Define Born again

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hi exrc:wave:
I’ll ask you the same question I have asked others
Was the early Chritstian Church in 200ad until the reformation teaching falsehood? The early church records the interpretation of born again to mean a regenerative baptism. It also records the error in denying baptism to infants. Were they in error already?
God Bless,
Maria
 
John 3:1-7 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

1 Peter 1:18-23 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
 
I hope you don’t mind if I jump in here for a moment and attempt to answer the original post.

As I read through these post I believe that you are all making the matter more complecated than it is. Being “born again” is a theological description that is used to describe the restoration of our relationship with God. Thats it! This same restoration is described also as being regenerated, adopted, and reconciled. But the closest reference that describes what it means may be in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 2:5 where he says that “even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ.” “Being born again” is to be made alive and being made alive is to have our relationship with God restored.

Here is where I get this:
  1. Before Adam ate of the tree he experienced full fellowship with God. He was “spiritually alive.”
  2. God promised Adam that if he disobeyed, that he would die that day. Death in Scripture always alludes to separation. Pysical death equals the separation of the spirit and the soul. Spiritual death equals the separation of the relationship with God. When Adam sinned, he died spiritually. His relationship with God was severed and all people, by virtue of our identification with Adam (Rom. 5:12, 17-18) are born in the same condition as Adam after the Fall.
  3. All people must have this relationship restored (notice the word “again” refering back to the previous condition that humanity existed under Adam). All people must be made alive to God or “they cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Therefore, being born again is one of the many ways that the New Testament describes the restoration of that which was lost in the Garden.
How’s that.

Michael
 
40.png
MariaG:
hi exrc:wave:
I’ll ask you the same question I have asked others
Was the early Chritstian Church in 200ad until the reformation teaching falsehood? The early church records the interpretation of born again to mean a regenerative baptism. It also records the error in denying baptism to infants. Were they in error already?
God Bless,
Maria
Click to expand...
Maria,

You really don’t want to go here do you? I mean this is the same as me posting this challenge:

The Ransom to Satan theory of the atonement (the belief that the Cross of Christ was a debt due to Satan and not to God) was universally believed by the Church up until the 12th century with Anselm. I am sure that you would not agree with this theory would you? If not, does this mean that the Church had the wrong teaching about the Atonement for 1100 years?

Or this challenge:

The majority of the early Church believed that Christ was ontologically subordinate (i.e. God, but a lower form of God) to the Father for the first 200 years of its existence. Do you believe that Christ is ontologically subordinate to the Father? If not, does this mean that the Church was wrong for the first 200 years of its existence?

Doctrines develop in time. Just because someone believed something in the past (even the majority as the cases listed above), does not mean that they are wrong without any discussion.

Hope you get where I am coming from.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
Maria,

You really don’t want to go here do you? I mean this is the same as me posting this challenge:

The Ransom to Satan theory of the atonement (the belief that the Cross of Christ was a debt due to Satan and not to God) was universally believed by the Church up until the 12th century with Anselm. I am sure that you would not agree with this theory would you? If not, does this mean that the Church had the wrong teaching about the Atonement for 1100 years?

Or this challenge:

The majority of the early Church believed that Christ was ontologically subordinate (i.e. God, but a lower form of God) to the Father for the first 200 years of its existence. Do you believe that Christ is ontologically subordinate to the Father? If not, does this mean that the Church was wrong for the first 200 years of its existence?

Doctrines develop in time. Just because someone believed something in the past (even the majority as the cases listed above), does not mean that they are wrong without any discussion.

Hope you get where I am coming from.

Michael
Click to expand...
Sorry EXRC and Maria, I know that this question was not asked of me.

Also, in the statement above, I meant that death meant (in one since) the separation of the soul from the body, not the sould from the spirit as I mistakenly wrote.

Michael
 
John 3 Jesus could have answered Nicodemus by saying, `Oh, you’re aware of My miracles! Pretty powerful, huh? Quite incredible, eh?’ But instead, Jesus cut through the flattery and immediately drew Nicodemus’ attention to the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God has past, present, and future application. If you don’t understand this, your interpretation of Scripture will remain muddled, and your understanding unclear.?

