Born Again Christians

[ChristianWAB]

scylla:

ChristianWAB, I am not sure you know how offensive that last post was, as it directly attacks the belief of most of Christianity in the Eucharist. If you are going to make a comment like that, cite some credible evidence. If you would like to discuss the belief in the Eucharist, by Christianity that includes ancient Churches, Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other Christians we can start a thread on that but please realize this is a deeply held belief that we can explain and back up. So if you would like to discuss this, just copy these posts and start a new thread. You can illustrate how the early church was paganized and show early christian writings trying to defend symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. We can illustrate and defend the understanding of the faith we have recieved from the apostles.

Well, like I said earlier, everybody’s entitled to believe what they want. If you want to learn more about the practice of worshipping objects as gods, the libraries are packed with information and you’re free to do as much research as you’d like.

I’ve no doubt that the Vatican will provide you with an feasible answer that will alleviate any anxieties a Catholic may have with regards to the Eucharist. Though, to answer your question quickly (as I don’t want to veer off-course too much), Osiris was one of many ancient gods worshipped during Egyptian times. Known by many names and many symbols, Osiris was primarily referred to as the sun god… and discs, not unlike the size and consistency of a Eucharist wafer, were fashioned to represent him.

In much the same way as the Osiris god was worshipped through idols, the Eucharist “host” is placed in a device known as a Monstrance to be worshipped. Read your Catholic Catechism and even THAT will tell you that they believe that our Lord can be contained in that little wafer once a Priest works his Transubstantiation. This, even though we are taught that God doesn’t dwell in hand-made objects *(see Acts 17:23-25). *

Though not as widely used as they were a few years ago, Monstrances still exist and are still utilized. During Catholic parades, for example, you’ll usually see a wafer on display in a Monstrance, along with statues of Mary. And just to eschew unnecessary arguments, I’ve studied all of the reasons that the Vatican uses to justify their worship of the host, but no matter which way they choose to paint it, it’s idol worship and it’s a clear violation of God’s Commandment.

Again, if something offends you, well… that’s unfortunate. The breaking of bread in remembrance of Jesus is DEFINITELY Biblical. Worshipping a piece of bread as your god is not. As it stands, Transubstantiation wasn’t even decreed until 1215 by Pope Innocent III. I’d naturally wonder what people did for those first twelve hundred years if Transubstantiation hadn’t yet been invented. But this is one of the main reasons why Born-Again Christians trust the Bible.

If you wish to start separate threads to get more viewpoints, please feel free. I’d be only too happy to read what others have to say on the matter. Until then, take care and may God reveal His glorious truth to your heart. I wish you the best.

 

[ChristianWAB]

E.E.N.S.:

Interesting, so it wasn’t Jesus who gave us His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, but it was the Egyptions? I didn’t even know that they knew Him.

Either you have zero understanding of the Eucharist, or you are trying to…I don’t even know what.

Ridiculous.

Well, obviously the Egyptians neither called it the “Eucharist” nor were worshipping Jesus. You can be sarcastic if you choose, but if you insist on dealing in semantics, I’d ask but one question to you.

How many times does the word “Eucharist” appear in the Bible?

I’m sorry that you completely missed the point and I can only hope that you’ll refrain from using sarcasm in future posts.

 

[E.E.N.S]

ChristianWAB:

The breaking of bread in remembrance of Jesus is DEFINITELY Biblical. Worshipping a piece of bread as your god is not. As it stands, Transubstantiation wasn’t even decreed until 1215 by Pope Innocent III. I’d naturally wonder what people did for those first twelve hundred years if Transubstantiation hadn’t yet been invented.

St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius of Antioch were disciples of St. John and they definately believed in the True Pressence.

(Ignatius of Antioch)
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

(…as well as…)
(Justin Martyr)
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

 

[E.E.N.S]

ChristianWAB:

Well, obviously the Egyptians neither called it the “Eucharist” nor were worshipping Jesus. You can be sarcastic if you choose, but if you insist on dealing in semantics, I’d ask but one question to you.

How many times does the word “Eucharist” appear in the Bible?

I’m sorry that you completely missed the point and I can only hope that you’ll refrain from using sarcasm in future posts.

Euchariast is greek for “thanksgiving” which should be easy enough for you to find in the Bible.

 

[E.E.N.S]

If you’d like to get on the topic regarding the True Pressence in the Eucharist, go to this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=887118#post887118

 

[ChristianWAB]

E.E.N.S.:

Euchariast is greek for “thanksgiving” which should be easy enough for you to find in the Bible.

And Born-Again Christians gives thanks, too. That’s my whole point. There’s a way to break bread AND give thanks to the Lord without breaking the Second Commandment. My point in asking the “Eucharist” question was to illustrate what has been done to the words of our language.

The Catholic Church took a Greek word, CAPITALIZED the letter E and affixed a broader definition of just what “Eucharist” now entails. Because if a Sunday school teacher gave you a test and asked you what “Eucharist” means, answering with “To give thanks” wouldn’t quite cover it, would it?

