Born Again

[Simka]

I conclude that when one partakes in faith, in a worthy manner, the grace one receives is real.

If you are partaking in faith, you have already received the specific grace symbolized by the sacrament (i.e. salvation and eternal life). You will not receive it again. However, by your participation, you certainly may experience more of God’s grace. You may find yourself drawn nearer to Him, and you may have a greater sense of His presence, and love, and care, and all the blessings of a personal relationship with Him. Not the same thing as receiving salvation repeatedly.

 

[mackbrislawn]

If you are partaking in faith, you have already received the specific grace symbolized by the sacrament (i.e. salvation and eternal life). You will not receive it again. However, by your participation, you certainly may experience more of God’s grace. You may find yourself drawn nearer to Him, and you may have a greater sense of His presence, and love, and care, and all the blessings of a personal relationship with Him. Not the same thing as receiving salvation repeatedly.

Yes, through the Eucharist you experience more of God’s grace, and be drawn nearer to Him, both physically and spiritually. Certainly a physical, personal relationship with Him is greater than just a spirtual one alone. Because, after all, both Jesus and we are physical as well as spiritual beings. However, there were those, the Docetists (1John4:2), who believed Jesus’ body was only symbolic, but Christians, to the contrary, believe His body was real flesh.

Now, I had never known of anyone who thought of the Eucharist as receiving salvation repeatedly, nor of thinking of it just as symbolizing salvation and eternal life. Those are new ones on me.

 

[Simka]

Yes, through the Eucharist you experience more of God’s grace, and be drawn nearer to Him, both physically and spiritually. Certainly a physical, personal relationship with Him is greater than just a spirtual one alone. Because, after all, both Jesus and we are physical as well as spiritual beings. However, there were those, the Docetists (1John4:2), who believed Jesus’ body was only symbolic, but Christians, to the contrary, believe His body was real flesh.

Now, I had never known of anyone who thought of the Eucharist as receiving salvation repeatedly, nor of thinking of it just as symbolizing salvation and eternal life. Those are new ones on me.

I fear we’re confusing one another here. I initially said that, as a sacrament, the Eucharist is the outward and visible sign/symbol of a particular Spiritual gift from God … that is, the gift of salvation. This is based on Jesus’ own words in John 6. Of course, this is not all the Eucharist is, but this one aspect is necessary to qualify as a sacrament. I also made the point that although the sacrament symbolizes the gift of salvation / eternal life, that particular gift is not conveyed simply through participation in the sacrament.

You concluded that there is grace received in the Eucharist. I do not disagree with you, but I maintain that the grace that may be received is NOT the specific gift which the sacrament symbolizes. As believers, we celebrate the Eucharist over and over again. We celebrate God’s grace, we may experience it afresh in many ways, we rejoice and worship, but we do not receive the gift of salvation each time.

Let’s not stray too far. This thread is talking more particularly about baptism, and I referenced the Eucharist only as an example, for comparison. In both cases, I make the point that the specific gift from God which is symbolized by the sacrament is not a gift which is conveyed simply as a consequence of one’s participation in that sacrament. The gift of eternal life will not be received simply by sharing in the Eucharist, and God does not pour out the gift of the Holy Spirit on someone simply because that person is baptized.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Simka;8068384 I fear we’re confusing one another here. I initially said that, as a sacrament, the Eucharist is the outward and visible sign/symbol of a particular Spiritual gift from God … that is, the gift of salvation. This is based on Jesus’ own words in John 6. Of course, this is not all the Eucharist is, but this one aspect is necessary to qualify as a sacrament. I also made the point that although the sacrament symbolizes the gift of salvation / eternal life, that particular gift is not conveyed simply through participation in the sacrament.

We probably are confusing one another here. That, I think, happens often in these discussions!

Let’s sort it out. First, I never heard of the Eucharist as being a symbol of salvation. As I said, that is a new one on me. If a symbol is to be involved, that symbol would be baptism, to get back to the subject of the thread.