The past application of the Kingdom of God is this: When Jesus walked on earth as a Man, the Kingdom was present on earth (Luke 10:9). The miracles and signs He ministered on this planet were but sneak previews of what the Kingdom will be in its future state. The present application of the Kingdom of God is this: Romans 14 teaches that the Kingdom of God is presently not external, but internal. Whenever a person opens his heart to Jesus, the Kingdom of God enters him (John 17:21). The future application of the Kingdom of God is this: When Jesus Christ comes back, we are going to see not only the internal manifestations of the Kingdom, but the external aspects as well. The lion will lie down by the lamb; the bear and the cow will eat together; tears, pain, and sorrow will be no more.

So it was that Jesus said to Nicodemus, `You’ll not see the Kingdom presently unless you realize who I am. You’ll not experience it internally unless you open your heart. You’ll not be there eternally unless you’re born again.’ To be born again is not when you are baptised. To be born again is to be born from above.(Greek genao anonthen) = born from above.
 
posted by unichristianTo be born again is to be born from above.(Greek genao anonthen) = born from above.
Click to expand...
I would agree that to be born again is to be born from above. But the early Christian church defined that as happening during Baptism. We are born again into the family of God through Baptism.
 
posted by Michael
Maria,
Click to expand...
You really don’t want to go here do you? I mean this is the same as me posting this challenge:
Click to expand...
The Ransom to Satan theory of the atonement (the belief that the Cross of Christ was a debt due to Satan and not to God) was universally believed by the Church up until the 12th century with Anselm. I am sure that you would not agree with this theory would you? If not, does this mean that the Church had the wrong teaching about the Atonement for 1100 years?
Click to expand...
Or this challenge:
Click to expand...
The majority of the early Church believed that Christ was ontologically subordinate (i.e. God, but a lower form of God) to the Father for the first 200 years of its existence. Do you believe that Christ is ontologically subordinate to the Father? If not, does this mean that the Church was wrong for the first 200 years of its existence?
Click to expand...
Doctrines develop in time. Just because someone believed something in the past (even the majority as the cases listed above), does not mean that they are** wrong without any discussion.
**
Hope you get where I am coming from.
Click to expand...
Michael
Click to expand...
Wrong without discussion? Isn’t what this is all about? Discussion? I am trying to be charitable but frankly I am very angry.

That is exactly where I wish to go Michael. If you wish to open a thread on what you posted go at it. **If you believe the Catholic Church officially taught error for over 1100 years, go prove your case, on a different thread. **

I have asked my separated brethren if they think the early church taught error. Early Christians clearly taught and believed that one is born again through baptism. This is supported by scripture and history. Has this belief changed in Catholic Teaching?

I actually have no idea on the things you are refering to. If your contention is that the Church officially taught false doctrine and has changed course, start a thread, I would love to read it.

This thread is on defining the term born again. Many of those who I am discussion with do not believe born again = baptism.
So I feel my question is quite valid. Was the church teaching falsely in 200ad. The Church clearly taught that baptism is regenerative and is what born again means. This is supported with scripture and history. Did the first Christians not understand what the apostles taught?

If you do not wish to go where this thread is going, leave. This thread that I started is discussing exactly what I intended it to. It is helping me to find out exactly what some of my fellow Christians believe as well.
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
Defined by whom and recorded where?

In scripture being “born again”, “raised to newness of life”, “regenerated” or any number of ways of saying the same thing is only
Click to expand...
equated to that which occurs through water baptism. The same can be said of the writings of the early Christians. No exceptions. No refutations.

Who, then, has defined born again as “the exact moment that the Holy Spirit baptizes you into the family of God when you believe (trust) in Christ”? By what authority has this person done so and where is it recorded?

This is a serious question.

Nancy,

What did Cornelius and his family do when they were listening to Peter preach? They were believing! This caused the Holy Spirit to baptize them.I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.Mat 3:11

They received the H.S.at this point in time!

What more can water do???

What does Paul say about this?For we were all baptized by 12:13 Or with; or in] one Spirit into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free–and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
Here we see that the H.S. baptizes you into the one body.