It’s now no longer just giving thanks; it now involves a Priest, a process of transformation, a manifestation of Jesus in a wafer, etc, etc. Why we all can’t just break bread and give thanks to the Lord in remembrance of Jesus is beyond me.

I could ask virtually ANY Catholic to give up the Catholic Eucharist wafer and join me and fellow Born-Again Christians to break bread, drink wine in remembrance of Jesus as stated in Scripture and we’d be fulfilling Jesus’ request. Yet, would it surprise you to know that the vast majority of Catholics wouldn’t give up the wafer? They’d feel like something was missing, wouldn’t they?

Thinking about semantics, I remember that, once upon a time, the word “catholic” meant universal. That was before Rome put a capital “C” on the word. Now, the word “Catholic” has a MUCH, MUCH broader definition. Might seem innocuous until they throw a funny little syllogism at you:

a.) Catholic means Universal
b.) We’re the Catholic church
so…
c.) If you’re not part of the Catholic church, you’re not in the universal church of Christ.

If you want to post a reply, that’s cool. I have to go to work though, so you get to have the last word. lol

God bless you. May we all receive God’s wonderful mercy and forgiveness.

 

[E.E.N.S]

ChristianWAB:

And Born-Again Christians gives thanks, too. That’s my whole point. There’s a way to break bread AND give thanks to the Lord without breaking the Second Commandment. My point in asking the “Eucharist” question was to illustrate what has been done to the words of our language.

The Catholic Church took a Greek word, CAPITALIZED the letter E and affixed a broader definition of just what “Eucharist” now entails. Because if a Sunday school teacher gave you a test and asked you what “Eucharist” means, answering with “To give thanks” wouldn’t quite cover it, would it?

It’s now no longer just giving thanks; it now involves a Priest, a process of transformation, a manifestation of Jesus in a wafer, etc, etc. Why we all can’t just break bread and give thanks to the Lord in remembrance of Jesus is beyond me.

I could ask virtually ANY Catholic to give up the Catholic Eucharist wafer and join me and fellow Born-Again Christians to break bread, drink wine in remembrance of Jesus as stated in Scripture and we’d be fulfilling Jesus’ request. Yet, would it surprise you to know that the vast majority of Catholics wouldn’t give up the wafer? They’d feel like something was missing, wouldn’t they?

Thinking about semantics, I remember that, once upon a time, the word “catholic” meant universal. That was before Rome put a capital “C” on the word. Now, the word “Catholic” has a MUCH, MUCH broader definition. Might seem innocuous until they throw a funny little syllogism at you:

a.) Catholic means Universal
b.) We’re the Catholic church
so…
c.) If you’re not part of the Catholic church, you’re not in the universal church of Christ.

If you want to post a reply, that’s cool. I have to go to work though, so you get to have the last word. lol

God bless you. May we all receive God’s wonderful mercy and forgiveness.

I don’t want the last word, but I would like to switch to another thread for this [as to not completely hijack this one], but you sound somewhat like I used to (about 6 years ago before I converted), and there are quite a few misconceptions you have with regards to the Eucharist, the Catholic Church, and why things are the way they are (though you seem to be an intellegent person)…but this is for another thread. I think instead of starting with the Eucharist, maybe we should start from the beginning and discuss a more fundamental topic…join me?

PM me when you get back from work if you’d like.

 

[Matt14]

thistle:

I’m curious what Born Again Christians mean by being “born again”. As a Catholic I know we are only born twice. First time is our physical birth and then when we are baptised we are “born again” in Christ. This is also what Jesus tells to Nicodemus in John 3.
Are Born Again Christians saying they believe in a third birth and if so, what and how do they arrive at this view?

Commenting on the original post, I am not a catholic, but I believe being “born again” is the New Birth of John 3:3-5.

A Christian is not a child of God until he or she has been buried with Christ in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life, Romans 6:3,4.

 

[Matt14]

Oh, and I don’t believe the Bible teaches OSAS either.

 

[sara888]

****Matt said:
Oh, and I don’t believe the Bible teaches OSAS either.

**Good for you Matt.! Because the bible does not teach such distorted and flawed doctrine.

Sara******

 

[TNT]

Matt14:

Commenting on the original post, I am not a catholic, but I believe being “born again” is the New Birth of John 3:3-5.

A Christian is not a child of God until he or she has been buried with Christ in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life, Romans 6:3,4.

AHHH, Straighten me out here.

** A Christian is not a child of God until he or she has been buried with Christ in baptism
**

How about 3yr olds or the mentally retarded? Are they an exception? How, exactly does that work?

 

[pnewton]

ChristianWAB:

The drawback to that concept is that it goes against passages like John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5 which tell us that salvation is by faith alone.

Titus 3:5 - not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us* through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit,** *

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave 7 his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.

Since you quoted these as if they proved your statement, I thought I would post them so that others can see that “faith alone” does not appear in these verses.

 

[Matt14]

TNT:

AHHH, Straighten me out here.

How about 3yr olds or the mentally retarded? Are they an exception? How, exactly does that work?

