Are Catholics "born again"?

[JohnWilliams]

I have followed, even your rants about the end times and your commitment to the authority of a false prophet (Skolfield).

Skolfield has no authority and he would be the first to confirm that. Indeed claims of authority is about what nicolaitionism is about - the only thing that God Himself expresses a hatred of.

Skolfield is not a prophet, nor does he claim to be, particularly since his Bible study deals in fulfilled prophecy. But then your false witness would not be a surprise to anyone familiar with your posts.

So, what God did the first time (baptism) did not take for you? You mean God erred?

How do you know that Jesus would not look kindly? What is the basis of your opinion?

I did not, nor would I, claim to know Jesus judgments. More of your false witness as you continue to flail in defense of doctrine?

Also, refer to the Catechim with all of the applicable biblical footnotes.

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

4 Cf. Council Of Florence: DS 1314: vitae spiritualis ianua.
5 Roman Catechism II,2,5; Cf. Council Of Florence: DS 1314; CIC, cann. 204 § 1; 849; CCEO, can. 675 § 1.

1215 - This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7

7 Titus 3:5; Jn 3:5.

1216 - Baptism is God’s most beautiful and magnificent gift. . . .We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God’s Lordship.10

8 St. Justin, Apol. 1,61,12G 6,421.
9 Jn 1:9; 1 Thess 5:5; Heb 10:32; Eph 5:8.
10 St. Gregory Of Nazianzus, Oratio 40,3-4G 36,361C

— continued —

 

[MariaG]

Do you believe that as long as a person follows rules that the Church lays out they are saved?

If one follows the rules for the right reasons, yes. The “rules” are there to lead one into a closer relationship with God. But as I said earlier, one can do the right things (follow the rules) for the wrong reasons and end up in hell.

Recently at a youth conference, they said the Pope Benedict said (I can’t find the quote from Benedict online yet), that getting baptized and going to Mass every week is not enough. This is not “New” in the Catholic Church. One has to follow the rules for the right reasons.

I was baptized as an infant, but I don’t believe I was saved until I was 54 years of age.

I don’t believe Jesus would look kindly on a person who was baptized as a baby, and believed that that was what made them a Christian. Nor do I believe that Jesus would look kindly at all, on a person that would even intimate that an unbaptized baby could be headed to perdition.

So you do not believe baptism is regerative and is just symbolic? On the one hand you say that it is judgemental when we say most Evangelicals just view baptism as a symbol, yet here, you seem to view it as just symbolic.

Do you believe baptism regenerates the soul and we are born again into the body of Christ through baptism, when God circumcizes the heart?

Any comment on the scripture that has been posted talking about the regenerative aspect of baptism?

Verse by Verse: Baptism from CA This Rock

If we are to come unto Jesus as children, then one might say that children are the model for the condition of the heart that we need to approach Jesus, and unaware, untaught babies, the most innocent in this model.

Then why can’t a child’s heart be circumcized by God through baptism since this is the model?

I agree. I believe the Lord loves acts of obedience. Like Jewish sacrifice. I don’t believe that was what saved them, but I believe the Lord loved their obedience to the law.
However, I do not believe that rituals that run afoul of scripture would be included on the list of obedience that God loves. Indeed I believe Jesus warning to the Pharisees may well apply in spades to today’s church.
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Again, you seem to be implying that the Catholic Church has rituals that run afoul of Scripture. You need to be more specific, probably in it’s own thread.

I guess what I am saying is just because we can’t see something from where we sit, doesn’t mean it isn’t so

Truly, this is true.

As it stands it appears to me, (please correct me if I am mistaken ):

1. You view baptism as a work of the flesh.
2. You do not believe we are born again in baptism but when we make a decision for Christ.
3. You view baptism as only a symbol, a public declaration and act of obedience.

Is that correct?

So do you wish to discuss the regenerative aspect to baptism since this appears to be where you misconceptions on Catholic teachings lay?

Discussing the regenerative aspect of baptism, verse by verse, could be helpful for you to at least understand, if not agree, with the Catholic Christian belief of baptism, an awesome miracle and gift from God, in which we are born again into the body of Christ.

