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

[guanophore]

Most the Congregation believed you could walk away from Salvation, which meant, by your Actions (denied works of course) or one could lose faith (Apostacy) or by your works it shows that you have lost faith Each group all held to the notion that the Holy Spirit was Removed from them, Left them, or they Lost the Holy Spirit

Many people intuitively know that the nature of sin has not changed “this side of the cross”. Sin separates people from God, whether they are "saved’ or not. I have had Reformed members tell me that sin can no longer separate believers from God, like the analagy you give of the walls of the boat being too high. They say that we cannot be separated from the love of God, and that nothing can snatch us out of his hand. This is because they deny the doctrine of free will, and that God never takes away the ability He has given us to JUMP out of His hand!

They also confuse the love of God with salvation. Jesus loves all He created, whether they are dead in their sins, or not. While we were yet sinners, He died for us. He will allow a human being that He loves to walk away from Him. He may even weep over the separation. Though we cannot be separated from His Love, we can certainly be separated from the Kingdom.

He said that, we were NOT called to be judges, but we were called to be fruit inspectors!

Interesting.

John 7:24
Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."

Is a fruit inspector one of the offices of the Church that I missed somehow? Let me see…Bishop, Presbyter, Deacon, Teacher, Pastor…it must be in there somewhere. What verse is that?

…questions his own salvation, every time he falls into “serious sin”

I think people intuitively know that serious sin separates us from the Life of God. These people would deny the sacrament of reconciliation, and the concept of mortal sin, but their conscience affirms them.

Funny,** they would never use the term I got born again, again.**

Such perspectives emanate from a deficient theology. As Nicodemus observed, it is a “one time” event. A person cannot re-enter his mother’s womb again, and a person cannot become “unborn” spiritually either. One can lose their birthright, and flee from the House into which they were born, as the prodigal son did, but they cannot undo an eternal event that has occurred.

… with Shane Claiborne, but years ago I listened to him talk, jokingly, about how he got born again, and again, and again, and again, every year at a revival camp through baptism!

It is a testimony to the felt sense of people that they need post baptismal cleansing and renewal. We continually need to be washed, and people know this in their hearts, though they may deny it with their doctrine.

I thank God for a sacramental economy

Indeed, He has provided all things needful for our salvation through His One Body, the Church.

They would say look at the people, they go to the Catholic Church on sunday, and live like the devil on monday!

Yes, this is why I left as well. Instead of looking to Jesus, and understanding the Church as a hospital for sinners, rather than a museum for saints, I looked at the people and found them lacking. Only it did not wait until Monday! They started cussing and yelling at one another as soon as they started to exit from that cramped matchbox parking lot!

To be good fruitbearing witnesses is the best way that Catholics can fight heresy.

 

[couponfit]

As to the last question is not Jesus who finds us time after time again?

Jesus never leaves us. It is us who close our hearts and minds to his presence.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Coptic,

I get it. Probably protestant baptism is derived in a similar manner but not the same as Catholic. So the premise stands. There were various opinions in the nt. Peace, JohnR

John,

Would you clarify your statement above? Are you claiming these “various opinions,” regarding Baptism, recorded in the New Testament were contradictory?

Peace,
Anna

P.S. I just edited to add your post. I missed this post which answers my question. You are claiming seven separate strains of christianity in the NT. That explains some things about your posts.

coptic,

Raymond Brown lists them in his books. Here is how he sums up the circumstances.

“As I mentioned they had baptism and the eucharist(NT times). Yet our theology
of baptism and our theologyof the eucharist would be a composite of ideas that
might have been quite separate in New Testament times,in the sense that no
one given community would have had all those ideas. The early Christians would
havehad different forms of church leadership, which were developing rapidly
toward the end of the first century.”
Raymond Brown, Q 101, questions and Answers on the Bible. P 135 Imprimature

He counts at least seven separate strains of christianity in the NT. Get one of his books for furher explanation. Peace, JohnR

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,

I get it. Probably protestant baptism is derived in a similar manner but not the same as Catholic. So the premise stands. There were various opinions in the nt. Peace, JohnR

High,

How can you derive a practice in a similar way since you have 1500 years to account for prior to believing that there is anyone on earth to derive that practice from that differs from what was practiced other than the innovation of the Baptists and Anabaptists.

