S
StrawberryJam
Guest
What micacles are in that book?
- Status
L
ltwin
Guest
Read the book for yourself. They wont be hard to find. I don’t have the time or the luxury to catalog for you all the miracles in the Bible. You can start with the Gospels and read through Acts.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Read it. Show me what you see are miracles in it. I don’t see what you are seeing. However, I am very open to hearing all about these so called miracles.
Edit to add, is your bible a shorter version than the ones catholics use?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
It would appear to me that somehow the focus has changed from the original post. The question was as to what a born again Christian was and the most recent posts have diverged into other than that question. It appears to me that many opinions have been generated that have shed light on the question. It would be my hope that this question has been dialogued to the hilt. I will check in from time to time to see if I can add anything. I find the present trend concerning other than the original question. I joined a dialogue about born again christians. Charism, miracles, judgements, opinions about other than the original post are uninteresting and not productive for me. This has been an instructive and fruitul experience for two way and one way dialogue as I experienced it.
L
ltwin
Guest
Jesus gave sight to the blind, walked on water, turned water into wine, raised the dead, etc. The greatest miracle of all was that He died on the cross and shed His blood for all humanity so that our sins can be forgiven and we can share in abundant and eternal life with Him. If you don’t believe those are miracles, then either you don’t know what a miracle is or you have a really exciting and amazing life.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
In keeping with the born again topic, do you feel that Jesus requires one to have faith because of these miracles?
L
ltwin
Guest
You’re right. It has gotten off track. To me and I think other evangelicals the simplest definition would be someone whose life has been completely and utterly transformed by Christ so that the person is a new creation. I do believe that backsliding is possible. There is still a need to ask for forgiveness and to repent. Repentance never ends. It must be continual because we all sin and fall short of the glory of God even if we’ve been born again.
I think what confuses evangelicals about Catholics is that it seems like baptism is seen as how one is born again. We’re not comfortable with that. It seems so artificial and mechanical. I don’t mean to offend. I do believe their are many born again Catholics, and there are many who attend evangelical churches who are not born again. For evangelicals it is your response to Christ. It doesn’t matter if you label yourself as Catholic or Protestant or “born again”. What matters is how have you responded to Christ’s free offer of forgiveness and grace. I think evangelicals are just at a loss at to how to talk to Catholics and understand their faith walk and how they conceive being born again. So if a Catholic would like to comment on that I’d love to be enlightened and grow in my understanding.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
What you are saying is that you are applying your definition to others as am I. The historicity of those definitions is open to discussion. I have declared what I believe as taught by my Church, that I believe to be the Church Christ founded. What we have here is a failure to communicate.
L
ltwin
Guest
I’m just curious about Catholic beliefs. Let me lay this out, and where I’m wrong please tell me. Catholics believe that when one is baptized, that one is born again. And that this person is in the Church. So if a person is a baptized and confirmed but non-praciticing Catholic and he dies, would he (theoretically) go to hell or spend time in purgatory and then go to heaven. I know only God knows what the final destination of any person is. However, this is the only way I can think of to ask this question. What does baptism actually do and what does the person have to do themselves.
I’m trying to understand this in light of these comments:
R
rinnie
Guest
And I also missed the scripture that said the WHOLE body must be dunked in the water,
R
rinnie
Guest
You are wrong. You did want to be told the truth and there you have it. When a baby is baptised into the Catholic CHurch it has GOD parents. Thier promise to God and the Church is that if the Parents cannot raise the child in the faith they will do so.
IF that person is baptised, confirmed and refused to live out his or her faith that is for God to say rather they can be deemed for heaven or hell.
Purgatory means they have been accepted into heaven from God but must be purfied to be made clean for heaven as the bible states. I have no idea what you are talking about.
What Baptism does and if you read the Old Test. you will see that even Abraham and the others were awaiting a Savior someone perfect to clean us from all of orignial sin. Abraham is proof this could not be done because although he was a Good and faithful man he was also born into original sin as the rest of us.
