Define Born again

[John1717]

John1717:

My friend, if you believe **The Church has never taught error, **then you are indeed blinded by your indoctrination!

:yup:

The Church Teaches Ex Cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

Please reconcile the above statement with the following:

The following is a quote of Pope John Paul II’s statement in English to those gathered in St. Peter’s square on Wednesday, December 6th, 2000, in which he briefly summarized his message of the day, “FOR US, THE KINGDOM IS GRACE”:

“Dear brothers and sisters, the theme of Our general audience during this great Jubilee year, has been the glory of the Trinity, and today we ask what we must do to ensure that the glory of the Trinity shines forth more fully in the world. In essence we are called to be converted and to believe in the Gospel. We are to accept the kingdom of God in our hearts, and to bear witness to it by word and deed. The kingdom indicates the loving presence and activity of God in the world and should be a source of serenity and confidence to our lives. The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the beatitudes: the poor in spirit; the pure in heart; those who will lovingly [endure] the sufferings of life; will enter God’s kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His Church, contribute under the influence of grace, to the building of this kingdom. In the Lord’s prayer we say ‘Thy kingdom come’. May this be the hope that sustains us and inspires our Christian life and world.”

We confess with the Apostle Paul “that there is salvation in no other name” (Acts 4:12). The “Dominus Iesus” declaration, in the wake of Vatican II, shows that with this the salvation of non-Christians is not denied, but explains its ultimate source in Christ, in whom God and man are united. God gives light to all in a way appropriate to their interior and environmental situation, granting them saving grace through ways known to him (see “Dominus Iesus,” VI, 20-21). The document clarifies the essential Christian elements, which do not obstruct the dialogue, but show its basis, because a dialogue without foundations would be destined to degenerate into empty verbosity.

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples,

1. … Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.(19*) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

:ehh:

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Hi exrc!

exrc:

I don’t see the difference in the wording, but if it is o.k. with you I can also agree. This is providing you mean that we are baptized by the Spirit unto life, and into the body of Christ. Again, we are not discussing** what provokes** the Spirit to baptize us, but what it procures o.k.?
I say it is faith alone, and you say it is faith plus water baptism(normatively) Right?

1.We are now adopted sons of God

John tells us that we now are sons of God. Could you tell me what we were before that? Who’s sons were we?

Baptism is the means through which our old selves die and we receive new life:

Romans 6:3-4 *Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? *Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

Col. 2:12
Having been buried with Him in baptism, you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

It is faith that compels one to get baptised, but it is not faith that effects the change, it is baptism.

Romans 6 tells that we are baptised into Christ, we are made to be “in Christ” through baptism. Col 2:12 tells us that those who are “in Christ” (ie baptised) are a new creation.

In scripture being “in Christ” or a “new creation” or having “new life” is always equated with water baptism. The writings of the early Christians bear out this understanding. What you are proposing for belief is a relatively new understanding of scripture. In fact, it never appears once in their writings. Every single time we see a reference to John 3:3,5 in the early writings it is always, without exception, equated with water baptism.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Hi John!

Born again: The instantaneous birth of ones spirit, upon the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Also, the reversal of the damage caused by the first Adam,( i.e.) which was instantaneous spiritual death upon the act of one sin. Essentially becomming spiritually alive

Now that we agree ,let’s talk about what it has procured for us.

I agree with exrc’s definition so let’s get on with it.
:yup:

There doesn’t seem to be any significant disagreement on what being born again is or on what is has procured for us. The sole disagreement seems to be on when/how this takes place. Perhaps that is the direction this discussion should now take.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Hi John!

John1717:

I think the biggest problem we have is the definition of baptism!

I would submit that here are two types of baptism:

1. The most important type and the one required for salvation is Baptism By The Holy Spirit.

2. The second type, Water Baptism, IS NOT required for salvation but is still extremely important.

This might sound good but for one thing; scripture says there is only ONE baptism:

Eph 4:5*** - ***one Lord, one faith, one baptism, In this ONE baptism one receives the holy Spirit: *Acts2:38 **Peter said to them, "Repent, *and each of you be baptized ** in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
**

The most important thing:

** When you accept Jesus into your life, repent your sins, ask forgiveness, acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God, born of the virgin Mary, was crucified, died on the cross for us, rose on the third day, and is our true Lord and Savior you will receive the Holy Spirit. (This is baptism by the Holy Spirit). Many of us call this being saved and born again.
This idea contradicts Acts 2:38 (see above).
**

Water Baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

The only examples of Baptism in the New Testament involves adults. Paul, the most prolific apostle who wrote most of the New Testament rarely used water Baptism as a ministry. **
**** This idea contradicts John 3:3,5:

**

**We do not believe that it is necessary to baptize infants. Baptism should occur after a youth or adult is saved and born again, decides they want to become baptized, and asks their pastor, leader of the church or other Christian for assistance. **

**

******We do not believe infants or mentally challenged individuals are denied salvation because they have not been saved and born again, received the Holy Spirit as a result or have not had water baptism… A person needs to be aware of and understand the rules before he/she can be held responsible by them. Those who are incapable of making that decision or any other concerning being saved and born again **will not be penalized.

