Are Catholics "born again"?

[JohnWilliams]

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

What I pointed out was the conspicuous error in your misunderstanding of the verse that was your favorite that YOU CHOSE to support a position of yours.

I pointed out that a circumcision that is “made withouit hands” is obviously a spiritual one, or a circumcision of the heart. You believe it to be literal. I have been over this twice now.

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

 

[Orionthehunter]

This is John’s original question

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?

This is John’s new question.

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

These are two quite distinct questions as the second introduces the concept of the Transcendance of God and the fact that He is not bound by time or space.

 

[MariaG]

You are the only one so far that makes the preposterous claim that not baptizing an infant keeps the baby from Christ. Does you particular parish also sell absolution? And baptism’s perhaps?

I wonder why you feel you must now start insulting me?

You do not understand the teaching of the Catholic Church if you do not yet understand why not baptizing infants is keeping a baby from Christ.

I actually already wrote this, lost it and time is short. I have not yet even caught up to the current posts in this thread. So I will just post a link to the Catechism on baptism with the first writing on it.

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5

One is born again into the body of Christ through baptism. We may place our hope in Christ for infants and pray for God’s mercy for those who are not baptized. But it is important for Christian parents to baptize their infants into the body of Christ.

And you continue to beat the disingenuous drumbeat that I am against infant baptism, when I am not.

No, in fact I have not yet said that you are against infant baptism although you have claimed several times that I have said this.

I said you are mistaken in your interpretation of Scripture by saying that infant baptism is not implicitly in scripture. I have said THAT repeatedly.

Has infant baptism displaced adult baptism? Yes. Is it a good thing that older children and adults don’t get baptized after they make a decision for Christ? As do I. I also support baptism after one makes a decision for Christ.

Baptism is not a symbolic action. There is only need for ONE baptism because God doesn’t do things wrong the first time nor need our help to get it right.

Would you like it if I said over and over ad nauseum that “MariaG is against adult baptism”? Do you wonder why you continue to want to tar me with a brush that doesn’t apply?

Since I have yet to say you are against infant baptism, I wonder why you continue to tar me with your brush?

Increasingly I seem to sense jealousy toward my relationship with my Savior in this forum.

Maybe you should reread the comments.

What you should be sensing is frustration that in spite of repeatedly asking, all you provide for me is your opinion and your interpretation of Scripture. I have done the same and ALSO provided sources that show that the early Christians believe as Catholics do.

A really good read for folks here is “Peace Child”. This is about a missionary couple with a 5 month old son who were dropped off in the middle of a tribe of head-hunters. It is a course in salvation 101. Might be refreshing for some here.
We are born again through a circumcision of the heart. God removes our stony hearts and replaces them with a heart of flesh.

And do you have any sources from the Early Church who believes that one is NOT in fact, born again through baptism?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[JohnWilliams]

This is John’s original question

This is John’s new question.

These are two quite distinct questions as the second introduces the concept of the Transcendance of God and the fact that He is not bound by time or space.

They are different questions. Do you believe the second should be a separate thread?

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Baptism is not a symbolic action. There is only need for ONE baptism because God doesn’t do things wrong the first time nor need our help to get it right.

There is some symbolism in baptism as well as being substantative. There will always be some symbolism and meanings attached to the physical event.

Anyhoo, the real reason I decided to jump back in here was to ask a question. Would it be wrong for a teen/adult who has made a decision for Christ to ask for baptism? Not because the first one is in any way invalid, but for making the choice themselves and to have memory of it.

 

[MariaG]

There is some symbolism in baptism as well as being substantative. There will always be some symbolism and meanings attached to the physical event.

Anyhoo, the real reason I decided to jump back in here was to ask a question. Would it be wrong for a teen/adult who has made a decision for Christ to ask for baptism? Not because the first one is in any way invalid, but for making the choice themselves and to have memory of it.

From the Catholic Christian point of view? Yes, it is wrong because it calls into question the power of God.

From a non-Catholic Christian, depends on the denomination.

 

[MariaG]

If a person is secure in their relationship with the Lord, and they search their heart and find that their infant baptism is sufficient, I am confident that they will not go to perdition for not making the choice. Just as I am confident that infants will not go to perdition simply because they weren’t baptized, as one poster here seemed to suggest.

