Define Born again

[MariaG]

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 A.D. 248]).

This one specifically mentions infants.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[SPOKENWORD]

MariaG:

This is completely contrary to Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles.

Jn 3:5 and any of the church fathers can show you that Baptism is not just symbol but a actual miracle from God.

God Bless
Maria

I dont believe this contrary to scripture. Its our understanding that is flawed.In Jn 3;5&6 Its talking about 2 births. First natural,second spiritual,flesh begets flesh 1 birth] Spirit begets Spirit[2birth] God Bless.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

MariaG:

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 A.D. 248]).

This one specifically mentions infants.

God Bless,
Maria

I believe we might be getting off topic,But,I do believe its by Gods grace.that babys are saved whether they are baptised or not. God is not going to let one of these babys perish,or God would not be God because God is Love…God Bless.

 

[space_ghost]

.

dont have the all the answers,

 

[space_ghost]

SPOKENWORD:

I believe we might be getting off topic,

just a little,…

But,I do believe its by Gods grace.that babys are saved whether they are baptised or not.

Agreed…

God is not going to let one of these babys perish,or God would not be God because God is Love…God Bless.

i don’t believe parish is an option here… limbo (defined by some as a place of perfect natural happiness), i.e, garden of eden, who knows for sure…?

 

[MariaG]

But this is the topic. What does born again mean? You say that an infant cannot be born again. You believe baptism is a symbol. This is directly against the practices and beliefs of the early church. We both can cite Scripture to support our view. Whose interpretation then is correct?

The history of the early church clearly show the regenertive belief of baptism as well as the baptism of infants.

Show me someone in the early Church that was not pronounced a heretic and said baptism is only a symbol and no infants should be baptized and born again into the family of God.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Cubby]

SPOKENWORD:

I believe we might be getting off topic,But,I do believe its by Gods grace.that babys are saved whether they are baptised or not. God is not going to let one of these babys perish,or God would not be God because God is Love…God Bless.

I agree with Spokenword, and I’m Catholic ;>, but it just makes sense - is there a better explanation that this is the truth?

Also, though - I agree with Maria that it is baptism that saves us. This is sound doctrine. However, there seem to be expecptions to the rule. Take for example the thief on the cross, to whom Jesus promised “this day shalt thou be with me in paradise”. And also, the RCIA catechumen, who may study Christianity for a year or longer before being baptized at an Easter vigil service. I believe that they’re saved if they die before Easter, because it is not their fault that they are not yet baptized.

OK, I don’t have anything to base these beliefs on - it’s just personal conviction. Can someone put credence to my statements?

Blessings,

Cubby

 

[MariaG]

I believe it would be covered under baptism of desire? I wondered why baptism of desire would not apply to infants, because we are all born with a desire to know God, but I was told I was wrong.

But we are trying to define what born again means.

The Catholic Church defines it as Baptism. Even an infant can be born again into the family of God. This is both Biblical and historical.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[SPOKENWORD]

MariaG:

But this is the topic. What does born again mean? You say that an infant cannot be born again. You believe baptism is a symbol. This is directly against the practices and beliefs of the early church. We both can cite Scripture to support our view. Whose interpretation then is correct?

The history of the early church clearly show the regenertive belief of baptism as well as the baptism of infants.

Show me someone in the early Church that was not pronounced a heretic and said baptism is only a symbol and no infants should be baptized and born again into the family of God.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Jesus ,he was baptised.To Him it was symbolic for he did not need to be baptised. God Bless p/s Maybe Im half right.

 

[MariaG]

posted by spokenword

Jesus ,he was baptised.To Him it was symbolic for he did not need to be baptised. http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif God Bless p/s Maybe Im half right.

---

Maybe Im half right

Maybe. Maybe not.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Cubby]

MariaG:

I believe it would be covered under baptism of desire? I wondered why baptism of desire would not apply to infants, because we are all born with a desire to know God, but I was told I was wrong.

So someone can be born again by Baptism of desire!? hhhmmm. sounds like “faith only”. Is this a Roman teaching? What’s it based on?

Your bro in Jesus,

Cubby

 

[Fiat]

Dear SPOKENWORD:

Jesus was baptized because it was necessary for Him to fulfill all righteousness (Matt 3:15). Deut 6:25 tells us that righteousness involves obedience to the law and Christ was made “under the law” (Gal 4:4). The law of the O.T. which Jesus was obeying concerns the ordination of priests (Ex. 29:1-9; Ex 29:4). Jesus was and is our High Priest (Heb 3:1, 4:14, 5:5, 9:11). His baptism was necessary in order that He perfectly fulfill the Law.

Your Brother,
Fiat

 

[Cubby]

Fiat:

Dear SPOKENWORD:

Jesus was baptized because it was necessary for Him to fulfill all righteousness (Matt 3:15). Deut 6:25 tells us that righteousness involves obedience to the law and Christ was made “under the law” (Gal 4:4). The law of the O.T. which Jesus was obeying concerns the ordination of priests (Ex. 29:1-9; Ex 29:4). Jesus was and is our High Priest (Heb 3:1, 4:14, 5:5, 9:11). His baptism was necessary in order that He perfectly fulfill the Law.

