Are Catholics "born again"?

[JohnWilliams]

Do you understand the meaning of splitting hairs?

Indeed I believe I do. That does not mean that I believe the term can be used to excuse away misunderstanding that results from a person’s inattention to detail.

I have observed that when folks have difficulty expressing their point of view, some seem to increasingly want to lash out at the other party instead of improving their own point.

A not uncommon devise is for them to impute a belief on another, that they wish the other person held, but that the other person demonstrably, and in fact, does not hold. This is generally accomplished by ommitting or changing words, and then making accusation. At other times through what appears to be intentional misunderstanding.

Likely this is done both on the unconscious, as well as conscious level and would seem to be a product of human nature. It is easy to observe this phenemenon, through its increasing and compounding presence, as this thread developed. Particularly of late. It has become burdensome for me to repeatedly explain that I don’t hold views that others have imputed to me, even though my earlier posts confirm what I believe, and I have done my best to be consistent. These views that I expressed earlier are different, sometimes even opposite, to those that others have more recently imputed to me.

I am not called to divide the Body of Christ. I have observed the gathering darkness around me as hearts seem to be hardening and eyes scale over. One even suggesting that my baptism was of Satan.

I did my best to be honest and to present my views, in detail, and generally with an effort to reinforce with scripture, in regard to the subjects that have been raised in this thread. I have also gained a fuller understanding in regard to Catholic belief and tradition when it comes to being born again, as well as baptism, in return.

I had thought that this mutual sharing was the purpose of this forum, particularly being labeled a “Non-Catholic Forum”. I do not want to be a reason that hearts harden further. I am sorry if I have caused others offense.

May God richly bless all His people in this forum,
your brother in Christ Jesus,
John

 

[tequilamac]

Indeed I believe I do. That does not mean that I believe the term can be used to excuse away misunderstanding that results from a person’s inattention to detail.

I have observed that when folks have difficulty expressing their point of view, some seem to increasingly want to lash out at the other party instead of improving their own point.

A not uncommon devise is for them to impute a belief on another, that they wish the other person held, but that the other person demonstrably, and in fact, does not hold. This is generally accomplished by ommitting or changing words, and then making accusation. At other times through what appears to be intentional misunderstanding.

Likely this is done both on the unconscious, as well as conscious level and would seem to be a product of human nature. It is easy to observe this phenemenon, through its increasing and compounding presence, as this thread developed. Particularly of late. It has become burdensome for me to repeatedly explain that I don’t hold views that others have imputed to me, even though my earlier posts confirm what I believe, and I have done my best to be consistent. These views that I expressed earlier are different, sometimes even opposite, to those that others have more recently imputed to me.

I am not called to divide the Body of Christ. I have observed the gathering darkness around me as hearts seem to be hardening and eyes scale over. One even suggesting that my baptism was of Satan.

I did my best to be honest and to present my views, in detail, and generally with an effort to reinforce with scripture, in regard to the subjects that have been raised in this thread. I have also gained a fuller understanding in regard to Catholic belief and tradition when it comes to being born again, as well as baptism, in return.

I had thought that this mutual sharing was the purpose of this forum, particularly being labeled a “Non-Catholic Forum”. I do not want to be a reason that hearts harden further. I am sorry if I have caused others offense.

May God richly bless all His people in this forum,
your brother in Christ Jesus,
John

Not only is he a person of his own religion with no similarity to any other mainstream Christian religion, he has hung up his shingle as a doctor of psychiatry as well. No end to your self professed talents, John. Please continue.

Overestimation of one’s talents, understanding and ability is a key feature of those who have been re-baptised into a new sort of “god”.

Again, I repeat, a glaring example of why Catholics need to steer clear of sola scriptura.

 

[Church_Militant]

Not only is he a person of his own religion with no similarity to any other mainstream Christian religion, he has hung up his shingle as a doctor of psychiatry as well. No end to your self professed talents, John. Please continue.