P.S. It may also be that you have trouble with this aspect because you believe once a person is born again, they will never be snatched from God’s hand? (ie once saved always saved?) In the Catholic church and most Protestant denominations, people do not believe in OSAS. We believe that one can be truly saved, but turn their back on Christ and walk away. One can return to Him if truly repentant, but we can turn our back on Christ up until the moment die.(after? don’t think so, but do not know the “catholic answer” for that one )

God bless,
Maria

 

[jim1130]

JohnWilliams:

I did not, nor would I, claim to know Jesus judgments.

Post # 370

johnwilliams:

I don’t believe Jesus would look kindly on a person who was baptized as a baby, and believed that that was what made them a Christian. Nor do I believe that Jesus would look kindly at all, on a person that would even intimate that an unbaptized baby could be headed to perdition.

Sounds like you DO know Jesus’s judgement.

johnwilliams:

More of your false witness as you continue to flail in defense of doctrine?

Evidence is there. Proof is there. You choose not to see.

 

[JohnWilliams]

So you do not believe baptism is regerative and is just symbolic? On the one hand

But then you are failing to see the difference between the one hand and the other. I believe that a decision for a life with Christ by a young person or adult - being chosen - is regenerative and baptism is part of that regenerative process. It is part of being born again.

I believe that infant baptism is symbolic, since a child cannot make that decision, but may have some merit as long as it helps the parents to be more fully aware of their responsibilities toward that child.

I do not believe that babies are destined to perdition if they haven’t been baptized as infants. Nor do I believe you can you make a case for this.

Indeed the verse you used as support for infant baptism clearly speaks of a spiritual circumcision, and not a literal one as you chose to believe in an attempt to support your doctrine. Nor do the verses in the link you gave me regarding baptism make a case for infant baptism. That is why I suggested that the link was doctrine based on scripture.

you say that it is judgemental when we say most Evangelicals just view baptism as a symbol, yet here, you seem to view it as just symbolic.

Perhaps you believe you have the authority and knowledge to understand and know what most Evangelicals believe. I will freely admit that I do not.

Do you believe baptism regenerates the soul and we are born again into the body of Christ through baptism, when God circumcizes the heart?

Any comment on the scripture that has been posted talking about the regenerative aspect of baptism?

Verse by Verse: Baptism from CA This Rock

Then why can’t a child’s heart be circumcized by God through baptism since this is the model?

Again, you seem to be implying that the Catholic Church has rituals that run afoul of Scripture. You need to be more specific, probably in it’s own thread.

I am not called to divide the body of Christ. Were I interested how far do you think a discussion of that nature would last in this forum anyway? I have already seen one such discussion pulled.

Truly, this is true.

As it stands it appears to me, (please correct me if I am mistaken ):

1. You view baptism as a work of the flesh.
2. You do not believe we are born again in baptism but when we make a decision for Christ.
3. You view baptism as only a symbol, a public declaration and act of obedience.

Is that correct?

So do you wish to discuss the regenerative aspect to baptism since this appears to be where you misconceptions on Catholic teachings lay?

This thread discusses being born again and has included a related topic, baptism. It is helping me to understand Catholic teachings on it. And I agree with the content of the link you posted earlier. That link does not however appear to support infant baptism.

Discussing the regenerative aspect of baptism, verse by verse,

You have already aptly demonstrated that this would be fruitless when you dug in your heels to your error regarding your belief that a “circumcision done without hands” is a reference to a literal circumcision.

could be helpful for you to at least understand, if not agree, with the Catholic Christian belief of baptism, an awesome miracle and gift from God, in which we are born again into the body of Christ.

I understand this gift well as a result of my baptism.

P.S. It may also be that you have trouble with this aspect because you believe once a person is born again, they will never be snatched from God’s hand? (ie once saved always saved?) In the Catholic church and most Protestant denominations, people do not believe in OSAS.

I increasingly understand that the folks that feel compelled to argue this subject, one way or the other, are generally the ones that would would seem to be the most insecure in their relationship with their Savior.