My definition of Baptism=The Outward Declaration of an Inner Transformation!

I suppose that, theoretically, each individual believer can formulate his own definition of baptism if he so chooses, but that doesn’t make each individual’s personal definition correct. To get a clear understanding of how the apostles understood baptism we can look to the writings of those they taught. Those writings indicate that, unanymously, they understood “born again” to be a reference to water baptism.

What you have stated above is only as recent as the reformation, and not the original reformers as that. It’s a reform of the reformer’s understanding of baptism. It has no actual foundation in scripture but rather contradicts it. To reach your conclusion certain extra-biblical assumptions must be made (ie only adults and youths can be baptised) and then the rest of scripture is interpreted to fit this this extra-biblical assumption. That method doesn’t work because it causes the idea to clash with other scripture and in fact contradicts what we know the early Christians unanymouly believed on the matter.

Now, I supposed, theoretically, Christians could have, unanymously and completely, misunderstood the apostles teaching on baptism for 1500 years, only really “getting it” well into the Reformation, but that just, in reality, isn’t at all likely.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

John1717:

My friend, if you believe **The Church has never taught error, **then you are indeed blinded by your indoctrination!

:yup:

Hi John!

That’s just the thing; the Church HAS never taught error. Not officially. One can simply never look through the Church’s 2000 years of dogmatically defined teachings and find a single contradiction.

Now, certainly her teachings contradict your personal understanding of Christ’s teaching, but that’s an entirely different matter.

That’s how the Church functions as the God-ordained upholder (pillar), protector, and defender (bulwark) of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). The holy Spirit simply will not allow her to officially teach error. To be sure the holy Spirit allows individual members to behave badly, you’ll get no argument there. And he allows individual members to hold heterdox opinions. No argument there either. But when it comes to official teachings on matters of faith and morals that are proposed for belief and to be binding on all believers? Nope. The holy Spirit simply won’t allow error.

I do understand that the notion that perhaps God really didn’t intend for each individual believer to interpret scripture for himself can seem ridiculous and be a bit unnerving to non-Catholics.

How do you believe that the Church functions as the God-ordained upholder, protector and defender of the truth in the world today?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

John1717:

The Church Teaches Ex Cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

:ehh:

Hi John!

Help me to understand how you came to understand that the above statement was, in fact, made ex cathedra? Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[John1717]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi John!

Help me to understand how you came to understand that the above statement was, in fact, made ex cathedra? Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

Am I in error or are the pronouncements of Church Councils and Papal Bulls not ex cathedra statements? If they are not, please tell me what is!


***** There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.**) **

• We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (, 1302.Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam)
• The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino**, 1441.)

 

[John1717]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi John!

That’s just the thing; the Church HAS never taught error. Not officially. One can simply never look through the Church’s 2000 years of dogmatically defined teachings and find a single contradiction.

Now, certainly her teachings contradict your personal understanding of Christ’s teaching, but that’s an entirely different matter.

That’s how the Church functions as the God-ordained upholder (pillar), protector, and defender (bulwark) of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). The holy Spirit simply will not allow her to officially teach error. To be sure the holy Spirit allows individual members to behave badly, you’ll get no argument there. And he allows individual members to hold heterdox opinions. No argument there either. But when it comes to official teachings on matters of faith and morals that are proposed for belief and to be binding on all believers? Nope. The holy Spirit simply won’t allow error.

I do understand that the notion that perhaps God really didn’t intend for each individual believer to interpret scripture for himself can seem ridiculous and be a bit unnerving to non-Catholics.

How do you believe that the Church functions as the God-ordained upholder, protector and defender of the truth in the world today?