Overestimation of one’s talents, understanding and ability is a key feature of those who have been re-baptised into a new sort of “god”.

Again, I repeat, a glaring example of why Catholics need to steer clear of sola scriptura.

Yeah… I see all that and think, “So now yer a mind reader as well?”

The dude comes into a Catholic forum and essentially wants to disparage our most holy faith and is surprised when those Catholics of us who actually have some knowledge and understanding od our faith proceed to refute the errors he states and can’t figure out why some of us do so?

I agree about Sola Scriptura. It’s about the worst foundational errors one can espouse. Most all the rest pretty much seem to trickle down from that.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[AlegreFe]

I believe that a Catholic can be baptized as a baby, go to Church every Sunday all their lives, go to confession and the whole nine yards, but still never for a moment have been saved. In other words, do I believe that we are saved through an act of the flesh? No I do not.

Of course none of us are saved. You are still here on earth so how do you know if you have been saved? You are only saved when you get to Heaven. The closest anyone can get to Heaven here on earth is in a place you would not want to be and that is the Catholic Mass.

If you mean that baptism is an act of the flesh, then you are only partly right. Baptism is the infusion of God’s Grace into our souls. That Grace of course comes from the Passion and death of Jesus Christ. And since we are Baptized into His Death we are also baptized into His Life through His Resurrection. And there I can say that a Catholic IS saved at the moment they are Baptized. The question is, will they stay that way?

You and other Protestants would have to ask yourselves the same question, “are YOU saved and once you are will you stay saved?”

I agree with you that someone can be baptized as an infant but then never really grasp their faith. They sometimes even leave the faith for nothing, not even a Protestant faith.

But I can say one thing, a Catholic IS “born again” when they are baptized because they are cleansed of original sin AND adopted by God. God enters the soul of that infant that was baptized and doesn’t leave until he/she later grows up and “kicks Him out” so to speak by mortal sin. That is why we have to learn about our faith as we grow up and learn to love one another and of course learn to Love Jesus Christ first and foremost.

I know you don’t like my posts John but please read the posts that I posted here and even a post in another thread. I believe that the question “are Catholics ‘born again’” and “are Catholics ‘saved’” would be the same question. And they would have the same answer;

1. We need Faith in order to be Baptized. (parents’ faith if infant)
---- ***** Baptism means we are “born again” and adopted by God.
---- ***** When we were baptized we received Sanctifying Grace.
---- ***** Grace is a “share in Divine Life” which we all need.
I was saved!

2. Once “born again” we are to stay alive.
---- ***** stay alive with God’s Grace.
---- ***** accept Grace in order to show faith which we need to stay alive.
---- ***** show faith by loving God and loving others as ourselves (works of mercy).
I am being saved!

3. We should have hope that we can see God.
---- ***** put your hope and trust in Jesus Christ.
---- ***** Do not despair. God’s mercy is greater than your sin.
---- ***** Trust in the Faith of Jesus Christ.
---- ***** Jesus Christ is our Divine Mercy!
I hope to be saved!

If you look in scripture you will see many verses that indicate the past as they were saved but also the present and the future tense which goes with the Hope that Paul had as he strived for his salvation.

Cont…

 

[AlegreFe]

…cont

JohnWilliams:

Some in here seem to believe that following some rules leads to salvation. I don’t (and particularly when some rules sprang forth without basis in, and are even contradicted by Scripture). Or that not following some rule excludes you from salvation even when a person has a circumcision of the heart. I don’t believe that either.

We don’t follow “some rule” as you think. We follow Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church does not contradict Scripture either. That is what you think and you know nothing about the Church if that is what you think and/or believe.

JohnWilliams:

A circumcision of the heart leads to following our Lord and Savior in obedience in the law. Baptism in water is part of that obedience when we are born again in the Spirit.

So you believe that the Spirit comes only before Baptism? The Spirit comes as a result of Baptism and certainly in these cases here;

Matt 3:16 (NAB)
16 After Jesus was baptized, he came
up from the water and behold, the
heavens were opened (for him), and he
saw the Spirit of God descending like
a dove (and) coming upon him.