TO make a long story short he had to be free from this sin also and was awaiting a Savior. That is why he was held in hades and awaiting for Jesus to save him and all that were deemed suitable for heaven.
If you read your bible this would be quite clear to you, that after the death of Christ on the Cross he opened up heaven and the souls were released. They were released from Original sin made posssible by Christ ,
That is why when we are baptised we are also realeased from Original sin at baptism. Its really quite clear in scripture.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
You have 3 separate conditions operating in your question. In my opinion it is best to formulate a question, get the answer and then formulate another. It is my opinion this is the best way to get information that is truly useful.
I perceive that your question has less to do with baptism and being born again than another issue. You ask about baptism, born again. You then add confirmation. You note Church membership. You then mention purgatory and heaven.
It would serve you to look on this site about Baptism, Purgatory and Confirmation. You should educate yourself about all of these issues concerning Catholic beliefs. This will clear your mind and answer some of your questions.
Your intention appears to be based on Salvation assured or Salvation preserved or Salvation lost.
Salvation assured in this century is a Protestant invention. I suggest that is based on the denial of Church authority, denial of sacramental grace. In order for knowledgeable Catholics like Knox, Zwingli, Luther to create a system of thought that preculded any association from the Church they knew that the Church taught and still teaches grace, salvation, perseverance and purgatory. Inventing Faith, salvation, no loss of salvation or need for sacramental grace they could dismiss the notion of need to be part of a Sacramental Church.
With this in mind The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church does not teach salvation assured. Paul makes that clear and the Church echoes the writings of Paul and others that Baptism is being born again and a means of grace, the gifts of Faith, Hope and Charity. Confirmation is a growing up spiritually with gifts of the Holy Spirit. Children need to grow up and adults need to act like adults. There is no assurance of salvation in sin. Purgatory is not a second chance.
I went to college and many of my professors would answer my questions with, well you have some education in this, you have access to the library, why not tell us tommorrow what you discover. That is learning. I suggest you realize that you are CA website, their is a wealth of information under the Faith tab, the Catechism can be accessed easily enough. The questions you ask are good however I suggest you be more explicit and anticipate direction to an answer. That would be the sign of sincere interest in my opinion.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
I was interested in your commentary of my posting. It would appear to me that you have the same opinion as I do.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8245574#post8245574
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8245372#post8245372
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8245210#post8245210
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8245095#post8245095
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8222304#post8222304
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8219100#post8219100
We say the same things as I review your past comments. Your posts concerning my posts were difficult to discern as to what you were trying to say to me. You say that evangelicals embrace heresy, it is another gospel, it is separate and it appears that I just did not understand what you were trying to say to me in my posts. I see that I was confused and now I have clarity.
R
rinnie
Guest
You are correct my sheep will know my voice. And what did Jesus say to Peter 3 times. Peter FEED my Sheep,
Jesus left us a human leader to feed his sheep. Jesus did not leave his sheep alone to wander out and find the truth within themself.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
I agree with you and appreciate your insight. Be aware that Greg Laurie and other Protestants use this same verse to evangelize as well. The Sheep hear, the word is preached, the sheep hear, they say a prayer and are saved.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, John 10:27
14How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed?** How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard**? And how will they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:14
But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; Romans 10:8-9
This is basically my understanding of the Scriptural support for this Protestant practice. I have heard Matt Slick say, convince them of their sin, bring them to the knowledge of their inadequacy and the righteousness of Christ, and have them accept Jesus.