In Christ,
Nancy

Dear Nancy,

I believe that you and I have a different understanding of “The Church”

The word translated “church” in the English Bible is ekklesia. This word is the Greek words kaleo (to call), with the prefix ***ek ***(out). Thus, the word means “the called out ones.” However, the English word “church” does not come from *ekklesia *but from the word kuriakon, which means “dedicated to the Lord.” This word was commonly used to refer to a holy place or temple. By the time of Jerome’s translation of the New Testament from Greek to Latin, it was customary to use a derivative of kuriakon to translate ekklesia. Therefore, the word church is a poor translation of the word ekklesia since it implies a sacred building, or temple. A more accurate translation would be “assembly” because the term ekklesia was used to refer to a group of people who had been called out to a meeting. It was also used as a synonym for the word synagogue, which also means to “come together,” i.e. a gathering. “Body of Christ” Since believers have been united with Christ through spiritual baptism, they are sometimes corporately referred to as the body of Christ. (Rom. l2:4-5; 1 Cor. l2:11,13,l8,27; Col. l:l8; Eph. 5:30) The idea seems to be that the group of Christians in the world constitute the physical representation of Christ on earth. It is also a metaphor which demonstrates the interdependence of members in the church, while at the same time demonstrating their diversity from one another. (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:14-17)

I hope this is helpful.

 

[John1717]

Am I in error or are the pronouncements of Church Councils and Papal Bulls not ex cathedra statements? If they are not, please tell me what is!

• There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.**) **
• We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
• The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino**, 1441.)

Hi John! That’s just the thing; the Church HAS never taught error. Not officially. One can simply never look through the Church’s 2000 years of dogmatically defined teachings and find a single contradiction.

Please reconcile the above statements with the following:

The following is a quote of Pope John Paul II’s statement in English to those gathered in St. Peter’s square on Wednesday, December 6th, 2000, in which he briefly summarized his message of the day, “FOR US, THE KINGDOM IS GRACE”:

“Dear brothers and sisters, the theme of Our general audience during this great Jubilee year, has been the glory of the Trinity, and today we ask what we must do to ensure that the glory of the Trinity shines forth more fully in the world. In essence we are called to be converted and to believe in the Gospel. We are to accept the kingdom of God in our hearts, and to bear witness to it by word and deed. The kingdom indicates the loving presence and activity of God in the world and should be a source of serenity and confidence to our lives. The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the beatitudes: the poor in spirit; the pure in heart; those who will lovingly [endure] the sufferings of life; will enter God’s kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His Church, contribute under the influence of grace, to the building of this kingdom. In the Lord’s prayer we say ‘Thy kingdom come’. May this be the hope that sustains us and inspires our Christian life and world.”



Con’t

 

[John1717]

Continued from previous post.

We confess with the Apostle Paul “that there is salvation in no other name” (Acts 4:12). The “Dominus Iesus” declaration, in the wake of Vatican II, shows that with this the salvation of non-Christians is not denied, but explains its ultimate source in Christ, in whom God and man are united. God gives light to all in a way appropriate to their interior and environmental situation, granting them saving grace through ways known to him (see “Dominus Iesus,” VI, 20-21). The document clarifies the essential Christian elements, which do not obstruct the dialogue, but show its basis, because a dialogue without foundations would be destined to degenerate into empty verbosity.

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples,

1. … Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.(19*) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Hi John!

John1717:

Dear Nancy,

I believe that you and I have a different understanding of “The Church”

Oh yes, I know! How does the church, as you understand the term, function in the world today as the upholder (pillar), protector and defender (bulwark) of the truth?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Am I in error or are the pronouncements of Church Councils and Papal Bulls not ex cathedra statements? If they are not, please tell me what is!

---

Hi John!

“Ex cathedra” means “from the chair”. It refers to officially defined dogma on a matter of faith or morals binding on all believers for all time.

Only popes speaking “ex cathedra”. Councils do not.

There have only been two ex cathedra statements ever made. Both dealt with Mary.

I think you might be confusing the terms “ex cathedra” and “infallible”.

A papal bull is simply a document written by a pope. There are several different kinds.

While the pope always speaks authoritatively it’s not always infallible. Unfortunately, sometimes people aren’t aware of that and try to use past pope’s words against the Church as though everything every pope ever said was infallible.

In Christ,
Nancy

---

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

**

Please reconcile the above statements with the following:

**

Hi John!

You’re operating under a very common misconception; that every word ever uttered from every pope’s mouth (or pen) is infallible; which of couse is not true.

My claim was that no official teaching of the Church has ever contradict another, not that pope’s words never ever contradict one another.

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

This link might help you understand what papal infallibility is and is not a little better.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[John1717]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi John!

You’re operating under a very common misconception; that every word ever uttered from every pope’s mouth (or pen) is infallible; which of couse is not true.