36 As they traveled along the road they
came to some water, and the eunuch
said, “Look, there is water. What is to
prevent my being baptized?”
38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop,
and Philip and the eunuch both went
down into the water, and he baptized
him.
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 know that if an infant dies after being baptized, the Spirit of the Lord will snatch his/her soul and they will be taken up to Heaven. I don’t know what would happen if a baby or a young child was not baptized. We can only entrust their souls to the Mercy of God.

14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem
heard that Samaria had accepted the
word of God, they sent them Peter and
John,
15 who went down and prayed for them,
that they might receive the holy Spirit,
16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of
them; they had only been baptized in
the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then they laid hands on them and
they received the holy Spirit.

So we should all be Baptized first before anything else. Of course there are cases in the bible where the Spirit came first but then Peter demanded that they be baptized with water. So no matter if you are a baby or an adult, water batism is demanded of Jesus if you want to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. And like I said before, once that happens, the question remains; Will the person remain in God’s Graces after baptism whether for a baby or an adult?

 

[AlegreFe]

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

But don’t you see that we are always in the “now” but we Catholics were baptized in the “past” but we still hope to be saved in the “future?”

You don’t know if you will “be saved” when that time comes. You can only hope that you can be saved.

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.

Whoever is baptized whether a baby or an adult becomes a Christian as they are made a child of God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The question is will the parents teach the child as they grow up and will that child remain in God’s Graces and continue to believe in Jesus Christ? And will they Love God with all their heart, with all their soul, with all their mind, and with all their strength? Will they Love their neighbor as themselves? That is what keeps them a Christian.

Just because the actions are what makes a Christian does not negate the fact that we all have to be baptized with water and we should be baptized as soon as possible as infants.
Jesus Christ gave us the Sacrament of Confirmation for the invocation of the Holy Spirit. It is usually older children who go through this Sacrament but for the most part they are high school students although some are in seventh or eighth grade. My child prefers to be in high school and we both can make that choice since we home school. My child’s mind can change at any time so I leave it up to my child as to when the Sacrament of Confirmation is received.

JohnWilliams:

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.

We don’t know that. Jesus Himself says that NO ONE can enter the Kingdom unless you are born of water AND spirit.

So if a baby is not baptized and then dies we could only hope and pray and put the baby’s soul into God’s Mercy.

JohnWilliams:

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.

And that is why babies should be baptized because Jesus said that NO ONE could enter the Kingdom unless you are born of water and spirit, and he also said “let the children come to me” so why keep children and babies away from God by not baptizing them?

 

[MariaG]

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:
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.

No John. You only “see” that premise in my words because you still fail to understand the Catholic teaching on baptism. Baptism is not a circumcision of the flesh. I do not disagree with you that “a circumcision made without hands” is not a literal circumcision. I pointed out however, that baptism has replaced the circumcision of the flesh. When did Jews enter into the covenant even when it was only a circumcision of the flesh and not the heart? As infants. God did not change when a person enters into the covenant, but one was done by men to the flesh, baptism is done by God to the soul.

That verse does show that baptism is being compared to circumcision. I pointed this out because scripture is not written in a vaccum. You have to understand the practices of the Jews to understand NT references. The point is that in the OT covenant circumcision was offered to the infants. The parents did this to bring them into the covenant with God. It was just a circumcision of the flesh, but they obeyed God’s commands and did it.

In the NT baptism replaces circumcision. Baptism is NOT just a circumcision of the flesh but of the heart. It is through baptism that we enter into the New Covenant, understanding that it means so much more that circumcision because circumcision only touched the flesh whereas baptism God cleanses our soul.

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.

Unreasonable? No, many come here not truly understanding what the Catholic Church teaches and because of this “read into” responses that just are not there.

Apology accepted. And I pray that you can now understand what I said.

con.

