be a risk in infant baptism having taken the place of adult baptism? That is that it might be something that is viewed as someone having done for us, rather than a product of our love for, and commitment to, our Lord in a born again relationship?

Because people saw with their own eyes whole families, including infants being born again through baptism.

Do you have any scripture to support that infants were baptized? This is what I have been asking about re this subject.

There is absolutely not one ECF nor even a late church father who ever preached adult only believer’s baptism. This is a false doctrine that goes contrary to scripture and “keeps the little children” from being born again into the body of Christ.

Perhaps you could review the whole thread. So far you are the only one who makes a claim that it keeps the little children from being born again. Can you support this?

Look into the history of Christianity.

I judge doctrine in part by it’s fruit.

You will find that it was not until the 1600’s that this doctrine was ever taught by Christians. I am perplexed by those who choose to be comfortable in their postion of adult only baptism instead of actually looking into history to confirm or deny the information on infant baptism.

Scripture warns us of false doctrines that will come along.

Amen sister. And there is no shortage, particularly in regard to eschatology.

We warn you this is a false doctrine (adults only deny infants baptism), yet people say they are comfortable with their “biblical belief”.

I am glad you are “comfortable” with your position.

Shouldn’t I be comfortable in having been baptized when I recieved Christ as my Savior?

 

[JohnWilliams]

But frequently Christ does not call us to comfort, but rather challenges us to step outside of our “comfort zone”.

EXACTLY. Now, would it have been a more comfortable decision for me to decide that a pastor took care of baptism for me when I was an infant and had not a clue what was going on? Was it more “comfortable” for me to make a grown-up decision for my Savior, and believe I had a need to be baptized based on Scripture?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

I have not tried to make a case against infant baptism in this thread. I am sure that Jesus would look on this as an effort to please Him. I have tried to make a case FOR a conscious decision for Christ, and then baptism. Nobody seems to want to hear it as much as I have tried.

Are you against baptism after a person makes a decision for Christ and repents?

 

[Damascus]

THere is No case for a conscience decision to be made prior to baptism!

Show me in the bible and put some back bone in your SS theorys!

 

[Church_Militant]

Do Catholics consider themselves to be born again? If so when or how are they?

When they commit a “mortal sin” do they then “die” and aren’t born again until a Priest says they are?

Is His Holiness the Pope Catholic?

 

[jim1130]

jim1130:

then there should also be a statement to the effect not to baptize infants.

johnwilliams:

And if baptising an infant would send it to perdition I am sure the Bible would have said so, don’t you think?

Not at all. Please show me where the Bible is the exhaustive all-inclusive resource? Perhaps this is why Christ delegated authority to the Church through St. Peter. Even an owner’s manual recommends calling the company hotline (authority) if all written trouble-shooting efforts do not result in the preferred action.

jim1130:

then there should also be a statement to the effect not to baptize infants.

johnwilliams:

You missed the beginning of my post. I believe doctrine is defective when it is CONTRADICTED by scripture. But I also look at false doctrine, that is not provable by scripture but merely by tradition, or “reason” as the Episcopal Church attests, as a serious matter. Read Revelation 2.

Embracing SS is a false doctrine and contradicts Scripture. There is no place in Scripture that says the Bible is the lone, solitary, complete, thorough, exhaustive, all-inclusive, comprehensive rule of faith.

Regarding Infant Baptism: “Composition of the household” seems to be the sticking point. You want the Bible to define “household.” Since it does not and historical documents may be dismissed as non-Biblical/non-inspired, you, therefore claim infant baptism as a contradiction of scripture. With that position, since the bible does not define the Trinity we should dismiss that, too.

In matters such as this, I turn to the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), which so happens to be the Church, not the Bible. Authority then rests with Church, as identified by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19 (for understanding of what Christ said we need only refer to Isaiah 22:22).

The Early Church Fathers attest that infants were Baptized. Even if you disagree, the authority assigned to St. Peter and the Church would allow for the inclusion of infants in baptism. cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm

Why is it hard to understand that people bring others to faith based upon their own faith, which would mean parents want to bring their infants into their faith and they do it through infant baptism? Is that not what you are doing right now? In your enthusiasm, are you not attempting to bring us to your faith?

As a father, I wanted my son baptized into the faith as soon as possible. How much I wanted him to be baptized in Christ. It is then up to me to continue his training in the faith. Confirmation will allow him to commit as a young adult.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

THere is No case for a conscience decision to be made prior to baptism!

Show me in the bible and put some back bone in your SS theorys!

Hey,
What about

Acts 2:38-40

Acts 8 :12-17

Acts 8 :26-39

Acts 16:13-15
Acts 16:29-33

Acts 18: 8

Acts 19:1-7

Acts 22:12-16
Galations 3:26-29

Im sure these people made a conscious decision to believe before they were baptized. Otherwise why would they bother.