Certainly, no, just participating in the sacrament of the Eucharist does not itself convey eternal life. To receive grace, one has be already have one’s sins forgiven through baptism, and to receive it in a worthy manner.

You concluded that there is grace received in the Eucharist. I do not disagree with you, but I maintain that the grace that may be received is NOT the specific gift which the sacrament symbolizes. As believers, we celebrate the Eucharist over and over again. We celebrate God’s grace, we may experience it afresh in many ways, we rejoice and worship, but we do not receive the gift of salvation each time.

No, we do not receive the gift of salvation every time. I do not know of any who would think that, because, actually, we do not receive the gift of salvation until the final judgment.

Again, I do not believe sacraments symbolize as such, but ARE. I have never thought of the Eucharist as symbolizing salvation. That is done by baptism, which does not merely symbolize, but is the outward means by which Jesus washes away our sins, we are born again, and become children of God.

Let’s not stray too far. This thread is talking more particularly about baptism, and I referenced the Eucharist only as an example, for comparison. In both cases, I make the point that the specific gift from God which is symbolized by the sacrament is not a gift which is conveyed simply as a consequence of one’s participation in that sacrament. The gift of eternal life will not be received simply by sharing in the Eucharist, and God does not pour out the gift of the Holy Spirit on someone simply because that person is baptized.

No, let’s not stray too far. Again, no, one is not saved by taking the sacrament. In fact, under improper circumstances, it can have the opposite effect.

This is my opinion of the value of the Eucharist: That it helps us to manifest the life of Jesus in our mortal flesh, to borrow a phrase from 2Cor4:11. Our mortal flesh takes in Jesus’ immortal flesh. Flesh to flesh, that is what a personal relationship with Jesus is. I also believe that reception of the Sacrament helps us to put on the armor of God, helping us to stand firm against the devil, borrowing from Eph6:11. That is the grace the Sacrament gives us.

As far as pouing out the gift of the Holy Spirit, I can only refer to Acts 2:38: “Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Of course, this doesn’t say you can’t receive the Holy Spirit without being baptized. In fact, you might say, faith itself is a gift of the Holy Spirit. And, without faith, why would you be baptized?

 

[Simka]

We probably are confusing one another here. That, I think, happens often in these discussions!

First, I never heard of the Eucharist as being a symbol of salvation. As I said, that is a new one on me.

What is your definition of a sacrament?

I understand that each sacrament is, by definition, “the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace”. Each sacrament is a sign of, or symbolizes, a spiritual gift. This surely is not new !!!

The outward and visible signs are easily identified. The grace symbolized is identified in the scriptures.

 

[mackbrislawn]

What is your definition of a sacrament?

I understand that each sacrament is, by definition, “the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace”. Each sacrament is a sign of, or symbolizes, a spiritual gift. This surely is not new !!!

The outward and visible signs are easily identified. The grace symbolized is identified in the scriptures.

I pretty much agree, a sacrament is the outward and visible sign of an inward grace; I would only leave out “symbolizes,” as sign and symbol aren’t the same thing. A sign is an indication of something that is really happening. For instance, in baptism, the water is a sign that your sins are being washed away.

You’re right, this definition of sacrament is not new; what is new to me is the idea of what the Eucharist is said to ‘symbolize.’

 

[Simka]

I pretty much agree, a sacrament is the outward and visible sign of an inward grace; I would only leave out “symbolizes,” as sign and symbol aren’t the same thing. A sign is an indication of something that is really happening. For instance, in baptism, the water is a sign that your sins are being washed away.

You’re right, this definition of sacrament is not new; what is new to me is the idea of what the Eucharist is said to ‘symbolize.’