That would probably be me?

Do you actually read any of the links I have posted?

1261As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[MariaG]

What I pointed out was the conspicuous error in your misunderstanding of the verse that was your favorite that YOU CHOSE to support a position of yours.

I pointed out that a circumcision that is “made withouit hands” is obviously a spiritual one, or a circumcision of the heart. You believe it to be literal. I have been over this twice now.

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

First, let us answer your question. No, it is obvious from Scripture that men like Abraham were “justified by thier faith” if we are talking about a “timeline” kind of thing. Clearly Abraham in history came before Christ was crucified from a linear point of view. However, I believe it was OrionHunter who touched on that this second question gets into the trancendental nature of Christ’s sacrifice. Probably would be better off in it’s own thread.

The problem here is that you do not have the same belief about what baptism actually is. Orionhunter tried to speak to this.

We believe that baptism is regenerative. That through baptism, God does something to us. Circumcizes our hearts could be a good comparision to what baptism does to us. Baptism is filled with symbolism. But it is also regenerative. God does something to us.

There is an article on CA This Rock. I will post a link as well as a little snippet.

Can Infants be “Born Again” by Jason Evert

The question is not merely about the time that baptism should be administered, but about the very nature of the sacrament. So if the question of infant baptism comes up, it is wise to discuss baptismal regeneration first.

The Catholic understanding is that baptism is a sign that effects what it symbolizes, bringing about several things. One of these effects is regeneration—God’s very life comes into the person, taking away the guilt of original sin and infusing sanctifying grace into the soul, making the person a new creation.

Evangelicals agree that baptism is a sign but not one that communicates grace to the believer. Rather, it symbolizes that the person has already been born again. If baptism is merely a sign that signifies a previous repentance and does nothing to the soul, then babies should not be baptized. But Scripture reveals that baptism* does* regenerate the soul and so should not withheld from infants.

Also for the verses that Catholics interpret as showing the regenerative aspect to baptism there is an article here

Baptism Verse by Verse

I believe much of this conversation could get completely back on track if we look into this aspect of baptism and discuss whether or not you believe in the regenerative apsect of baptism or not although your original question has been answered.

Yes Catholics do believe we are born again and further, as Scripture testifies, it is necessary to be born again in order to enter the kingdom of God.

The question remains though as to whether or not you believe baptism to be regenerative or only symbolic. And if you believe it to be regenerative, why it would be necessary for an adult to be rebaptized if baptized as an infant or small child?
God bless,
Maria

 

[JohnWilliams]

Yes Catholics do believe we are born again and further, as Scripture testifies, it is necessary to be born again in order to enter the kingdom of God.

The question remains though as to whether or not you believe baptism to be regenerative or only symbolic. And if you believe it to be regenerative, why it would be necessary for an adult to be rebaptized if baptized as an infant or small child?
God bless,
Maria

This is the nicest Catholic link I have seen come out of the posters here. It is about scripture supporting doctrine. When I asked the question I particularly had this verse in mind:

Jesus answered [Nicodemus], ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ After this [conversation] Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized" (John 3:5, 22).

I is not unusual to find Christians that believe that being born again was reserved to the Christian era - after the Cross. Even though their error is obvious from the above verse that Jesus spoke.

I hold to and understand the link entirely (at least on a quick read).
But the author spoils this link as another one that I read with the - " BAPTISM is not just a symbol, as so many Evangelicals claim…".

Sad. I certainly don’t know any Evangelicals that consider baptism as “just a symbol”. Smacks of the same author that made me this sad for this brand of unrighteous judgment in another post.

 

[AlegreFe]

…Justification comes along as we are convicted by the Spirit forgiven and allow our lives to be reformed.

Salvation is completed when we get to heaven.

Read Trent on Justification for further clarification.

CDL

I have no question about this as I don’t disagree with you. The question here was ‘are Catholics born again’ so I answered. When we are “born again” or baptized, we do receive the Holy Spirit. We are regenerated with a new life, a life as God’s children, a life which is now clean of original sin. Catholics ARE “born again” when we are baptized as infants. We receive Sanctifying Grace from God, we become His children.

With that siad the Catholic Sacrament of Confirmation invokes the Holy Spirit.

