Born Again, and again, and again, and again,

[CopticChristian]

Salvation can come as simply as the desire expressed by the one crucified with Jesus - once, with no baptism required.

Seed,

It is a shame that the logic of putting oneself on a cross, inability to do anything, as if crucified by Christ is the example to follow…if that were all that were necessary then the New Testament is for naught. We would read Jesus was born, Jesus was crucified…the thief confessed on a cross…go do likewise…the end

Sad statement of the minimal effort you profess to believe is what God asks of us.

This gives a new meaning to on your own you can do nothing.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Seed,

It is a shame that the logic of putting oneself on a cross, inability to do anything, as if crucified by Christ is the example to follow…if that were all that were necessary then the New Testament is for naught. We would read Jesus was born, Jesus was crucified…the thief confessed on a cross…go do likewise…the end

Sad statement of the minimal effort you profess to believe is what God asks of us.

This gives a new meaning to on your own you can do nothing.

Cop,

It is glorious grace that Jesus will accept us, even if it be our final hour.

You do not agree with Jesus in Luke 23:43?

You cannot imagine such love?

The “inability to do anything else” and still be the prodigal son is as disturbing to you, as it was to the prodigal’s brother?

You would prefer to have had Jesus tell the thief, sorry, you did not do enough dancing, so, to Hell with you?

 

[grandfather]

GF,

That explains the True Christian paradigm, however as you know there are those that deny Baptism, Confession, Confirmation ie a sacramental life…explain that.

At the core of your question is why there is disunity and what is the authority of the Church.

In order to understand it requires an historical theological retrospective.

In order for Luther to justify denying established dogma and beginning a new religion he needed to appeal to some authority. He could not appeal to the constant teaching of the Church, the authority of the Church that he disagreed with, so he came up with his scripture alone doctrine.

He could not claim he was the authority, which in practice he was, because no one would listen. So he appealed to the Bible, his interpretation of it.

Once this error took root it justified many other individuals to begin one denomination after another, each with its Bible based doctrines. It was kind of a cascading effect with doctrinal postions growing further and further from truth, wierder and wierder.

The other fallout from his false doctrine is that there is never any settled matter. Anything can be called into question no matter how long the Church believed it. I know a man who says he is a bishop of a church. Their women are not allowed to ever cut their hair. They will not go to the doctor or dentist. They let their children die rather than get treatment.

The fact that this resulted in some Christians denying the sacraments is not at all surprising. The confusion and absurdity has become so great that the Anglicans who claim belief in the sacraments believe men can marry one another.

When the branch is cut off from the vine it dies.

 

[mackbrislawn]

They would state that we have been ‘handed over to Satan’ until we come to repentence. We’re still ‘saved’, we’re just in a kind of Protestant Limbo until we repent. We’re still going to Heaven, but we will have no rewards.

Gotta a headache yet?

Yep, gotta headache.

My question now, is what if we never repent once we’ve been handed over to Satan? Do we still go to heaven? How can we go to heaven if we have been handed over to Satan?
And I’ve never figured out what is meant by “rewards.” The rewards of heaven? Earthly rewards? How can you have heaven without rewards?

So many questions come to mind…

 

[Curious_Seed]

At the core of your question is why there is disunity and what is the authority of the Church.

In order to understand it requires an historical theological retrospective.

In order for Luther to justify denying established dogma and beginning a new religion he needed to appeal to some authority. He could not appeal to the constant teaching of the Church, the authority of the Church that he disagreed with, so he came up with his scripture alone doctrine.

He could not claim he was the authority, which in practice he was, because no one would listen. So he appealed to the Bible, his interpretation of it.

Once this error took root it justified many other individuals to begin one denomination after another, each with its Bible based doctrines. It was kind of a cascading effect with doctrinal postions growing further and further from truth, wierder and wierder.

The other fallout from his false doctrine is that there is never any settled matter. Anything can be called into question no matter how long the Church believed it. I know a man who says he is a bishop of a church. Their women are not allowed to ever cut their hair. They will not go to the doctor or dentist. They let their children die rather than get treatment.

The fact that this resulted in some Christians denying the sacraments is not at all surprising. The confusion and absurdity has become so great that the Anglicans who claim belief in the sacraments believe men can marry one another.

When the branch is cut off from the vine it dies.

Pruning yields more fruit, and the vine is Jesus Christ, not the Catholic Church.