**What is the body but the body of Christ, Which is the family of God! **
And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.Romans 8:9-10
Being born again is becoming spiritually alive(Spirit gives birth to spirit), without receiving the H.S. you are still dead in your sins**.**

This is how scripture interprets scripture, you just have to dig it out.

Nancy , don’t get yourself all confused with R.C. doctrine, stay in scripture, everything is there.

How much clearer can I get?

Your friend exrc!
Click to expand...
 
40.png
MariaG:
Wrong without discussion? Isn’t what this is all about? Discussion? I am trying to be charitable but frankly I am very angry.
Click to expand...
Wow! That was very bad wording on my part. I am VERY sorry. I did not at all mean “without discussion” by you or I. I just meant historically without discussion. In other words that the early church wes “definitely” wrong. I really appreciate you desire to discuss, as I have told you before.

I hope this clarifies. I did not mean to make you so angry and I REALLY feel bad for jumping in.

Again, I did not mean to interfere. I will certianly leave the discussion up to you and others.

Thanks and God bless,

Michael
 
hi exrchttp://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/wave.gif
I’ll ask you the same question I have asked others
Was the early Chritstian Church in 200ad until the reformation teaching falsehood? The early church records the interpretation of born again to mean a regenerative baptism. It also records the error in denying baptism to infants. Were they in error already?
God Bless,
Maria
 
40.png
MariaG:
I would agree that to be born again is to be born from above. But the early Christian church defined that as happening during Baptism. We are born again into the family of God through Baptism.
Click to expand...
Sorry Marria this simply is not true. The thief on the cross never had the oportunity to be baptized did he? Baptism is not a pre-requisite for salvation, while being born from above is.
 
40.png
uniChristian:
Sorry Marria this simply is not true. The thief on the cross never had the oportunity to be baptized did he? Baptism is not a pre-requisite for salvation, while being born from above is.
Click to expand...
 
Maria, don’t listen to him he is a self appointed pope. He is trying to save us POOR CATHOLICS from ourselves. Apparently, he feels that Jesus can’t.Pray for him, try not to get mad the enemy wants to rob us of the peace Jesus gives us, and he uses people that have been told lies, and attempt to use scripture to do it. The gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. God Bless You
 
Dear uniChristian:

You said:
Sorry Marria this simply is not true. The thief on the cross never had the oportunity to be baptized did he? Baptism is not a pre-requisite for salvation, while being born from above is.
Click to expand...
The problem with your analogy is that the thief on the Cross still died under Old Testament law, and not under New Testament Law since Jesus had not yet completed His salvific work on Earth! Also, although Jesus tells the Thief that He will be with the thief tonight in paradise, this does not necessarily mean that thief went to heaven. Jesus didn’t ascend into heaven until 40 days after His resurrection.

MariaG’s inclusion of water baptism in the definition of born again is historically and scripturally accurate. If noncatholics insist that baptism by the Holy Spirit comes to us at the moment we believe, then why did the “believers” in Acts 19 not receive the Holy Spirit until Paul baptized them and laid hands on them?

In faith,
Fiat
 
40.png
MariaG:
hi exrchttp://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/wave.gif
I’ll ask you the same question I have asked others
Was the early Chritstian Church in 200ad until the reformation teaching falsehood? The early church records the interpretation of born again to mean a regenerative baptism. It also records the error in denying baptism to infants. Were they in error already?
God Bless,
Maria
Click to expand...
Maria,Born again **is **by regenerative baptism, Spirit baptism. This is plain to see from most of the scripture in N.T… Spirit gives birth to spirit, water does not give birth to spirit.

Can Spirit baptism happen at the moment we are water baptized? Why not? Does it have to? No, because it is merely an outward expression of an inward change, and evidence of true repentance, true belief, and an act of loving obedience. We are being washed by regeneration and renewed by the H.S. ( not water baptism) Titus 3:5.

If water baptism were efficacious then no one in the O.T. could have been saved. The only common thread between the O.T. and N.T. is belief or faith, same thing. True faith has always been the only item efficacious for salvation.