As far as being “saved” or justified I also answered that in several of my posts. Perhaps you have not read any of my posts? I have no need for “further clarification” and I think you’d be able to see that if you’ve read my posts; but I will read Trent again anyway.

Some Protestants don’t believe in “water” baptism. But several of my posts have scripture passages that prove otherwise including the last one that I have posted here.

The bigger deal with Catholics does come at Confirmation and perhaps because this sacrament does not exist at all with Protestants then they don’t realize that we also have an invocation of the Holy Spirit. This possibly could be their “baptism of the Holy Spirit” as it is Confirmation for us Catholics.

 

[AlegreFe]

Ask him if he came to that opinion on his own, or did he read it somewhere, or was he taught it.
In Karl Keatings book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” (page 249) He mentions using this passage against the mass, He had said it was from a tract by Ken Green

hmmm that’s good to know, thanks. My pro bro seems to believe most of what he reads and a lot of what he sees that is anti-Catholic. But I’m not sure if he read this from that tract. But I wouldn’t doubt it now that you mention it.

 

[JohnWilliams]

The bigger deal with Catholics does come at Confirmation and perhaps because this sacrament does not exist at all with Protestants then they don’t realize that we also have an invocation of the Holy Spirit. This possibly could be their “baptism of the Holy Spirit” as it is Confirmation for us Catholics.

Good point.

 

[MariaG]

This is the nicest Catholic link I have seen come out of the posters here. It is about scripture supporting doctrine. When I asked the question I particularly had this verse in mind:

Jesus answered [Nicodemus], ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ After this [conversation] Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized" (John 3:5, 22).

I is not unusual to find Christians that believe that being born again was reserved to the Christian - era after the Cross.

I hold to and understand the link entirely (at least on a quick read).
But the author spoils this link as another one that I read with the - " BAPTISM is not just a symbol, as so many Evangelicals claim…".

Sad. I certainly don’t know any Evangelicals that consider baptism as “just a symbol”. Smacks of the same author that made me this sad for this brand of unrighteous judgment in another post.

But in fact most Evangelicals do claim that baptism is just a symbol. It smacks of nothing but facts. How is it unrighteous judgement to say that so many Evangelicals claim, when in fact, so many do claim it? He is not saying all.

From Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries Is Baptism necessary for Salvation . This article finds that baptism is only a covenant sign and not regenerative.

Assembly of God Ordinances of the Church declare that baptism “symbolically declares”…

The Evangelical Free Church of America says that while baptism should be observed, it is not a means of salvation, (ie, one clearly is not “born again” in the same regenerative manner that Catholics declare.)

If it is not just a symbol for many, why do so many(most) Evangelicals not baptize infants? Or one finds in the Pentecostal churches alot of “rebaptizing”.

While there certainly may be some “evangelical Churches” that do believe baptism is regenerative, one can see from just a quick look at three sites that came up, that not many, do in fact believe that baptism is anything but a symbol. (ps. Also in my personal experience, I have never met until you? a self proclaimed evangelical who does believe that baptism is regenerative. Do you believe it is regenerative?)

Respectfully,
Maria

 

[rbarcia]

Mary even more special, but of course none as special as Christ’s.

I agree St John the Baptist was a very special case. Why do Protestants ignore this unless its convienient?

I am just a Christian, not Protestant. But the Bible itself tells us that John the Baptist had the Spirit in the womb. It does not say this about Mary. Jesus Himself told us that John the Baptist Himself was the greatest human. No such statement was made of Mary. Mary was Blessed ‘among’, not above, woman to have given birth to the Messiah.

**

Mathew 11:11

11 “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

**

This is off topic though,

 

[rbarcia]

For one who claims we should take the Bible literally, you sure seem willing to discount alot of evidence that belief and response to God happens even in the womb. While there are certain blessings that were give to John the Baptist not afforded most, it sure looks like God give the unborn more credit than you.

Gal 1:15 “But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace.” (We are called at conception to be children of God)

Psalm 22: “Yet you drew me forth from the womb, made me safe at my mother’s breast. Upon you I was thrust from the womb; since birth you are my God.” (Sure looks like belief is possible for infants)

Psalm 58: “The wicked have been corrupt since birth; liars from the womb, they have gone astray.” (If you can be a non-believer in the womb, why can’t you be a believer?)