 

[johnnyjones]

Born once of the flesh, born once of the spirit, born once of water. Become born of water again if you were baptised in another church (besides Angligan) if you require a Catholic baptism. Spirit gives birth to spirit, “I am with you always” and the Holy Spirit is continually with you, excpt if you blaspheme against him (the unpardonable sin).

 

[guanophore]

coptic,

Jesus was the one who invented the expression “born again.” Dont you realize that?

For us, infant baptism simply means we accept the child into the church as part of Gods Kingdom. Jesus said “Let the children come. They are of the Kingdom.” We do not consider it some kind of vaccination. It is the acknowledgement of the church of a new partner in Christ. Peace, JohnR

This is certainly true, since Baptism unites the soul with Christ, and therefore, those who are baptized are brought into His One Body, the Church. I think you may deny the spiritual status of the baptized infant because you are coming from a religious tradition that has departed to some extent from the faith of the Apostles. Baptism changes the recipient - it is regenerative. There is no better vaccination against sin than the life of the HS in the soul.

 

[guanophore]

 Born of the spirit means being physically born by a God who gives life through his breath.

Born of water means the sprinkling of God giving the Spirit of God to the person. Peace, JohnR

The Apostles did not separate these from one another. Neither did they separate these from the spiritual effects of the baptism with water and Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

No. I believe you and other Protestants have given it a new meaning.

That was the point of the Reformation- to redefine the doctrines so that they were more functional to the people.

 

[IanGE]

I cannot help comparing Born Again, ie the Baptism of the Spirit, with the Baptism of Water. When Constantine made Christianity the religion of Rome, many returned to the fold claiming they were baptised Christians all along, but simply kept their heads down during the persecution. Others, like Bishop Eusebius, claimed that those people had denied Jesus, a terrible sin. It was believed that baptism cleansed a person of sin: but what about sins committed AFTER baptism? Some considered them unpardonable, others postulated a second baptism. The Council at Nicaea was set up to decide this “sin/baptism” question - along with the Arian heresy (who was Jesus? When did He become Son of God?). Hence the Nicene creed, Jesus is “homoousios” (of the same substance) as God. And “ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. I believe that once baptised (in water and/or the Spirit, the job’s done for life: you may back off but the Lord has you in the palm of His loving hand!.
My eldest daughter is now a Methodist Minister; I remind her she was baptised Catholic and she can’t duck and weave out of that. She responds that she was baptised a CHRISTIAN and that Jesus said “wherever two or more are gathered IN MY NAME, there also I AM!”
All Catholics are chuffed if their son becomes a priest or their daughter becomes a nun. But my DAUGHTER is a Priest? Yes, Lord, with You all things are possible!

 

[IanGE]

It seems I cannot edit my post so I shall add a PS: In Acts 10:44-48, Peter is called to speak of Jesus in the house of Cornelius, a gentile. While he was still speaking the Holy Spirit came on all who heard his words (for they began speaking in Tongues and Praising God). So Peter orders that they be baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ.
Confirmation BEFORE baptism? Aye, with God ALL things are possible!

 

[IanGE]

The Apostles did not separate these from one another. Neither did they separate these from the spiritual effects of the baptism with water and Spirit.

Sorry, G: read my response and Acts of the Apostles 10:44 to 48. Pax!

 

[DaniMetzinger]

Before I converted to Catholicism the church I went to used Baptism as a sort of reconciliation. I never approved of this and it is one of the reasons I became Catholic. One of the many many reasons. Am I wrong in thinking that Baptism is ment for original sin. That is why we baptise our babies. Even if Baptism wipes away sin accumulated it shouldn’t be used in that way. That is what the rite of reconciliation is for.

 

[johnnyjones]

I cannot help comparing Born Again, ie the Baptism of the Spirit, with the Baptism of Water. When Constantine made Christianity the religion of Rome, many returned to the fold claiming they were baptised Christians all along, but simply kept their heads down during the persecution. Others, like Bishop Eusebius, claimed that those people had denied Jesus, a terrible sin. It was believed that baptism cleansed a person of sin: but what about sins committed AFTER baptism? Some considered them unpardonable, others postulated a second baptism. The Council at Nicaea was set up to decide this “sin/baptism” question - along with the Arian heresy (who was Jesus? When did He become Son of God?). Hence the Nicene creed, Jesus is “homoousios” (of the same substance) as God. And “ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. I believe that once baptised (in water and/or the Spirit, the job’s done for life: you may back off but the Lord has you in the palm of His loving hand!.
My eldest daughter is now a Methodist Minister; I remind her she was baptised Catholic and she can’t duck and weave out of that. She responds that she was baptised a CHRISTIAN and that Jesus said “wherever two or more are gathered IN MY NAME, there also I AM!”
All Catholics are chuffed if their son becomes a priest or their daughter becomes a nun. But my DAUGHTER is a Priest? Yes, Lord, with You all things are possible!