 

[MariaG]

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

Disbelief in OSAS or bringing up the subject, contrary to your personal observation does not mean a lack of confidence in one’s salvation. I am hopefully confident in “knowing” the state of my soul. I “Know” I whether or not I am going to heaven now just as surely as I did as a Non-Catholic and I witnessed in front of the Nazarene congregation after I had an adult born again experience. It went along the lines of “I used to think those who say I know I am saved were arrogant. Now I say to you, I know I am saved.”

The fact that I now believe it is presumptuous to say that, and no longer do since I do not wish to presume to place my judgement in place of God’s, I still am completely confident that I “KNOW” the state of my salvation.

Assurance of Salvation? From CA Library

“Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, 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 brought up OSAS because frequently people who believe in OSAS do not seem to connect the dots in Catholic theology when it comes to baptism, in which we believe we are born again and infants can be born again, and the fact that we do not believe in assured salvation.

IF one believes in assured salvation, baptism as a regenerative property for infants would be completely wrong.

IF however one believes that one can be born again, but then lose one’s salvation, infant baptism, is not quite so ludicrous since we DO NOT believe that on the strength of a regenerative born again baptism one is guareenteed heaven.

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.

Ignore things? No, but maybe start reading them more throughly and stop presuming you understand Catholic theology and because of those preconceived and incorrect notions, you do not understand posts as well as you think you do. Maybe start restating what you think was said in your own words much as I and others have tried to restate what we think you are saying, as well as realize that your personal observations may be incorrect.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Of course none of us are saved. You are still here on earth so how do you know if you have been saved? You are only saved when you get to Heaven. The closest anyone can get to Heaven here on earth is in a place you would not want to be and that is the Catholic Mass.

If you mean that baptism is an act of the flesh, then you are only partly right. Baptism is the infusion of God’s Grace into our souls. That Grace of course comes from the Passion and death of Jesus Christ. And since we are Baptized into His Death we are also baptized into His Life through His Resurrection. And there I can say that a Catholic IS saved at the moment they are Baptized. The question is, will they stay that way?

You and other Protestants would have to ask yourselves the same question, “are YOU saved and once you are will you stay saved?”

I agree with you that someone can be baptized as an infant but then never really grasp their faith. They sometimes even leave the faith for nothing, not even a Protestant faith.

But I can say one thing, a Catholic IS “born again” when they are baptized because they are cleansed of original sin AND adopted by God. God enters the soul of that infant that was baptized and doesn’t leave until he/she later grows up and “kicks Him out” so to speak by mortal sin. That is why we have to learn about our faith as we grow up and learn to love one another and of course learn to Love Jesus Christ first and foremost.

I know you don’t like my posts John but please read the posts that I posted here and even a post in another thread. I believe that the question “are Catholics ‘born again’” and “are Catholics ‘saved’” would be the same question. And they would have the same answer;

1. We need Faith in order to be Baptized. (parents’ faith if infant)
---- ***** Baptism means we are “born again” and adopted by God.
---- ***** When we were baptized we received Sanctifying Grace.
---- ***** Grace is a “share in Divine Life” which we all need.
I was saved!

2. Once “born again” we are to stay alive.
---- ***** stay alive with God’s Grace.
---- ***** accept Grace in order to show faith which we need to stay alive.
---- ***** show faith by loving God and loving others as ourselves (works of mercy).
I am being saved!

3. We should have hope that we can see God.
---- ***** put your hope and trust in Jesus Christ.
---- ***** Do not despair. God’s mercy is greater than your sin.
---- ***** Trust in the Faith of Jesus Christ.
---- ***** Jesus Christ is our Divine Mercy!
I hope to be saved!

If you look in scripture you will see many verses that indicate the past as they were saved but also the present and the future tense which goes with the Hope that Paul had as he strived for his salvation.

Cont…

Very nice. I hope this helps John to understand.

 

[MariaG]

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.?

I will repost this since I am still interested in understanding your position John

 

[AlegreFe]

Very nice. I hope this helps John to understand.