My claim was that no official teaching of the Church has ever contradict another, not that pope’s words never ever contradict one another.

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

This link might help you understand what papal infallibility is and is not a little better.

In Christ,
Nancy

Hi Nancy

**So you’re saying that Papal Bulls and pronouncements of Church Councils are not official teaching? Please tell me then, when does the Pope speak “out of the chair” and when is the teaching of the Church official? It seems as though you can pick and choose what is an infalible pronouncement and what isn’t! **

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

John1717:

Hi Nancy

So you’re saying that Papal Bulls and pronouncements of Church Councils are not official teaching? Please tell me then, when does the Pope speak “out of the chair” and when is the teaching of the Church official? It seems as though you can pick and choose what is an infalible pronouncement and what isn’t!

Hi John!

You’re kind of topic hopping. I was responding specifically to your claim that what you were posting was ex cathedra. No, papal bulls are not official teaching. They are papal writings of which there are several varieties. I think it may seem to you that I can pick and choose what is official teaching because you don’t have an accurate understanding of papal infallibility. In reality, of course, I can’t pick and choose at all.

Why didn’t you read the link?

We’re getting way off topic here. I’d be happy to continue this with you in another thread.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Steven_Merten]

hello John 1717,

Exellent debates! On many other threads on this forum posters are pounding home this “No salvation outside the Church” as absolute infalible truth and here you have got people running from Pope Eugene’s statement like it was the plague. I compliment you on your command of Church writings. I think many readers can clearly see the strengths and weaknesses of those posting on this thread. Whether one agrees with you or not, you really make people think about what is discussed. Keep it coming John!

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[John1717]

Steven Merten:

hello John 1717,

Exellent debates! On many other threads on this forum posters are pounding home this “No salvation outside the Church” as absolute infalible truth and here you have got people running from Pope Eugene’s statement like it was the plague. I compliment you on your command of Church writings. I think many readers can clearly see the strengths and weaknesses of those posting on this thread. Whether one agrees with you or not, you really make people think about what is discussed. Keep it coming John!

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

Thanks Steve, care to join in?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

I

compliment you on your command of Church writings.

Hi John!

I’m interested in your source for the quotes you are using as part of this thread. Do you really have a “command” of Church writings or have you only read these quotes in the context of refuting some Church teaching? I ask because while some claim to be familiar with Church writings they’ve never really read them for themselves in their full context. It’s been my experience that these quotes are often taken from anti-Catholic websites/books etc. used specifcally to refute some Catholic teaching as your doing here.

If you’ve actually taken the time to read the documents themselves and have not, in fact, lifted these quotes from secondary sources I commend you! You’re a rarity!

I still think it would be helpful for you learn about papal infallibility. Agreeing with it or not isn’t the issue. Understanding it is so you don’t inadvertantly misapply terms is.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[exrc]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi exrc!

Baptism is the means through which our old selves die and we receive new life:

Romans 6:3-4 *Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? *Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

Col. 2:12
Having been buried with Him in baptism, you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

It is faith that compels one to get baptised, but it is not faith that effects the change, it is baptism.

Romans 6 tells that we are baptised into Christ, we are made to be “in Christ” through baptism. Col 2:12 tells us that those who are “in Christ” (ie baptised) are a new creation.

In scripture being “in Christ” or a “new creation” or having “new life” is always equated with water baptism. The writings of the early Christians bear out this understanding. What you are proposing for belief is a relatively new understanding of scripture. In fact, it never appears once in their writings. Every single time we see a reference to John 3:3,5 in the early writings it is always, without exception, equated with water baptism.

In Christ,
Nancy

Again, Nancy I understand your position on water baptism. I strongly disagree with you , but we are not discussing that. Please address the questions I have asked about point # 1&2. Unless you are trying to avoid that part of this discussion. There already exists a thread on water baptism.

Thanks!

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

exrc:

Again, Nancy I understand your position on water baptism. I strongly disagree with you , but we are not discussing that. Please address the questions I have asked about point # 1&2. Unless you are trying to avoid that part of this discussion. There already exists a thread on water baptism.

Thanks!

Hi exrc!

Oh sorry! I’m not avoiding any particular part is a discussion, I was just making my point. In which post can I find # 1 and 2?

I do want to clarify that the change affected through water baptism is affected by the holy Sprit, not merely through the act of water baptism. It’s simply the means through which he effects the change.

Since the topic has shifted not so much to a definition of born again (since agreement on that seems to be unanymous) but rather on how that change is effected my posts seems right on topic. JMHO.

In Christ,
Nancy