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
I have met Christians who disagree with me on different parts of the Bible but neither of us had to take our disagreements to the point of accusing each other of “not believing in the reliability of the Bible”. It’s very possible for two bright, reasonable people to read the same verse and come out with different interpretations. They both believe in the reliability of the Bible, and would tell you so, IF you’d listen.You missed the entire point I was making. If someone cannot respect what the Bible says about homosexuality, that it is sin, and instead decides to call it something holy, which some churches are doing now, then there is nothing stopping someone from discounting the miraculous in the Bible. ***<—Guess what? I’ve had those conversations with the gay-gospel types and I know it’s not MAKING THEM or CAUSING THEM to discount the miraculous either. ***
If someone does not believe that the creation account of Adam and Eve was a historical event or that Joshua and the battle of Jericho happened just as the Bible describes, then there is nothing stopping them from believing that the miracles of Jesus are not real but metaphorical. ***<—Guess what? Same as above……I’ve met those who don’t believe the literal creation account and they’re STILL not discounting the miracles of Christ either. *** That was the point I was making.
I’ve yet to meet anyone who calls themselves Christian and discounts the miracles of Christ. I’m sure those folk exist, but this is kind of like your “so many Christians are nominal” schtick…being much more grounded in your judgment than in everyday reality. The truth is that “so many” Christians are much more qualified to speak for the quality of their faith, than you are to speak about “so many” other people.***
Both of these were mentioned in response to you asserting that there was no reason for “Full Gospel” churches to distinguish themselves from other Christians, because other Christians still believe in miracles, etc. What I’m telling you is that there are Christians who don’t believe in the reliability of the Bible, ***<–Well…… hhate to keep reminding you of the same thing…but I haven’t met any of those either. ***much less current or biblical miracles.
L
ltwin
Guest
Who might have made such a statement? One might think a secular scholar of religion. On the contrary, this statement was made by John Shelby Spong, the retired Episcopal Bishop of Newark. He tells you he doesn’t believe in the reliability of the Bible. And he is not alone. This type of thinking is everywhere within the upper levels of mainline Protestant denominations. The quote is taken from an essay on his website titled “Jesus for the Non-Religious”.
This will be my last comment on this issue since it really is off topic to the purpose of this thread. I just hope you see that I’m not making things up out of thin air. There really are people claiming to be Christians who do not believe the Bible is reliable.
L
ltwin
Guest
You are correct. That is the scriptural support. It describes the purpose of preaching (so the lost might hear the word and believe) and the altar call or other form of response (so that those who have heard and believe can confess what they now believe).
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Here is the problem I have with that. Romans 10-14 is used in anticipation of Romans 10-9, in other words that was not the way it was written. The other problem is that the letter to the Romans was written to Christians
Paul is quoting Moses and continues that dialogue until he gets to Romans 11 and asks this question
Referring to the dialogue that commenced with
The question is then who is “they” he is talking about, because all that follows applies to “they did not know” and “they did not subject themselves”. This is where these words that are used for the formula are directed.
The letter was not written as a way to convert Greeks, barbarians or Gentiles as Paul then says who they are that these words were written to.
This is why I find this Scripture ensemble difficult to swallow as a formula for conversion.
L
ltwin
Guest
I’ll have to look at that passage of scripture closer before I can see what you are talking about.
I just thought to add another verse which is quoted for more on the subject of salvation than any other I’ve heard in evangelical churches. That is John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Verse 17 and 18 continue, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
And of course, verses 1-15 of that chapter recounts Jesus meeting with Nicodemus where Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
I have read an author explain this passage in the following way. The Greek word kai can be translated as “and so, that is, namely” so that the verse in question could be “Except one be born of water, that is, of the Spirit … ” Then uses John 7:37-3937 to explain what the connection with water and the Spirit is, “On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
I’m not trying to convince anyone, just giving one explanation of how this passage is explained by an evangelical that I’ve read.
I just thought to add another verse which is quoted for more on the subject of salvation than any other I’ve heard in evangelical churches. That is John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Verse 17 and 18 continue, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
And of course, verses 1-15 of that chapter recounts Jesus meeting with Nicodemus where Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
I have read an author explain this passage in the following way. The Greek word kai can be translated as “and so, that is, namely” so that the verse in question could be “Except one be born of water, that is, of the Spirit … ” Then uses John 7:37-3937 to explain what the connection with water and the Spirit is, “On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
I’m not trying to convince anyone, just giving one explanation of how this passage is explained by an evangelical that I’ve read.
- Status