I hope so too Maria. The problem is that he does not like my posts since he has said this about me; “You quote me and then go wander off on your own unrelated tangent.” http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Laughing.gif

So even if he understands a little better we might not ever know. But that’s okay, I don’t have to know. I do this for his and other people’s understanding and not for my own glory.
All for the Glory of God. :bowdown2:

Peace and God bless.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

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

Hold the phone…Please read the context of this verse. Paul was speaking about unity in the Church. Remember, he had to correct their baptism from in the name of Jesus only to the trinitarian baptism.

The AOG does the same thing. They forbid any man who has been married and divorced as unqualified to be a pastor based on the “man of one wife” verse taken out of context. The context of that particular verse was addressing the issue of multiple (polygamy) wives that was still quite common in the region.

Consider Christ taught “baptism of repentance” for the forgiveness of sins in Luke. Luke also records Christ spoke of another baptism he had to undergo after his baptism by John the Baptist. Lets not also forget baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic church will re-baptize you if you did not get baptized in a trinitarian faith OR if no proof of baptism can be provided. In the latter case, the church does indeed do what you say it shouldn’t.

I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins as well. But, there are other baptisms in the Bible. Again, Paul’s letter was about unity, not about a number. The “one baptism” can not be taken so literally when properly understood.

I do not see why one baptism could not include a symbolic dip in water if someone requests it. Not because the first was invalid. But another baptism as a symbolic dedication to the calling and purpose of the original since the first one took care of substance. The one problem I truly have with infant baptisms is a child can not choose. That is why I do believe a second baptism such as I suggest could be just fine provided a priest performing the baptism worded it correctly.

 

[AlegreFe]

The Catholic church will re-baptize you if you did not get baptized in a trinitarian faith OR if no proof of baptism can be provided.

I know that the Catholic Church will only baptize if you were never baptized before or if it was not done in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. That kind of baptism (non-Trinitarian) would never be done in a Catholic Church. I guess you didn’t read my previous posts on the matter.

FromTheCrossroa:

I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins as well. But, there are other baptisms in the Bible. Again, Paul’s letter was about unity, not about a number. The “one baptism” can not be taken so literally when properly understood.

Properly understood?? Since Catholics only have the ONE baptism that is in the Trinitarian formula, then there is no need for a second baptism. It’s not like the Church baptizes infants only in the name of Jesus. That only exists in the bible and I am very aware of that.

What is more important here for Catholics is that there is only ONE Trinitarian baptism. It is also important to know that we also have the Sacrament of Confirmation which to me is the same as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that John talked about in the Bible.

I do not see why one baptism could not include a symbolic dip in water if someone requests it. Not because the first was invalid. But another baptism as a symbolic dedication to the calling and purpose of the original since the first one took care of substance.

Because baptism is not symbolic at all that’s why. If one keeps requesting a “symbolic” baptism then it takes away from what Baptism really is; we would all have less faith in the ONE Real Baptism. Also, what you’re suggesting is already in the Church in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

The Church also celebrates the renewal of our Baptismal promises at the Easter Vigil Mass. Have you ever been to that Mass? And if you have, did you understand what was going on during that Mass?

This could be one of the many reasons why many Catholics fall away from the Church. They just don’t understand how the Sacraments work and what they mean.

 

[AlegreFe]

…cont.

The one problem I truly have with infant baptisms is a child can not choose.

Where is your Faith? I can’t believe you are Catholic. The parents choose for the child because it is the right and the best thing to do for that child as the parents want that child to be adopted by God and have that stain of original sin wiped clean. From there the parents should raise the child in the Catholic Faith and teach the child about moral values that are taught in the Church. As the child grows and matures enough to understand the Faith, that child or young adult can get Confirmed to invoke the Holy Spirit and to have this child be strong in defending the Catholic Faith.

Catholic life does NOT end with Confirmation. That is only the beginning of what should evolve into a more mature understanding of the Catholic Faith and to lead a more spiritual and holy life as the Holy Spirit comes more into play after Confirmation.