John 3:5, unless one is born of water and the Spirit. The question is, is baptism a re-born experience. In Acts 1:5 we are told John baptized with water, but “in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”. So the question becomes at infant baptism do we experience both water and Spirit. I don’t see anything stopping the Spirit from being present at water baptism because the Spirit has now come that Jesus sent.

But, although you receive water and the Spirit at birth, as you live your life do you remain with the Spirit? One could say the Spirit never leaves you, but an argument could be made that you leave the Spirit. So, being born of the Spirit in a separate occurrence would seem in our a current age a re-uniting with the faith. I will have to look into if, as Catholics, the Spirit can not leave us from baptism.

To my knowledge, besides the actual verse in scripture, Catholics never used the term “born again” as standard vernacular ,but that doesn’t mean the concept is not real at infant baptism. “You MUST be born again” are strong words from Jesus. Many people were baptized by Paul and others and some had to be infants in the family, especially if we apply this to an on going act. I read that in either the Christian catacombs or elsewhere infant baptism was written down. I would like to further investigate that.

 

[grandfather]

grandfather,

I appreciate your taking the time to write these two posts on my behalf. It was a kind and gentle way of expressing your thoughts.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Then there is no reason to change anything. If the shoe fits wear it.

Anglicanism, the Church of England, is already ended in the sense that the religion of the majority of its members and leaders bears no resemblance to the religion as it was founded on Christian precepts and morals. Other than in pockets here and there it is nothing more than grand trappings with vestiges of ceremony and symbols.

Not only must Catholics agree with the pope on matters of faith and morals, but they have to agree with all popes. Indeed the Church in every age is beset with problems. Anyone who does not accept the doctrines of any religion should not belong to it.

I realize this is off topic, but I wanted to respond to you personally. I tried to send you a PM.

Blessings,
gf

GF,

If you want to voice your views about Anglicanism, there is an open thread entitled, “Can Anyone Explain the Episcopal View on Abortion?” Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=669214

Anna

 

[IanGE]

John 3:5,
But, although you receive water and the Spirit at birth, as you live your life do you remain with the Spirit? One could say the Spirit never leaves you, but an argument could be made that you leave the Spirit. So, being born of the Spirit in a separate occurrence would seem in our a current age a re-uniting with the faith. I will have to look into if, as Catholics, the Spirit can not leave us from baptism.

QUOTE]
I agree, Johnny: we were baptised “in the Name of the Father, the Son AND THE HOLY SPIRIT” (in my case, in 1936, He was still called the Holy GHOST!). But we have another Sacrament, Confirmation, which is supposed to be when the Holy Spirit is slapped into us. Or maybe the Holy Spirit is re-awakened in us. I was 7 years old when I was confirmed but nothing happened. Yet at “Born Again” Baptisms of the Spirit wondrous actions are wirnessed (and experienced by the Born Againee. I began to speak in Tongues, not knowing what had happened except that the strange sounds emitted by me were accompanied by intense joy. Everyone watching was also affected and they were dancing around, “praise God, praise God, he’s been given the Gift of Tongues!” “What’s that?” I asked, in mid-Tongues. “Never mind, Ian, enjoy it, we’ll explain later.”
It was a Born-again Catholic priest who “laid hands” on me (I was so ultra-Catholic that I would not let a Non-Catholic touch me!). I am puzzled - and pained - that this basic gift of the Spirit is not seen and heard in the Churches. Does this mean that only Born Again people can initiate the Baptism of the Spirit ( as I have seen and personally initiated myself)? Whatever, it does not decry or dismiss the baptism of water, but I yearn to see my fellow Catholics take the simple step of asking Jesus into their lives and experience a new, vibrant, glorious faith.
As to Born again, again, again, I am positive that the Holy Spirit, Jesus and the Father don’t leave us. In Born Again circles a person may “slip” but no further action is required from him/her than to say “Sorry Dad”, return to Church or prayer group to FEEL the welcoming warmth of all the angels in Heaven rejoicing.