Psalm 71 “On you I depend since birth; from my mother’s womb you are my strength; my hope in you never wavers.” (If we depend on God since birth and not some later date, why should we deny them the graces of Baptism until later?)

Psalm 139: "You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb. "

Sirach 1:12 “The beginning of wisdom is fear of the LORD, which is formed with the faithful in the womb.” (I guess we can be a believer in the womb)

Sirach 46: 13 “Beloved of his people, dear to his Maker, dedicated from his mother’s womb, Consecrated to the LORD as a prophet, was SAMUEL, the judge and priest. At God’s word he established the kingdom and anointed princes to rule the people.” (This certainly looks like it happened as an infant!)

Sirach 49: 6-7 “Who burned the holy city and left its streets desolate, As JEREMIAH had foretold; for they had treated him badly who even in the womb had been made a prophet, To root out, pull down, and destroy, and then to build and to plant.” (Another example of acts of faith happening in the womb. Jeremiah had to have responded to the call voluntarily in the womb to accept this vocation).

Sirach 50:22 "And now, bless the God of all, who has done wondrous things on earth; Who fosters men’s growth from their mother’s womb, and fashions them according to his will! "

Isaiah 49:1 "Hear me, O coastlands, listen, O distant peoples. The LORD called me from birth, from my mother’s womb he gave me my name. "

Hosea 12:3-4 "The LORD has a grievance against Israel: he shall punish Jacob for his conduct, for his deeds he shall repay him. In the womb he supplanted his brother, and as a man he contended with God;

I am not sure where you are going here. The Lord loves us for sure, and watches over us. But we are talking about a babies ability to repent. The Lord knows who will come to Him and who will reject Him. But none of these deal with giving man or woman credit.

 

[AlegreFe]

Adult baptism is abundant in scripture as a result of the adult making a decision for Christ.

Adult baptism was abundant because they were all converts. Yes they believed and were baptized. But just as the gentiles received the Holy Spirit, they were still commanded to be baptized with water. You can “receive the Holy Spirit” all you want but unless you are “born again of water AND spirit” you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Acts 10:46-48 (NIV)
46 For they heard them speaking in
tongues and praising God. Then
Peter said,
47 "Can anyone keep these people
from being baptized with water?
They have received the Holy Spirit
just as we have."
48 So he ordered that they be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Then they asked Peter to stay with
them for a few days.

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 (I think you meant to put “not” here?) baptising an infant would send it to perdition I am sure the Bible would have said so, don’t you think?

Aahh but He did say so! :yup:

John 3:3, 5-6
3 Jesus answered and said to him,
“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one
can see the kingdom of God without
being born from above.”
5 Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say
to you, no one can enter the kingdom
of God without being born of water
and Spirit.
6 What is born of flesh is
flesh and what is born of spirit
is spirit.

Since you were baptized or in your case re-baptized as an adult then you must believe that you were born of flesh correct? And you also believe that after your second baptism you were born of the spirit correct? Then you must also believe that all babies are born of the flesh. Of course ALL babies are born of the flesh as no one is born of the spirit unless they are baptized. And that is why Catholics believe in infant baptism… simply because Jesus Christ told us that NO ONE can enter the Kingdom unless we are born again of water and spirit.

With that said, even Jesus told us to let the children come to Him. Jesus will never contradict Himself. When He said that NO ONE will enter the Kingdom unless baptized then these next scripture verses can only mean that He wants ALL to be baptized INCLUDING children and why not then infants as He loves us all including infants.

Matt 19:13-14
13 Then children were brought to him that
he might lay his hands on them and pray.
The disciples rebuked them,
14 but Jesus said, "Let the children
come to me, and do not prevent
them; for the kingdom of heaven
belongs to such as these."

btw, there is only ONE baptism.

Eph 4:4-5
4 one body and one Spirit, as you
were also called to the one hope
of your call;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

I know you believe that your first baptism was not valid and therefore your second baptism is valid. But as stated here “no one can see the Kindgom of God without being born from above.”
No one means NO ONE including infants. Jesus didn’t say, “no one except infants…” did He? No He did not.