As far as a child or infant choosing or not choosing, there is no need for that infant to have faith because it is enough for the parents and the godparents to have faith for that infant. In the bible the servant of the centurian was healed because the centurian had faith for that servant in order that he be healed. That was enough for Jesus to determine that the servant be healed. So why shouldn’t it be enough for Jesus for the parents to have faith in order for that child to be healed of its original sin? Have some Faith will you please! I say this strongly because you are a Catholic and I can’t believe that you are making such statements.

This is part of the reason why so many Protestants don’t see faith in the Catholic Church because of Catholics who do not believe and understand the teachings of the Catholic Church.

FromTheCrossroa:

That is why I do believe a second baptism such as I suggest could be just fine provided a priest performing the baptism worded it correctly.

There is no need for a second baptism as you so unfaithfully suggest. That is why we have the Sacrament of Confirmation. That is all one needs as an older child or young adult to invoke the Holy Spirit and make the person stronger in defending their Catholic Faith. And we can’t forget the fact that the Church celebrates at the Easter Vigil Mass the renewal of our Baptismal promises.

I am sorry if I come across strongly. I sometimes get frustrated with Protestants who cannot see what our Faith means. But that’s to be expected as they are not Catholic. But for a Catholic not to have faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church is even worse. It seems to me that you do not own a CCC and if you do then you haven’t read it.

Here are some links for you to read and deepen your understanding of our Catholic Faith:

–Catechism of the Catholic Church: The Seven Sacraments

–Update Your Faith: Why are babies baptized? Aren’t they too young to accept Jesus?

–The Neceessity of Baptism

–Scripture Catholic: The Sacrament of Baptism

–Infant Baptism

–Catholic Encyclopedia: Baptism

 

[MariaG]

Hold the phone…Please read the context of this verse. Paul was speaking about unity in the Church. Remember, he had to correct their baptism from in the name of Jesus only to the trinitarian baptism.

The AOG does the same thing. They forbid any man who has been married and divorced as unqualified to be a pastor based on the “man of one wife” verse taken out of context. The context of that particular verse was addressing the issue of multiple (polygamy) wives that was still quite common in the region.

Consider Christ taught “baptism of repentance” for the forgiveness of sins in Luke. Luke also records Christ spoke of another baptism he had to undergo after his baptism by John the Baptist. Lets not also forget baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic church will re-baptize you if you did not get baptized in a trinitarian faith OR if no proof of baptism can be provided. In the latter case, the church does indeed do what you say it shouldn’t.

I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins as well. But, there are other baptisms in the Bible. Again, Paul’s letter was about unity, not about a number. The “one baptism” can not be taken so literally when properly understood.

I do not see why one baptism could not include a symbolic dip in water if someone requests it. Not because the first was invalid. But another baptism as a symbolic dedication to the calling and purpose of the original since the first one took care of substance. The one problem I truly have with infant baptisms is a child can not choose. That is why I do believe a second baptism such as I suggest could be just fine provided a priest performing the baptism worded it correctly.

Respectfully, the context of the verse, as interpreted by the Catholic Church, is one baptism as in only one is needed not two.
Although one can read the more from the links from AlegreFe, I did post two that you should read carefully and understand as a Catholic Christian.

**IV. WHO CAN RECEIVE BAPTISM? ****1246 **"Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized."46

**An indelible spiritual mark . . . ****1272 **Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.82 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

AlegreFe already spoke on confirmation, so I won’t get into that, but you seem confused as to what baptism actually is also. It is not just an action that we need to do out of obedience. It is something God does to us, removes original sin from our soul.

Again, already pointed out, we do not “rebaptize” people. Catholics will perform “conditional baptisms” in which if there is no proof of baptism, one will be performed with words like, “If you have not already been baptized, I baptize in the name…”

This is because baptism leaves an indelible mark that God can see even if men have lost the “proof”. This mark is given based on faith. Faith of the person OR based on the faith of the parents if a small child or infant.