 

[johnnyjones]

johnnyjones;9238142:

John 3:5,
But, although you receive water and the Spirit at birth, as you live your life do you remain with the Spirit? One could say the Spirit never leaves you, but an argument could be made that you leave the Spirit. So, being born of the Spirit in a separate occurrence would seem in our a current age a re-uniting with the faith. I will have to look into if, as Catholics, the Spirit can not leave us from baptism.

QUOTE]
I agree, Johnny: we were baptised “in the Name of the Father, the Son AND THE HOLY SPIRIT” (in my case, in 1936, He was still called the Holy GHOST!). But we have another Sacrament, Confirmation, which is supposed to be when the Holy Spirit is slapped into us. Or maybe the Holy Spirit is re-awakened in us. I was 7 years old when I was confirmed but nothing happened. Yet at “Born Again” Baptisms of the Spirit wondrous actions are wirnessed (and experienced by the Born Againee. I began to speak in Tongues, not knowing what had happened except that the strange sounds emitted by me were accompanied by intense joy. Everyone watching was also affected and they were dancing around, “praise God, praise God, he’s been given the Gift of Tongues!” “What’s that?” I asked, in mid-Tongues. “Never mind, Ian, enjoy it, we’ll explain later.”
It was a Born-again Catholic priest who “laid hands” on me (I was so ultra-Catholic that I would not let a Non-Catholic touch me!). I am puzzled - and pained - that this basic gift of the Spirit is not seen and heard in the Churches. Does this mean that only Born Again people can initiate the Baptism of the Spirit ( as I have seen and personally initiated myself)? Whatever, it does not decry or dismiss the baptism of water, but I yearn to see my fellow Catholics take the simple step of asking Jesus into their lives and experience a new, vibrant, glorious faith.
As to Born again, again, again, I am positive that the Holy Spirit, Jesus and the Father don’t leave us. In Born Again circles a person may “slip” but no further action is required from him/her than to say “Sorry Dad”, return to Church or prayer group to FEEL the welcoming warmth of all the angels in Heaven rejoicing.

Once your baptized (Catholic) that’s it, your original sin has been removed. You can’t walk away from the removal of original sin after this occurrence. If you receive the Holy Spirit at baptizm and/or confirmation but then enter into a Godless life later on some feel they need an experiential “born again” experience to reunite with God and the faith.

Whether this “feeling” that you need to be born again is genuine or just a buyproduct of guilt I am not certain. I can see one being born again at infant baptism in Catholicism because of the act of water and the Spirit (being present). Confirmation is a confirming of that experience, but I could be wrong.

 

[kentuckyliz]

I am sad because a friend got rebaptized this weekend. It’s like she wasn’t confident that God got it right the first time, in making her his daughter. Those people have chipped away at her faith and made her insecure. She doesn’t believe in rebaptism but did it anyway to make her boyfriend happy, and those people are now lovebombing her. It’s a sick game if you ask me.

A baptism that doesn’t have God’s power in it, that is just a sign for the community, is the emptiest of rituals, and less powerful than the circumcision it was supposed to surpass.



I guess she must really love him to be willing to do this.

 

[submariner2]

There is a tendency here on CAF to try to generalize abour Protestants. Not possible.

Protestants come in a wide variety of beliefs, liturgies and ethnical understandings. There are very liberal and very conservative Protestants on questions of doctrine,, very liturgical Protestants and very nonliturgical Protestants, very strict Protestants when it comes to say, drinking or gambling, and very permissive Protestants. 

 To many this is the weakness of Protestantism. To many Protestants, it means freedom from being told precisely what to believe, precisely how to worship, and precisely what lifestyle to follow. Herein is the liberty that most Protestants celebrate,

Roy,

But almost all protestants take the principles of the Reformation as their guide to theology. Certainly all mainstream protestants do that. And all that I am aware of believe that the act of baptism by itself has no effect without faith.

Rob

 

[Roy5]

When I recall that such people as Hitler and Mussolini, most Mafia members, the Grand Inquisitor and his colleagues, etc., were baptized Catholic I myself have to wonder what baptism does to people apart from a faith that instills in them respect for the lives of others. The act itself certainly doesn’t appear to mark them as responsible and faithful disciples.