OK, let’s drop the word “symbolize”. I was using the term interchangeably with being “a sign of”. So let us simply acknowledge that the Eucharist is a sign of God’s gift of salvation / eternal life (cf Jesus’ comments, John 6:53-58) and likewise, Baptism is the outward and visible sign of God’s gift of the Holy Spirit.
(Mark.1:8) “I baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit …”
(Matt.3:16; Mark 1:10) The Holy Spirit descended on Christ at His baptism.
(Acts 1:5) “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit”.
(Acts 2:38) Peter: “Repent and be baptized, and you will receive the Holy Spirit.”
(Acts 10:44-48) Peter and a contingent from the church (all of them Jews) visit Cornelius and his family (all of them Gentile), and they watch in amazement as the Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit just as they had. In consequence, Peter immediately issues instructions that they must be baptized.

Scripture repeatedly draws direct links between water baptism and believers receiving the Holy Spirit.

 

[mackbrislawn]

OK, let’s drop the word “symbolize”. I was using the term interchangeably with being “a sign of”. So let us simply acknowledge that the Eucharist is a sign of God’s gift of salvation / eternal life (cf Jesus’ comments, John 6:53-58) and likewise, Baptism is the outward and visible sign of God’s gift of the Holy Spirit.
(Mark.1:8) “I baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit …”
(Matt.3:16; Mark 1:10) The Holy Spirit descended on Christ at His baptism.
(Acts 1:5) “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit”.
(Acts 2:38) Peter: “Repent and be baptized, and you will receive the Holy Spirit.”
(Acts 10:44-48) Peter and a contingent from the church (all of them Jews) visit Cornelius and his family (all of them Gentile), and they watch in amazement as the Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit just as they had. In consequence, Peter immediately issues instructions that they must be baptized.

Scripture repeatedly draws direct links between water baptism and believers receiving the Holy Spirit.

Fair enough.

What was new to me was the Eucharist as a sign of salvation and eternal life.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

**Simka wrote:**OK, let’s drop the word “symbolize”. I was using the term interchangeably with being “a sign of”. So let us simply acknowledge that the Eucharist is a sign of God’s gift of salvation / eternal life (cf Jesus’ comments, John 6:53-58) and likewise, Baptism is the outward and visible sign of God’s gift of the Holy Spirit.

What is your point in reducing the sacraments to your inadequate descriptions? Baptism is more than an outward and visible sign of God’s gift of the Holy Spirit. Your definition of the Eucharist as a “sign of salvation” are not the Church’s words. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the sacraments quite well.

You may describe what your sacraments mean to you, but it should be clear that your definition is not that of the Catholic Church.

Jim Dandy

 

[Simka]

What is your point in reducing the sacraments to your inadequate descriptions? Baptism is more than an outward and visible sign of God’s gift of the Holy Spirit. Your definition of the Eucharist as a “sign of salvation” are not the Church’s words. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the sacraments quite well.

You may describe what your sacraments mean to you, but it should be clear that your definition is not that of the Catholic Church.

You might take note that in my original post I was giving a reply to a request, and I said that the definition of a sacrament as “the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace” was articulated in the 16th century by one Richard Hooker. I find it eminently more satisfactory than the dictionary definition that says a sacrament is “a solemn religious ordinance appointed by Christ”.

But a definition is not a description. Descriptions can take volumes. I was not attempting a description, and I did not reduce the sacraments to “inadequate descriptions”. Of course, the Eucharist and Baptism are more than just sacraments. I agree with you wholeheartedly. But as sacraments, they do satisfy this definition.

Or do you disagree? What is your definition of the term “sacrament”?

 

[JonathonofOhio]

There’s an issue I have with the Catholic interpretation of John 3:5 that I’ve yet to see answered. Maybe one of you guys can clear it up.

Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus a good bit of time before His passion. It’s not until after the resurrection that Jesus establishes baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to the CCC, the sacrament consists of:

1278 The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

If Christian baptism had not been initiated yet, then how would Nicodemus have had any idea of what Jesus was talking about? It would be quite impossible for Nicodemus to understand that Jesus was talking about the sacrament of baptism if it hadn’t even been instituted yet.