Do you believe a three-year-old, or the mentally retarded, sin?

 

[scylla]

To help clear things up here, regarding people mentally incapable of making their own decisions,
Catholics do not believe they sin, but as Jesus commanded we would baptize them. Since Catholics do believe in salvation by Gods Grace(not saying you don’t) we illustrate that by baptizing infants, people who can’t speak for themselves, mentally retarded, etc…
It took us a while of looking into it to actually baptize our kids since we were studying our way back to the Catholic faith.
They were baptized at 5 and 3 years old. I wanted to give them that gift of baptism, interestingly enough in our old church Calvary Chapel, they have replaced baptism of children with something called dedication.
This is part of their faith tradition now, based off of Jesus’s circumcision at the temple.
I was baptized as an infant as a Catholic, I fell away from the faith (I never really knew my faith) and have come back to the faith.
I did attend a non-denominational church, (Chuck Smith) and a four square church.
My brother was baptized as an infant also, he fell away and has joined another Church (maybe a Born Again Christian) of the Rod Parsley faith tradition, they believe in re-baptizing and he was baptized again.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[TNT]

Matt14:

Do you believe a three-year-old, or the mentally retarded, sin?

Come now, that is not an answere is it?
I specifically quoted what you said, again:
** A Christian is not a child of God until he or she has been buried with Christ in baptism

Which I did not argue against.

But, then I asked if this apparently universal rule of faith applied to a 3yr old or mentally retarted?

You had given a universal requirement to be a child of God. I simply asked if this universal requirement applied to these instances.

Now, would you approach the universality as to the specific application? I did not ask for a question, but an answer.

It can be yes or no (in which case some are children of God sans any Baptism).

If yes, then none are born into a salvational state as children of God thru simply a natural birth, and your statement applies to all.

If no, then natural birth is fully sufficient to make one a child of God, and your statement must be clarified, or at least qualified.

Again, I’m not arguing against your statement, just asking for specific application.

**

 

[Matt14]

TNT:

Come now, that is not an answere is it?
I specifically quoted what you said, again:
** A Christian is not** a child of God until he or she has been buried with Christ in baptism

Which I did not argue against.

But, then I asked if this apparently universal rule of faith applied to a 3yr old or mentally retarted?

You had given a universal requirement to be a child of God. I simply asked if this universal requirement applied to these instances.

Now, would you approach the universality as to the specific application? I did not ask for a question, but an answer.

It can be yes or no (in which case some are children of God sans any Baptism).

If yes, then none are born into a salvational state as children of God thru simply a natural birth, and your statement applies to all.

If no, then natural birth is fully sufficient to make one a child of God, and your statement must be clarified, or at least qualified.

Again, I’m not arguing against your statement, just asking for specific application.

No, I do not believe infants and mentally retarded people are in need of baptism in order to be saved. I do not believe that infants are born with sin guilt.

 

[Lillith]

Matt14:

No, I do not believe infants and mentally retarded people are in need of baptism in order to be saved. I do not believe that infants are born with sin guilt.

Hi Matt…as Catholics we believe that we inherit original sin from Adam, and so while babies are certainly not sinful or guilty…they have inherited the sin that causes the death of our bodies, original sin that is.

 

[pnewton]

Matt14:

No, I do not believe infants and mentally retarded people are in need of baptism in order to be saved. I do not believe that infants are born with sin guilt.

Since you do not believe in original sin, it is understandable that you would only believe in baptism of those guilty of personal sin. Good point.

Remember this point next time “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” is applied universally.

 

[TNT]

Matt14:

No, I do not believe infants and mentally retarded people are in need of baptism in order to be saved. I do not believe that infants are born with sin guilt.

There, that was no so diffucult.
So,
** A Christian is not a child of God until he or she has been buried with Christ in baptism

Is not a fully infomative statement, because:

**some are children of God sans any Baptism And, natural birth is fully sufficient to make one a child of God and heir to heaven.

The Catholic church says no one is an adopted child of God merely by natual birth. They must be "born again of water and the Holy Spirit. ie baptism.
That’s all.
The root difference is not baptism, as the COC is in full conformity to the Catholic Faith.
The root is the disagreement about the deprivation of sanctifying grace at natural birth, and that the redeeming salvation of Christ must be applied to each . It does not occur automatically from the first (natural) birth, but only the second birth which all must receive.
(Sanctifying grace is just a summary phrase that encompasses all the benefits of baptism, in this case…child of God, justified, member of the church, etc…)

Since God commanded the seal of the type of baptism in the OT infant, the same applies to the antitype, which you admit is always greater than the type.
The first is the symbol or shadow, the second is the reality.

 

[TNT]

Matt14:

No, I do not believe infants and mentally retarded people are in need of baptism in order to be saved. I do not believe that infants are born with sin guilt.

Very well then.
**Must one be a member of the church to be saved, that is, the Body of Christ?
**
If yes, then how are these 2 examples made members of the Body of Christ ie the Church?
If no, then non-christains can be saved, unless you believe that infant children of non-christian families are members of the Church of Christ.