We believe that one can be truly saved, but turn their back on Christ and walk away. One can return to Him if truly repentant, but we can turn our back on Christ up until the moment die.(after? don’t think so, but do not know the “catholic answer” for that one )

God bless you,
Maria

May God bless.

 

[tequilamac]

But then you are failing to see the difference between the one hand and the other. I believe that a decision for a life with Christ by a young person or adult - being chosen - is regenerative and baptism is part of that regenerative process. It is part of being born again.

I believe that infant baptism is symbolic, since a child cannot make that decision, but may have some merit as long as it helps the parents to be more fully aware of their responsibilities toward that child.

I do not believe that babies are destined to perdition if they haven’t been baptized as infants. Nor do I believe you can you make a case for this.

Indeed the verse you used as support for infant baptism clearly speaks of a spiritual circumcision, and not a literal one as you chose to believe in an attempt to support your doctrine. Nor do the verses in the link you gave me regarding baptism make a case for infant baptism. That is why I suggested that the link was doctrine based on scripture.

QUOTE]

Again, your actual ignorance of Catholicism is a stumbling block in your path to discussion.
An infant in the Catholic Church is never symbolically baptised.The Church never does anything from a merely symbolic view- it is literal in it’s Sacraments. It is a true baptism which washes away Original Sin and opens the door to a full life in Christ which accordingly leads to the further Sacraments, i.e. First Confession, First Communion in the Eucharist with Christ, and when they have reached the age of reason, Confirmation with the Holy Spirit of Pentecost which I suppose if we tried very very hard we could call that similar in intent to your “circumcision of the heart.”

 

[JohnWilliams]

Post # 370

Sounds like you DO know Jesus’s judgement.

Evidence is there. Proof is there. You choose not to see.

Do you understand that my expressing a belief in what I believe Jesus’ judgments might be (based on my understanding of scripture, faith, etc.), is different than declaring that I know Jesus judgments?

Maybe I should simplify it. Do you understand the difference between an expressed belief, and an expressed knowledge?

 

[jim1130]

Do you understand that my expressing a belief in what I believe Jesus’ judgments might be (based on my understanding of scripture, faith, etc.), is different than declaring that I know Jesus judgments?

Maybe I should simplify it. Do you understand the difference between an expressed belief, and an expressed knowledge?

First off, I do not and will not express any opinion (belief or knowledge) that suggests I know what Christ would do. Certainly the people thought the adultress they brought before Christ should be stoned, but Christ’s response was the opposite. Therefore, you believe that Christ would not approve of infant baptism implies that you possess some divine knowledge of how Christ will react if presented with such a scenario. There is evidence how Christ reacted when the Apostles tried to keep the children away (Matthew 19:14 & Luke 18:15-16).

You can play semantics, but what I find interesting is that you hold people to standards that you are not wiling to hold yourself too. You proudly state that those of us on this board are insecure of our salvation whereas you are assured. Darn right I am insecure! There are no guarantees. I have to uphold my end of the agreement.

“I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”

I also see someone who answers a question by asking a question. MariaG, AlgreFe, and tequilamac, among others, have tried very hard to explain Baptism to you, particularly as it relates to infant Baptism. They have admitted that Baptism is not enough, but the first step toward a long journey (that does not end with once saved-always saved).

But whay they say is not what you want to hear. You fish to get them to endorse your doctrines.

(On a personal site note, once again I am of the opinion we see the impact of the Reformation when infant Baptism became an issue because of the Reformation’s emphasis on the “individual” making determinations for his/her own salvation, beginning with individuals could interpret the bible on their own. You have shown the weakness of that position.)

Rather than admit that the Bible nowhere says Baptism is to be restricted to adults or outlines the instructions for parents how to prepare their children for baptism, you flail (to use your words) at the Catholic doctrine of infant baptism as unsubstantiated, unsupported, and contradictory. You cannot support your doctrine so you try to shoot holes in the Catholic doctrine with the ready-made alibi that any answer does not meet your crtiera.

Certainly the Early Church Fathers and early Church Councils would have addressed your assertions that infant baptism was contrary to Tradition and/or Scripture and condemned it, but that is not the case.