So in fact, the Catholic church does take “one baptism” literally, and the Catholic Church does not do “symbolic” baptisms of infants.

You are Catholic correct? Think of the Nicene creed which you recite and are supposed to believe, at least a Catholic Christian states they believe as they recite it.

…And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The belief in One Church. period. One baptism. period.

This is one baptism as in not two. The Catechism clearly reflects this interpretation.

Respectfully, as a Catholic Christian, you need to study what the Catholic Church actually teaches about baptism and especially why it has practiced infant baptism since the beginning. Both of these are from CA Library and have quotes from the ECF.

Early Teachings on Infant Baptism

Born Again in Baptism

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Disbelief in OSAS or bringing up the subject, contrary to your personal observation does not mean a lack of confidence in one’s salvation. I am hopefully confident in “knowing” the state of my soul. I “Know” I whether or not I am going to heaven now just as surely as I did as a Non-Catholic and I witnessed in front of the Nazarene congregation after I had an adult born again experience. It went along the lines of “I used to think those who say I know I am saved were arrogant. Now I say to you, I know I am saved.”

The fact that I now believe it is presumptuous to say that, and no longer do since I do not wish to presume to place my judgement in place of God’s, I still am completely confident that I “KNOW” the state of my salvation.

I brought up OSAS because frequently people who believe in OSAS do not seem to connect the dots in Catholic theology when it comes to baptism, in which we believe we are born again and infants can be born again, and the fact that we do not believe in assured salvation.

IF one believes in assured salvation, baptism as a regenerative property for infants would be completely wrong.

IF however one believes that one can be born again, but then lose one’s salvation, infant baptism, is not quite so ludicrous since we DO NOT believe that on the strength of a regenerative born again baptism one is guareenteed heaven.

Ignore things? No, but maybe start reading them more throughly and stop presuming you understand Catholic theology and because of those preconceived and incorrect notions, you do not understand posts as well as you think you do. Maybe start restating what you think was said in your own words much as I and others have tried to restate what we think you are saying, as well as realize that your personal observations may be incorrect.

God Bless,
Maria

Nice post!

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

…cont.

Where is your Faith? I can’t believe you are Catholic.

Where is your CHARITY? I can’t believe YOU’RE Catholic. Seriously, I stopped reading what you had to say after the first sentence. Rather than clarify and respond, I’m unsubscribing from this thread as your witness or lack thereof is a huge turn off. I seriously hope you are not involved in a official way with your church. Because the lack of understanding and compassion you have about anyone not cradle to grave Catholic is disturbing.

 

[Mickey]

The one problem I truly have with infant baptisms is a child can not choose.

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” **(*The Apostolic Tradition ***21:16 [A.D. 215]).

 

[MariaG]

Where is your CHARITY? I can’t believe YOU’RE Catholic. Seriously, I stopped reading what you had to say after the first sentence. Rather than clarify and respond, I’m unsubscribing from this thread as your witness or lack thereof is a huge turn off. I seriously hope you are not involved in a official way with your church. Because the lack of understanding and compassion you have about anyone not cradle to grave Catholic is disturbing.

Maybe a better response to an individual poster is to place them on ignore than to unsubscribe to a whole thread that is discussing a subject that you do not have a good handle on the scriptural and Traditional reasons for infant baptism or seem to truly understand the regererative nature of baptism, especially when you are Catholic?

I pray you will at least start a new thread for yourself to discuss infant baptism.

Again the ignore feature is available. I also am disturbed to hear that you ARE NOT a cradle to grave Catholic. Usually, the converts to Catholicism, are much more knowledgable about these kind of differences than the average cradle Catholic. It is too bad that this discussion was not already done when you came into the Church.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

It seems these questions have both a Catholic and non-Catholic audience. Any who do not believe that infant baptism is regenerative care to try to explain their position? No takers so far, but third time is the charm

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?

God Bless,
Maria