Curious that some Catholics choke on the thought of Christians seeking solutions in the Bible, rather than the Magisterium.

Other Catholics point out the absurdity of some Anglicans who believe men may marry each other, but are slow to point out some ordained Catholic priests and bishops who practice pedophilia.

Much better for all Christians [those for whom Jesus Christ is their Lord and God], to grow their Faith, in doctrines of their choice, and then evangelize those who know nothing of Christ, than criticize each other.

 

[fbl9]

Pruning yields more fruit, and the vine is Jesus Christ, not the Catholic Church.

Curious that some Catholics choke on the thought of Christians seeking solutions in the Bible, rather than the Magisterium.

Other Catholics point out the absurdity of some Anglicans who believe men may marry each other, but are slow to point out some ordained Catholic priests and bishops who practice pedophilia.

Much better for all Christians [those for whom Jesus Christ is their Lord and God], to grow their Faith, in doctrines of their choice, and then evangelize those who know nothing of Christ, than criticize each other.

How does pruning Jesus yeild more fruit

Even more curious is that some christians choke on the idea that they may be mistaken

And your point is? Oh yeah you don’t have one with this other than to say you are better. Yet turn a blind eye to the sexual misdeeds of your kind.

Doctrines which endorse sin, yeah that sounds just like what God had in mind.

 

[Curious_Seed]

How does pruning Jesus yeild more fruit

Even more curious is that some christians choke on the idea that they may be mistaken

And your point is? Oh yeah you don’t have one with this other than to say you are better. Yet turn a blind eye to the sexual misdeeds of your kind.

Doctrines which endorse sin, yeah that sounds just like what God had in mind.

For those confused about bearing more fruit, through pruning, please see John 15:2, that is if they are not already a branch severed.

No need to ask how pruning Jesus yields more fruit. Jesus is not pruned.

A Catholic who thinks him/herself never mistaken is mistaken, and usually when believing he/she knows how non-Catholics think.

That some Christians choke on the idea that they are mistaken, as you say, is not to deny sympathy for Catholics.

Sexual misdeeds of your kind ?

Shameful statement, for any Christian, even a novice Catholic.

 

[hn160]

At the core of your question is why there is disunity and what is the authority of the Church.

In order to understand it requires an historical theological retrospective.

In order for Luther to justify denying established dogma and beginning a new religion he needed to appeal to some authority. He could not appeal to the constant teaching of the Church, the authority of the Church that he disagreed with, so he came up with his scripture alone doctrine.

He could not claim he was the authority, which in practice he was, because no one would listen. So he appealed to the Bible, his interpretation of it.

Once this error took root it justified many other individuals to begin one denomination after another, each with its Bible based doctrines. It was kind of a cascading effect with doctrinal postions growing further and further from truth, wierder and wierder.

The other fallout from his false doctrine is that there is never any settled matter. Anything can be called into question no matter how long the Church believed it. I know a man who says he is a bishop of a church. Their women are not allowed to ever cut their hair. They will not go to the doctor or dentist. They let their children die rather than get treatment.

The fact that this resulted in some Christians denying the sacraments is not at all surprising. The confusion and absurdity has become so great that the Anglicans who claim belief in the sacraments believe men can marry one another.

When the branch is cut off from the vine it dies.

Why don’t you take time to read the Lutheran Confessions especially the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession before you blog about Luther.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West share Baptism as expressed through Apostolic Teaching. Some Protestants have views that are close and then there are those that deny Baptism has anything to do with being born again…The OHCAC accepts Baptism in the Trinity by those outside the Church proper and do not require re-baptism…on the other hand those that believe that the born again experience excludes Baptism leave the question open…as to how many times can you be born again?

Born Again, and Again, and …
How many times can one man find Jesus?

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/12/bishop_eddie_long_can_born_again_christians_be_born_yet_again_.html

Thoughts? Comments?

CopticChristian—

The article ends with this answer to your question: “…those who stray would most likely be urged not to be reborn a second time, but to repent.” That seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Itwin in post #19 also gave a clear and simple answer to your question.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Wasn’t aware I was asking any questions. I thought I was simply giving an “insider’s” perspective from my own understanding. Feel free to disagree.

Hmm. I don’t believe in OSAS or eternal security. I believe in what could be called “conditional security.” In a word, I’m Arminian, like most Pentecostals.