And if the Bible is the “operating manual,” which you imply it to be, for a Christian then where is the minimum age for baptism stated?

Also, just what violation exists if a child is baptized as an infant/newborn and then matures into the faith?

You state that you had to be re-baptized. You refuse to admit it, but your infant baptism was valid. If you have been baptized once then there is no need to be re-baptized.

Ephesians 4:5. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

 

[tequilamac]

First off, I do not and will not express any opinion (belief or knowledge) that suggests I know what Christ would do. Certainly the people thought the adultress they brought before Christ should be stoned, but Christ’s response was the opposite. Therefore, you believe that Christ would not approve of infant baptism implies that you possess some divine knowledge of how Christ will react if presented with such a scenario. There is evidence how Christ reacted when the Apostles tried to keep the children away (Matthew 19:14 & Luke 18:15-16).

You can play semantics, but what I find interesting is that you hold people to standards that you are not wiling to hold yourself too. You proudly state that those of us on this board are insecure of our salvation whereas you are assured. Darn right I am insecure! There are no guarantees. I have to uphold my end of the agreement.

“I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”

I also see someone who answers a question by asking a question. MariaG, AlgreFe, and tequilamac, among others, have tried very hard to explain Baptism to you, particularly as it relates to infant Baptism. They have admitted that Baptism is not enough, but the first step toward a long journey (that does not end with once saved-always saved).

But whay they say is not what you want to hear. You fish to get them to endorse your doctrines.

(On a personal site note, once again I am of the opinion we see the impact of the Reformation when infant Baptism became an issue because of the Reformation’s emphasis on the “individual” making determinations for his/her own salvation, beginning with individuals could interpret the bible on their own. You have shown the weakness of that position.)

Rather than admit that the Bible nowhere says Baptism is to be restricted to adults or outlines the instructions for parents how to prepare their children for baptism, you flail (to use your words) at the Catholic doctrine of infant baptism as unsubstantiated, unsupported, and contradictory. You cannot support your doctrine so you try to shoot holes in the Catholic doctrine with the ready-made alibi that any answer does not meet your crtiera.

Certainly the Early Church Fathers and early Church Councils would have addressed your assertions that infant baptism was contrary to Tradition and/or Scripture and condemned it, but that is not the case.

And if the Bible is the “operating manual,” which you imply it to be, for a Christian then where is the minimum age for baptism stated?

Also, just what violation exists if a child is baptized as an infant/newborn and then matures into the faith?

You state that you had to be re-baptized. You refuse to admit it, but your infant baptism was valid. If you have been baptized once then there is no need to be re-baptized.

Ephesians 4:5. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Your last paragraph is not entirely true Jim. A person who was once baptised validly who is then rebaptised is actually under the power of the Evil One. Re baptism is one of the ways Satan uses to insult God Himself and tell Him is Covenant and Sacraments are useless before Satan. Remember that Satan is jealous of Christ, therefore he insinuates the thought into the minds of the weak that their valid baptism was no good as it did not make them feel good. So the honest truth is if we are allowed to tell the truth here is that the re baptism is necessary for Satan’s purposes.

 

[MariaG]

This thread discusses being born again and has included a related topic, baptism. It is helping me to understand Catholic teachings on it. And I agree with the content of the link you posted earlier. That link does not however appear to support infant baptism. You have already aptly demonstrated that this would be fruitless when you dug in your heels to your error regarding your belief that a “circumcision done without hands” is a reference to a literal circumcision.I understand this gift well as a result of my baptism. I increasingly understand that the folks that feel compelled to argue this subject, one way or the other, are generally the ones that would would seem to be the most insecure in their relationship with their Savior. May God bless.

Excuse me, but where on earth did I claim that the circumcision of the heart is a literal circumcision of the flesh?

This is not the first time you have claimed that I have said something that I just haven’t said.

Please post a link to where I said that this circumsicion of the heart is a literal circumcision or retract your statement.

And why is it that you refuse to discuss the regenerative nature of scripture with me instead of constantly calling into question my security or insecurity in my relationship with Christ?