Just as Jesus and all jews were circumcized as 8 day old infants so too do Catholics believe in baptizing their infants as soon as possible after birth. Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision.

If an infant dies before he/she is baptized we pray for his/her soul to be saved through the Mercy of God. We could only HOPE for their salvation as we lay it upon the Mercy of God.

 

[AlegreFe]

I will answer later this week, I am not ignoring you, I have had personal issues last week that have kept me away from the computer.

Sorry to hear that. I hope & pray things get better for you.

 

[AlegreFe]

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

Not if you’ve never been baptized before as in a case of a convert coming into Christianity. If a convert comes into Christianity such as Rosalind Moss did when she became an Evangelical Protestant from her Jewish upbringing, and therefore repents and then is baptized then I am not against baptism or in this case adult baptism.

But later Rosalind Moss became Catholic. She would never be baptized again in the Catholic Church because she was already baptized. But what did happen is that she was brought into the Church by the Sacraments of Confirmation and First Holy Communion, with Confirmation being the invocation of the Holy Spirit and Holy Communion being her able to receive Jesus in the Catholic Mass.

Rosalind’s conversion story “The Passover Fulfilled” is a great one. You should get this one and listen to it, and it’s not expensive.

 

[MariaG]

btw, there is only ONE baptism.

Eph 4:4-5
4 one body and one Spirit, as you
were also called to the one hope
of your call;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

I am so glad you posted this verse. I was looking for it but could not remember where it was in scripture it was.

One Baptism. God doesn’t need to do it twice

 

[AlegreFe]

Hey,
What about

Acts 2:38-40

Yes but you’re forgetting the point of this verse;

39 For the promise is made to you and
to your children and to all those far off,
whomever the Lord our God will call."

Don’t you believe that God calls infants too?!! After all Jesus said, “let the children come to me” and I’m sure He meant infants too.

ALLFORHIM:

Acts 8:12-17

That’s because they were all converts to Christianity. When a Jewish person is converted they are adults and if they have any children then they too will be baptized. Just as the converts in the bible once they were baptized because of believing then after that it is automatic that their infants be baptized as they believe for the infant as in the case of the centurion and his servant. Whole households were baptized and it does not say anywhere that there were no infants in these households.

Acts 8:26-39

I particularly like this verse;

Acts 8:31
31 He replied, “How can I, unless
someone instructs me?”
How can anyone interpret the bible unless someone instructs you? We have someone to instruct us as Jesus left Peter the Rock to instruct us. We have the Church!! Alleluah!! I thank God for the Catholic Church as Jesus left her to instruct us! :yup:

It’s funny that you used these verses since this one clearly states that the Holy Spirit can come AFTER one is baptized with WATER;

Acts 8:39
39 When they came out of the water,
the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip
away, and the eunuch saw him no
more, but continued on his way
rejoicing.

I say this because many of you believe that you cannot be baptized unless you are “born again” and to some that means receiving the Holy Spirit first. But from this passage I see that one is baptized and then receives the Holy Spirit. This also proves water baptism for those of you who do not believe in water baptism. This just adds to the many scripture verses that I had posted in this thread previously.

Acts 16:13-15

Here’s verse 15;

15 After she and her household had been
baptized, she offered us an invitation,
“If you consider me a believer in the Lord,
come and stay at my home,” and she
prevailed on us.

Don’t you think her household would include children and even babies? It does not say that it doesn’t include babies.

Acts 16:29-33

Boy you just keep giving me the verses that I would use to defend infant and water baptism!
Acts 16:31-33
31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord
Jesus and you and your household
will be saved.”
32 So they spoke the word of the Lord
to him and to everyone in his house.
33 He took them in at that hour of the
night and bathed their wounds; then he
and all his family were baptized at once.

I would think that “everyone in his house” meant EVERYONE including children and babies. This does not say that there were no babies in the house. And if they spoke the Word of the Lord to everyone in his house, it doesn’t say that they ALL believed what was being spoken and yet they were ALL baptized and to me this would also mean that infants were baptized since an adult would believe for them. As long as ONE of them in that household believed then they could ALL be baptized with water. It doesn’t say here that they ALL believed once the Word was spoken (btw it says spoken not read for those SS believers), it just says that they were ALL baptized.
**
Cont…**