It’s all grace, whether you are being made a new creation or whether you are being reconciled with God. Both are different degrees of the amazing grace of God. The first is a new birth, the second is a restoration of that broken relationship.

Both come about by God reaching out to us, revealing who he is to us. In both cases, we are simply responding to the grace of God. The only difference is that in the latter case the person formally knew God and his awesome grace but something happened along the way and that person rejected God. But thankfully, even though we may reject God, he will never reject us if we come to him in faith and repentance. The Holy Spirit does soften hearts, convicts of sin, and moves towards repentance. This is what happens when it appears that someone is “born again, again.”

And of course, this returning to God is not inevitable. Humans have free will.

CopticChristian—Here’s post #19 again…“the second is a restoration of that broken relationship.” Isn’t that similar to what Catholics believe happens in Confession/Reconciliation?

 

[CopticChristian]

Cop,

It is glorious grace that Jesus will accept us, even if it be our final hour.

You do not agree with Jesus in Luke 23:43?

You cannot imagine such love?

The “inability to do anything else” and still be the prodigal son is as disturbing to you, as it was to the prodigal’s brother?

You would prefer to have had Jesus tell the thief, sorry, you did not do enough dancing, so, to Hell with you?

Seed,

I recall you from the past. Your demeanor has changed. I do not like your method of posting and for that reason I shall acknowledge your return and say thank you.

 

[CopticChristian]

Pruning yields more fruit, and the vine is Jesus Christ, not the Catholic Church.

Curious that some Catholics choke on the thought of Christians seeking solutions in the Bible, rather than the Magisterium.

Other Catholics point out the absurdity of some Anglicans who believe men may marry each other, but are slow to point out some ordained Catholic priests and bishops who practice pedophilia.

Much better for all Christians [those for whom Jesus Christ is their Lord and God], to grow their Faith, in doctrines of their choice, and then evangelize those who know nothing of Christ, than criticize each other.

Seed,

Here is the absurdity of immaturity and fallible logic.

Anglicans, not all, some have proposed that it is acceptable to accept homosexuality in marraige, as ministers and other such nonsense. Note this is accepted. This is then not considered as sin.

The OHCAC admits that the Church is filled with sinners and others not so sinful. You should read the parables of the Kingdom to understand that. I believe you own a Bible. The OHCAC states that Pedophelia is a sin. This does not stop some from sinning.

Please try to use adult, mature thought out logic rather than emotion filled unfiltered logic that is nothing more than poison darts of your beliefs.

This is why you annoy me.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian—

The article ends with this answer to your question: “…those who stray would most likely be urged not to be reborn a second time, but to repent.” That seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Itwin in post #19 also gave a clear and simple answer to your question.

This is a thought and a comment.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian—Here’s post #19 again…“the second is a restoration of that broken relationship.” Isn’t that similar to what Catholics believe happens in Confession/Reconciliation?

Abide,

I see you take this is a personal note. Notice I referenced this as different paradigms to the outsider. The outsider looking at Protestants suggests that the notion of being born again is open to discussion. The outsider looking at Catholicism understands Baptism, Confession and the sacramental life.

I have heard in my life some say…“you need to go to confession”…and this is based on an understanding of Catholic Sacramental life. This is a reflection that the outsider understands the Catholic paradigm.

The notion of asking how many times you can be born again is explicit of the rally cries heard by the Bible thumpers that they have been born again and an implicit lack of understanding of the Protestant paradigm by the outsider.

Your statement is an attempt to build a corrolary to a Sacramental life that Protestants do not believe in and do not have. You may see similarities and in that light suggests you have an appreciation for what is lacking in the Protestant paradigm.

 

[JPeter]

Through Baptism the Holy Spirit works to create or strengthen faith and brings the gifts of forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation (Titus 3:4-7, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38-39). being born again means to be baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. You use the term Protestant as if we all believed the same thing. You also seem to think that Catholics and Orthodox are in agreement which makes me doubt your conclusions.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West share Baptism as expressed through Apostolic Teaching. Some Protestants have views that are close and then there are those that deny Baptism has anything to do with being born again…The OHCAC accepts Baptism in the Trinity by those outside the Church proper and do not require re-baptism…on the other hand those that believe that the born again experience excludes Baptism leave the question open…as to how many times can you be born again?

Born Again, and Again, and …
How many times can one man find Jesus?