 

[MariaG]

. Therefore, you believe that Christ would not approve of infant baptism implies that you possess some divine knowledge of how Christ will react if presented with such a scenario. There is evidence how Christ reacted when the Apostles tried to keep the children away (Matthew 19:14 & Luke 18:15-16).

…
Ephesians 4:5. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Actually Jim, John never said that Christ would disapprove of infant baptism, he said He thought Christ would approve of it.

The problem with John’s view is then that he felt the need to be rebaptized, which is contrary to scripture that tells us one baptism.

Either we need only one baptism, which would be what Christ desires, or we don’t. Either infants can be baptized and born again, or they cannot. If they cannot be born again through baptism, how on earth would God be pleased by baptizing infants when that would mean the person would need two baptisms and scripture tells us only one?

Verse by Verse: Baptism

Scripture Catholic: Sacrament of Baptism

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Again, your actual ignorance of Catholicism is a stumbling block in your path to discussion.
An infant in the Catholic Church is never symbolically baptised.The Church never does anything from a merely symbolic view- it is literal in it’s Sacraments. It is a true baptism which washes away Original Sin and opens the door to a full life in Christ which accordingly leads to the further Sacraments…

I wanted to repost this since apparently this is not getting through.

We are not washing away dirt, or circumcizing the flesh through baptism. In fact, “we” do nothing. God is the one who does the washing. We “see” a ceremonial washing and know that God has washed away Original sin opening the door to Christ.

We are born again through baptism and God does not deny this gift of rebirth to even infants just as He did not deny the Infants in the Old covenant.

 

[Mickey]

We are born again through baptism and God does not deny this gift of rebirth to even infants just as He did not deny the Infants in the Old covenant.

AMEN!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/983.gif

 

[JohnWilliams]

First off, I do not and will not express any opinion (belief or knowledge) that suggests I know what Christ would do.

That’s your choice but this doesn’t exempt you from the false witness you bore against me in regard to your accusation that I claimed to know Jesus judgments.

Certainly the people thought the adultress they brought before Christ should be stoned, but Christ’s response was the opposite. Therefore, you believe that Christ would not approve of infant baptism implies that you possess some divine knowledge of how Christ will react if presented with such a scenario. There is evidence how Christ reacted when the Apostles tried to keep the children away (Matthew 19:14 & Luke 18:15-16).

But Jesus didn’t baptize them did he. And all Christian parents should lead their children to Christ, but the verse does indicate not to prevent them from coming to Him.

You can play semantics, but what I find interesting is that you hold people to standards that you are not wiling to hold yourself too. You proudly state that those of us on this board are insecure of our salvation whereas you are assured.

More false witness. What I stated was an observation regarding my perception of folks who seem to feel compelled to debate OSAS, that I have witnessed in many Christian forums. My perception could be wrong.

Darn right I am insecure! There are no guarantees. I have to uphold my end of the agreement.

“I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”

I also see someone who answers a question by asking a question. MariaG, AlgreFe, and tequilamac, among others, have tried very hard to explain Baptism to you, particularly as it relates to infant Baptism. They have admitted that Baptism is not enough, but the first step toward a long journey (that does not end with once saved-always saved).

But whay they say is not what you want to hear.

What I thought they were saying was what they believed and what the Catholic Church teaches. I posted this thread to inspire discussion about it so why wouldn’t I want to hear it? Are you expecting me to be converted to Catholicism through a thread that has shown little to nothing other than doctrine to support infant baptism?

You fish to get them to endorse your doctrines.

And now you move to judge my intent. Why would I believe that what I believe needs endorsement from them?

(On a personal site note, once again I am of the opinion we see the impact of the Reformation when infant Baptism became an issue because of the Reformation’s emphasis on the “individual” making determinations for his/her own salvation, beginning with individuals could interpret the bible on their own. You have shown the weakness of that position.)

Good point. Certainly not the only bone of contention of those Priests and others who left Catholicism based on their view of false teachings in the Church.
Perhaps the “real presence” was the biggest bone.