Your Brother,
Fiat

Thanks for this info Fiat. What about baptism by desire? If this is a true Catholic teaching than what is it that separates this “state of grace” from “faith only”?!?

Cubby

 

[MariaG]

posted by Cubby

So someone can be born again by Baptism of desire!? hhhmmm. sounds like “faith only”. Is this a Roman teaching? What’s it based on?

Your bro in Jesus,

Catechism of the CC
#1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake ot 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.

#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 ldesires 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,” alllow 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.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Fiat:

Dear SPOKENWORD:

Jesus was baptized because it was necessary for Him to fulfill all righteousness (Matt 3:15). Deut 6:25 tells us that righteousness involves obedience to the law and Christ was made “under the law” (Gal 4:4). The law of the O.T. which Jesus was obeying concerns the ordination of priests (Ex. 29:1-9; Ex 29:4). Jesus was and is our High Priest (Heb 3:1, 4:14, 5:5, 9:11). His baptism was necessary in order that He perfectly fulfill the Law.

Your Brother,
Fiat

Hi Fiat. Is it possible that Jesus was baptised so that the blessed trinity would be exposed? God Bless

 

[MariaG]

:ehh: My discussion with non-Catholic Christians comparing the definition of born again has been highjacked from non-Catholic religion forum to apologetics. Did I have to use the word Protestant in my title to keep things in the non-Catholic section just to have a compare and contrast discussion with my separated brethren?

 

[Cubby]

:ehh: My discussion with non-Catholic Christians comparing the definition of born again has been highjacked from non-Catholic religion forum to apologetics. Did I have to use the word Protestant in my title to keep things in the non-Catholic section just to have a compare and contrast discussion with my separated brethren?

I think your first post, using a Catholic defination as the starting point of this thread, makes this thread a defense of the Catholic position. Which makes it apologetics! I was wondering myself why this was even posted in non-Catholic to beging with… Now if you would have defined “born again” as non-Catholic then that would have been a different issue.

By the way this salvation by “baptism by desire” really bugs me. Are there any sciptures, or early church writings, to base it off of?

Cubby

 

[Fiat]

Dear Cubby:

You asked whether the Catholic understanding of “baptism by desire” is essentially the same thing as “faith alone.” If you read the tract in Catholic Answers on the “Necessity of Baptism,” you will see that the Church identifies a distinction between the normative necessity of baptism versus the absolute necessity of baptism. In other words, the Church recognizes that as humans, we are confined by our material environment. Although the normal way of conferring baptism includes water, there may be some instances in which water isn’t available for baptism. For example, a sinner may be stranded out in the middle of the desert somewhere and experience Christ calling him to repentance from his sins and into a life of Faith with Him. Even though water baptism would be the normal means through which this is accomplished, given the limitations of our material confines, grace still finds a way. I would also point out that the phrase used is “Baptism by desire,” which means the repentant sinner recognizes his desire to be baptized because he acknowledges that this is the normal way such grace is conferred. Remember, the Catholic Church does not teach that God must circumscribe Himself.

Although on some level there may appear to be similarities between the Catholic understanding of “Baptism by desire” and the Protestant understanding of “Faith alone,” the two are really quite distinct. What separates the two doctrines is that the “Faith alone” individual still misunderstands what Baptism is. For the “Faith alone” individual, baptism is an empty symbol in and of itself. For the “Baptism by desire” individual, Baptism remains the normative means through which Grace is initially accomplished in the life of the sinner. Thus it is the word faith in the phrase “Faith alone,” that is the problem. The “Faith alone” Protestant has a Faith which, in the eyes of the Church, is incompatible in some measure with the Church’s Faith. I hope this helps.

Your Brother,

Fiat

 

[SPOKENWORD]

:ehh: My discussion with non-Catholic Christians comparing the definition of born again has been highjacked from non-Catholic religion forum to apologetics. Did I have to use the word Protestant in my title to keep things in the non-Catholic section just to have a compare and contrast discussion with my separated brethren?

Hi Maria, Im sad to see this moved over into appoligetics. I have made a promise that I would not debate in this forum.So I gracefully bow out,and let those in this forum bebate. God Bless.

 

[MariaG]

Hi Spokenwordhttp://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/wave.gif
I am sorry to hear about not coming over to apologetics. I guess I should have phrased the question different. I prefer to stay over in the Non- Catholic arena also.

Hi Cubby:wave:

posted by Cubby
By the way this salvation by “baptism by desire” really bugs me. Are there any sciptures, or early church writings, to base it off of?

I think this is based off of the theif on the Cross. The theif, knew he was a sinner and believed in Christ. He was unable to be baptized, but if he had been able to, he would have done so.

In an earlier post I listed the Catechism. Did you see it? Why does baptism by desire bug you?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

p.s. Major editing. Sorry for any problems.