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/12/bishop_eddie_long_can_born_again_christians_be_born_yet_again_.html

Thoughts? Comments?

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

Born again and again and again: From a Southern Baptist standpoint; the true born again experience happens only once and Baptism follows. One’s sins are already forgiven before Baptism. If one falls away, one must repent and pray for forgiveness. Sometimes, a re-dedication to Christ before the congregation may be part of the process.

The reason Baptists are Baptized more than once is because they may decide at some point they weren’t really truly born again. One must be really, really, really sure; otherwise the “fire insurance” might not be in place.

Peace,
Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Through Baptism the Holy Spirit works to create or strengthen faith and brings the gifts of forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation (Titus 3:4-7, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38-39). being born again means to be baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. You use the term Protestant as if we all believed the same thing. You also seem to think that Catholics and Orthodox are in agreement which makes me doubt your conclusions.

J,

I agree that Protestant is a broad term. Some Anglicans do not see themselves as Protestant as you know. It is unfortunate that to suggest that something that is Protestant and inclusive actually defines only a portion of Protestant thought. I suppose for accuracy it should be stated that some Protestants have a Sacramental paradigm and thus there may be said that there are Sacramental and non-Sacramental Protestants.

I think and believe that the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and the OHCAC share a sacramental life that may be understood and spoken of differently however validly in my opinion based on Apostolic Tradition. I understand that there are Anglicans that would dispute who has Apostolic Tradition and certainly that would be a cause for discussion on another thread.

If my recollection serves me there is a thread that concerns the loss of Apostolic Tradition in the Anglican Community found here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=665531

 

[fbl9]

For those confused about bearing more fruit, through pruning, please see John 15:2, that is if they are not already a branch severed.

No need to ask how pruning Jesus yields more fruit. Jesus is not pruned.

A Catholic who thinks him/herself never mistaken is mistaken, and usually when believing he/she knows how non-Catholics think.

That some Christians choke on the idea that they are mistaken, as you say, is not to deny sympathy for Catholics.

Sexual misdeeds of your kind ?

Shameful statement, for any Christian, even a novice Catholic.

Your kind: as in those that beleive as you do, which is a very large and diverse group.
double shame on you, resorting to name calling.

You guys are such a disjointed group, that, unless an individual tells their beleifs outright all one can do is guess as to what this individual professes.

What would a catholic need sympathy for
Well i guess if you feel sorry for us when we put up will the likes of your thinking.

 

[fbl9]

At the core of your question is why there is disunity and what is the authority of the Church.

In order to understand it requires an historical theological retrospective.

In order for Luther to justify denying established dogma and beginning a new religion he needed to appeal to some authority. He could not appeal to the constant teaching of the Church, the authority of the Church that he disagreed with, so he came up with his scripture alone doctrine.

He could not claim he was the authority, which in practice he was, because no one would listen. So he appealed to the Bible, his interpretation of it.

Once this error took root it justified many other individuals to begin one denomination after another, each with its Bible based doctrines. It was kind of a cascading effect with doctrinal postions growing further and further from truth, wierder and wierder.

The other fallout from his false doctrine is that there is never any settled matter. Anything can be called into question no matter how long the Church believed it. I know a man who says he is a bishop of a church. Their women are not allowed to ever cut their hair. They will not go to the doctor or dentist. They let their children die rather than get treatment.

The fact that this resulted in some Christians denying the sacraments is not at all surprising. The confusion and absurdity has become so great that the Anglicans who claim belief in the sacraments believe men can marry one another.

When the branch is cut off from the vine it dies.

hey this was supposed to be deleted see later post.

 

[Anna_Scott]

J,

I agree that Protestant is a broad term. Some Anglicans do not see themselves as Protestant as you know. It is unfortunate that to suggest that something that is Protestant and inclusive actually defines only a portion of Protestant thought. I suppose for accuracy it should be stated that some Protestants have a Sacramental paradigm and thus there may be said that there are Sacramental and non-Sacramental Protestants.

Thank you Coptic.

As an Anglo Catholic, I do not call myself Protestant. I believe in the Sacraments and the Graces they impart. My view of salvation is almost identical to yours.

Ironically, I found the Sacraments in Scripture, then discovered Tradition, then left the Southern Baptist Church. I’m only one stop away from the CC.

Anna

P.S. Not all Anglicans believe in same sex marriage or the ordination of those of same sex affection (who have not taken a vow of celibacy.)