Two groups. One group that demands that a person renounce their understanding that the there is not a literal body and blood in the Eucharist, or you will be burned at the stake. In the other group those that humbly prayed, “Lord Jesus, into your hands I commend my unworthy spirit”, as the flames rose around them. Sometimes it’s difficult not to judge doctrine by its fruit. Indeed we are called to.

 

[JohnWilliams]

Rather than admit that the Bible nowhere says Baptism is to be restricted to adults.

I would freely admit this. Indeed children likely were baptized.

or outlines the instructions for parents how to prepare their children for baptism, you flail (to use your words) at the Catholic doctrine of infant baptism as unsubstantiated, unsupported,

I fail to find scripture for it.

and contradictory.

I believe it may help show our willingness to please Jesus. I wouldn’t consider that contrdictory.

You cannot support your doctrine so you try to shoot holes in the Catholic doctrine with the ready-made alibi that any answer does not meet your crtiera.

I am sorry, but there is ample evidence - instances - in scripture for children and adults - even in groups - making a decision for Christ and being baptized. This is the basis of my belief.

Certainly the Early Church Fathers and early Church Councils would have addressed your assertions that infant baptism was contrary to Tradition

I understand infant baptism in the Catholic Church as being very much a Catholic tradition.

and/or Scripture

Scripture lives on to this day to help us test our traditions.

and condemned it, but that is not the case.

And if the Bible is the “operating manual,” which you imply it to be, for a Christian then where is the minimum age for baptism stated?

Different folks mature at different rates. To give you an answer of a specific age would be to indicate that I thought baptism was a rite of dead formalism. That is likely why you don’t find the age prescribed in scripture.

Also, just what violation exists if a child is baptized as an infant/newborn and then matures into the faith?

I don’t believe there would be any violation at all as I have indicated.

You state that you had to be re-baptized.

I am sorry you got that impression. I wanted - was called to be baptized - to please my Savior.

You refuse to admit it, but your infant baptism was valid.

I would refuse to admit no such thing. How could I know? It would have likely been sufficient.

If you have been baptized once then there is no need to be re-baptized.

You may well be correct.

Ephesians 4:5. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

I suppose this could refer to the number of baptisms a person is allowed, and perhaps by extension imply to some, that those like me that have had two baptisms are bound for perdition, because we broke a rule.

But then perhaps it’s referring to one type of baptism. That being the one that accompanies a person making a decision for the Lord, and being born again in the Spirit, and in the water. That is the kind that are featured so prominantly and repeatedly in scripture. It’s a wonderful thing.

 

[Church_Militant]

Do you understand that my expressing a belief in what I believe Jesus’ judgments might be (based on my understanding of scripture, faith, etc.), is different than declaring that I know Jesus judgments?

Maybe I should simplify it. Do you understand the difference between an expressed belief, and an expressed knowledge?

Do you understand the meaning of splitting hairs?

 

[JohnWilliams]

Your last paragraph is not entirely true Jim. A person who was once baptised validly who is then rebaptised is actually under the power of the Evil One. Re baptism is one of the ways Satan uses to insult God Himself and tell Him is Covenant and Sacraments are useless before Satan. Remember that Satan is jealous of Christ, therefore he insinuates the thought into the minds of the weak that their valid baptism was no good as it did not make them feel good. So the honest truth is if we are allowed to tell the truth here is that the re baptism is necessary for Satan’s purposes.

And I suppose you’re only the hands, and this is the Holy Spirit working through you. Nicely done.

 

[MariaG]

But then you are failing to see the difference between the one hand and the other. I believe that a decision for a life with Christ by a young person or adult - being chosen - is regenerative and baptism is part of that regenerative process. It is part of being born again.

I believe that infant baptism is symbolic, since a child cannot make that decision, but may have some merit as long as it helps the parents to be more fully aware of their responsibilities toward that child.

So you do in fact believe that baptism is regenerartive but God’s power to regenerate us is dependent upon a conscious decision for Christ?

Could you explain this a little more? I am trying to understand your position.

Maybe if you could discuss scripture and apply this to how you believe that a baptism can be both symbolic when done to infants but regenerative when for those who make a conscious decison for Christ.?