Now, being a great teacher, Nicodemus would be well-versed in the Old Testament. The most plausible explanation is a cross reference to Ezekiel 36:25-27

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Essentially, unless one is cleansed by God and receives His Spirit (all a monergistic work of God), then one will not enter the kingdom of God. This interpretation seems to make the most sense- trying to incorporate baptism into the verse seems quite anachronistic.

Hi Rogare, I was reading through this thread and saw a few people try to address you on this. One thing that I didn’t see brought up (hope I didn’t overlook it, pardon me if I did), is a little ‘common sense’.

Not even Jesus’ disciples really understood what He was talking about most of the time. It wasn’t until the Holy Spirit came that their eyes were opened and they began to understand what he had taught them. Jesus taught the disciples things and told them that even though they do not understand, they would later. Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus was not for the benefit of Nicodemus, but for the benefit of his church.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

So the fact that thousands of people are saved without water baptism is somehow supposed to support the fact that" unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"? That’s odd logic.

In reading the thread I didn’t see this addressed much (seemed some people tried though). I see your logic here, and, from you point of view, there sure does seem to be a problem.

There are two reasons why you are seeing a problem.

First, Jesus was talking to Nicodemus (perhaps he had asked a question, or he had a question about salvation in His heart)…apparently he recognized who Jesus was. So do we assume this a is a general rule for everyone then?

From the Catechism:

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Not everyone is a Nicodemus.

---

Secondly, you attempt to separate the spiritual from the physical. The act of baptism is useless, you reason, because it’s the spirit that benefits from saving grace, and God gives that grace to you regardless if you are baptized in water or not. It is true the spirit benefits, but in saying only the spirit benefits, you ignore the promise of the resurrection, because you think that your body doesn’t matter since it is doomed to die a physical death.

God came in the form of a man, in part, to show us that the physical and spiritual parts of a man are not meant to be separated from one another (we were not made to die, but we do because of sin). So it is fitting that God made something that was an outward sign of repentance into something that provides saving grace. Jesus IS teaching us in this passage that we must be baptized. Even though He says we must be baptized, He is not saying it has to be, unconditionally, water baptism in all cases, which is precisely what the Church teaches.

We all know that baptism is not a cleansing of the flesh, but a cleansing of the spirit; it is a physical act that benefits the spirit, but it also benefits the body in the resurrection.

Recall in Exodus that the Jews put the blood of the lamb on the door as God requested? Well, God knew in their hearts that they had faith in Him, so why was it necessary to physically take the blood of the lamb and put it on the door? The reason is because the body cannot exist without the spirit, and the spirit is for the body. The two are meant to go together, and together they are life. The physical act, therefore, is spiritual (Romans 2:29, Col. 2:12), just as being born in the flesh is both physical and spiritual (or was your body brought forth from your mothers womb without a spirit?).

 

[Ysidro]

For all who say,“Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, did not exist until after the Resurrection;” please consider that an Omniscient God would make Baptism a part of His plan from the foundations of creation?

 

[Simka]

For all who say,“Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, did not exist until after the Resurrection;” please consider that an Omniscient God would make Baptism a part of His plan from the foundations of creation?

That’s like saying that the redemption of fallen mankind through the sacrifice of Jesus was a part of God’s plan from before Creation. It’s true, of course … the Covenant of Redemption … but what do you do with that? There was a particular time and place in human history for God’s plan to be fulfilled. Baptismal ceremonies (symbolic purification through the application of water) were common Jewish rites. But the practice of baptism as the replacement of circumcision took on special meaning in the Christian church.

 

[Ysidro]

It’s either God is Omniscient or He did not know - I choose not to put limits on God. I stand by my comment that Baptism was part of God’s plan from the foundation of Creation. We cannot understand His ways but He has revealed His nature to us - and as Jesus did, we say, “Let not my will but Thy Will be done.” Baptism is the Will of God and the Will of God is unchanging from the foundation of creation.