 

[jim1130]

Hey,
What about

Acts 2:38-40

Baptism is for both children and adults and the inclusiuon is for babies, too.

allforhim:

Acts 16:13-15

Included childnre in Lydia’s household.

allforhim:

Im sure these people made a conscious decision to believe before they were baptized. Otherwise why would they bother.

So, Jesus excluded babies under the New Covenent (from the Kingdom of heaven) although the infants/babies were included in the Old Covenant? If this is true than the New covenent is stricter than the Old Covenant.

 

[JohnWilliams]

THere is No case for a conscience decision to be made prior to baptism!

Show me in the bible and put some back bone in your SS theorys!

If you read this thread I think you will find that the verses that have been used to support infant baptism have pretty consistently backfired on those who brought them. And I repeatedly suggested that I am confident that the Lord would look fondly on the practice.

As to whether an adult is comfortable leaving it with their infant baptism, is up to the individual. If they have a genuine life in Christ it likely doesn’t matter. If somebody believes they are born again as an adult, simply because they were baptized as an infant I would not be personally comfortable with.

The decision to be made is to repent and live your life for Christ (it could be the moment you are chosen). Let me be more specific regarding the condition of the heart that is necessary for salvation:

Romans 10:9+ That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

This is circumcision of the heart and is reinforced through baptism. Repentence leads to salvation:

John 3:3 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Some of the baptized:

Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Baptism is for both children and adults and the inclusiuon is for babies, too.
Included childnre in Lydia’s household.
So, Jesus excluded babies under the New Covenent (from the Kingdom of heaven) although the infants/babies were included in the Old Covenant? If this is true than the New covenent is stricter than the Old Covenant.

Honestly, I dont know He never mentions babies. But, He does mention one has to believe, repent. The logical conclusion is that babies cannot do this yet.

 

[JohnWilliams]

Baptism is for both children and adults and the inclusiuon is for babies, too.

While you wrote this in regard to Acts 2:38+ I don’t find support for your baby assertion.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.

Same word in the interlinear:
(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Acts 2:39 umin <5213> {TO YOU} gar <1063> {FOR} estin <2076> (5748) {IS} h <3588> {THE} epaggelia <1860> {PROMISE} kai <2532> {AND} toiV <3588> {TO} teknoiV <5043> {YOUR} umwn <5216> {CHILDREN,} kai <2532> {AND} pasin <3956> {TO ALL} toiV <3588> {THOSE} eiV <1519> {AT} makran <3112> {A DISTANCE,} osouV <3745> an <302> {AS MANY AS} proskaleshtai <4341> (5667) {MAY CALL} kurioV <2962> o <3588> {[THE] LORD} qeoV <2316> hmwn <2257> {OUR GOD.}

When I was baptized a few young men of maybe 8 or 9 that I would characterize as children had made a decision for Christ and were being baptized as well.

Strong’s

** children**
New Testament Greek Definition:
5043** teknon {tek’-non}**

from the base of 5098; TDNT - 5:636,759; n n
AV - child 77, son 21, daughter 1; 99

1. offspring, children
   1a) child
   1a) a male child, a son
   1b) metaph.
   1b1) the name transferred to that intimate and reciprocal
   relationship formed between men by the bonds of love,
   friendship, trust, just as between parents and children
   1b2) in affectionate address, such as patrons, helpers,
   teachers and the like employ: my child
   1b3) in the NT, pupils or disciples are called children of
   their teachers, because the latter by their instruction
   nourish the minds of their pupils and mould their
   characters
   1b4) children of God: in the OT of “the people of Israel” as
   especially dear to God, in the NT, in Paul’s writings, all
   who are led by the Spirit of God and thus closely related
   to God
   1b5) children of the devil: those who in thought and action are
   prompted by the devil, and so reflect his character
   1c) metaph.
   1c1) of anything who depends upon it, is possessed by a
   desire or affection for it, is addicted to it
   1c2) one who is liable to any fate
   1c2a) thus children of a city: it citizens and inhabitants
   1c3) the votaries of wisdom, those souls who have, as it
   were, been nurtured and moulded by wisdom
   1c4) cursed children, exposed to a curse and doomed to God’s
   wrath or penalty

 

[JohnWilliams]

I asked: “When they commit a “mortal sin” do they then “die” and aren’t born again until a Priest says they are?”
You answered:

Is His Holiness the Pope Catholic?

It is an odd concept isn’t it? Someone shuffling in and filling the preacher’s ear with the sins he committed, and the preacher then telling him he is “back in”. It would presume that the preacher not only knew the condition of the confessor’s heart, but it would also presume that the preacher knew Jesus mind.