 

[JohnWilliams]

Excuse me, but where on earth did I claim that the circumcision of the heart is a literal circumcision of the flesh?

You quoted this that I wrote, which I have bolded:

“This thread discusses being born again and has included a related topic, baptism. It is helping me to understand Catholic teachings on it. And I agree with the content of the link you posted earlier. That link does not however appear to support infant baptism. You have already aptly demonstrated that this would be fruitless when you dug in your heels to your error regarding your belief that a “circumcision done without hands” is a reference to a literal circumcision.I understand this gift well as a result of my baptism. I increasingly understand that the folks that feel compelled to argue this subject, one way or the other, are generally the ones that would would seem to be the most insecure in their relationship with their Savior. May God bless.”

Then you made this claim:

This is not the first time you have claimed that I have said something that I just haven’t said.

Please post a link to where I said that this circumsicion of the heart is a literal circumcision or retract your statement.

Here is the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1728101&postcount=221
Here is an exerpt. You wrote (bolding mine):

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

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."

I believe what is “quite clear” about the verse is that it is about “a circumcision made without hands”. Not a literal circumcision. Perhaps I’m wrong.

In your premise, and also in your conclusion, it seemed to me that you indicated that you thought the verse referred to a literal circumcision - and indeed it might have needed to in order to support your point of view.

But the verse refers to a circumcision “made without hands”. Was it unreasonable for me to conclude that you believed that this “circumcision without hands” was a literal circumcision?
Perhaps I made a mistake. If so please accept my apology, but I hope you might be able to understand the reason for my conclusion.

And why is it that you refuse to discuss the regenerative nature of scripture

If you meant to say “regenerative nature of baptism” here, I did cover that with you in the “on the one hand” post.

with me instead of constantly calling into question my security or insecurity in my relationship with Christ?

I obviously don’t know anything about your relationship with Christ. You chose to launch into the issue of OSAS, as if it were somehow going to help you with a point in one way or another. What I indicated was that from my experience in Christian chat rooms, the folks who feel compelled to argue OSAS, from either side, seem to be the ones that are insecure in their relationship. A simple statement of personal observation through my own perception.

If you had wanted me to ignore something you are writing to help you with a point please tell me after you write it. I’m sorry if I didn’t give you the answer you may have hoped for when you brought the OSAS issue up.

 

[tequilamac]

And I suppose you’re only the hands, and this is the Holy Spirit working through you. Nicely done.

Again your ignorance of God is showing. Perhaps you might want to bone up on a little common knowledge held by most of the entire Christian world as to how God operates on the intellect and will. Unless of course you are part of a Christian remnant with a population of exactly 1.
newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

You might want to keep up with the rest of the world as far as understanding Christianity. Right now you are like a kid with a book who knows the words by heart but has no idea of the context time frame or author. You have memorised His Word in scripture. But it is screamingly obvious to us all that you have absolutely no idea who He is. Why don’t you take a break for a while, do some study, and try again when you can hold up your end of the conversation. Right now it is like talking to a kid who recites his times table wih no idea of multiplication.

 

[tequilamac]

Excuse me, but where on earth did I claim that the circumcision of the heart is a literal circumcision of the flesh?

This is not the first time you have claimed that I have said something that I just haven’t said.

Please post a link to where I said that this circumsicion of the heart is a literal circumcision or retract your statement.

And why is it that you refuse to discuss the regenerative nature of scripture with me instead of constantly calling into question my security or insecurity in my relationship with Christ?

Good Heavens Man. Read what all the people here are telling you.

You do not yet have a relationship to Christ except to deny Him. You are as your signature says a “Bible Totin, scripture spoutin” human being but that is all you are. Knowing the scripture and certain buzz attributes like circumcision of the heart does not a Christian make. I can do multiplication tables very well but that does not make me a mathematician. You are in your responses incredibly devoid of anything remotely resembling a knowledge of Christ found in almost any mainstream Christian religion. Wake up and smell the coffee JW. Do you not see that we keep just repeating the same naswers to your questions as you yourself do not even understand the questions you ask much less the answers given?