You have been given the bible definition of born again. Accept the Apostles teaching. What more could you want as proof?

Your friend Dan!
 
Dear Exrc:

I have been enjoying this discussion, and I also appreciate your insights and comments. I noticed in Acts 2, that those who are gathered in the upper room were all filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4). Evidence of this comes from the fact that these believers were speaking in tongues. However, Peter, in Acts 2:38 says that they needed to be baptized in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Why would Peter state that they needed to receive baptism in order to receive the Holy Spirit, if they had already received the Holy Spirit earlier that evening?

The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God does not circumscribe Himself to the Sacraments, but that the Holy Spirit objectively exists in the sacraments. Peter believes this as well, otherwise, why else would he tell the crowd to be baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit?

In Faith,
Fiat
 
40.png
Fiat:
Dear uniChristian:
You said:
The problem with your analogy is that the thief on the Cross still died under Old Testament law, and not under New Testament Law since Jesus had not yet completed His salvific work on Earth! Also, although Jesus tells the Thief that He will be with the thief tonight in paradise, this does not necessarily mean that thief went to heaven. Jesus didn’t ascend into heaven until 40 days after His resurrection.
Click to expand...
Yes, paradise not heaven. Where was paradise? We see in Luke 16:19-31 that it was in Hades, but on the side of Abrahams bosom where Lazarus was being comforted. When Jesus ascended into heaven he took paradise with him.
MariaG’s inclusion of water baptism in the definition of born again is historically and scripturally accurate. If noncatholics insist that baptism by the Holy Spirit comes to us at the moment we believe, then why did the “believers” in Acts 19 not receive the Holy Spirit until Paul baptized them and laid hands on them?
Click to expand...
So, now your are adding another prerequisite onto the second birth, which is laying on of hands. Fiat, we will not know the answer to this question until we get to ask it of Jesus in heaven.

I have an equally perplexing question. Which of the accounts of Judas’ death are accurrate? I guess we won’t know that either until we ask Jesus in person.

exrc
Click to expand...
 
Dear Exrc:

Thank you for your response regarding the thief on the cross because it underscores my point that the thief on the corss still died under Old Testament Law and not under New Testament Law. You assert that the thief went to the same place where all those of the Old Testament went. I agree. This is why it is not possible for you to hold the standards as applied to the Thief to us Christians today since the Thief was under the standards of the Old Covenant, and we are under the standards of the New Covenant.

Secondly, as a Catholic, I believe very firmly in the Laying on of Heads, i.e., confirmation. So yes, I would add that as a prerequisite. Afterall, Paul added that as a prerequisite for the believers in Acts 19.

Finally, I don’t think the separate accounts of Judas’ death are necessarily irreconcilable. I thank God that the Holy Catholic Church has been given the Holy Spirit, though, to guide us into all truth.

In faith,
Fiat
 
40.png
michaelp:
I hope you don’t mind if I jump in here for a moment and attempt to answer the original post.

As I read through these post I believe that you are all making the matter more complecated than it is. Being “born again” is a theological description that is used to describe the restoration of our relationship with God. Thats it! This same restoration is described also as being regenerated, adopted, and reconciled. But the closest reference that describes what it means may be in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 2:5 where he says that “even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ.” “Being born again” is to be made alive and being made alive is to have our relationship with God restored.

Here is where I get this:
  1. Before Adam ate of the tree he experienced full fellowship with God. He was “spiritually alive.”
  2. God promised Adam that if he disobeyed, that he would die that day. Death in Scripture always alludes to separation. Pysical death equals the separation of the spirit and the soul. Spiritual death equals the separation of the relationship with God. When Adam sinned, he died spiritually. His relationship with God was severed and all people, by virtue of our identification with Adam (Rom. 5:12, 17-18) are born in the same condition as Adam after the Fall.
  3. All people must have this relationship restored (notice the word “again” refering back to the previous condition that humanity existed under Adam). All people must be made alive to God or “they cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Therefore, being born again is one of the many ways that the New Testament describes the restoration of that which was lost in the Garden.
How’s that.

Michael
Click to expand...
That’s right. As I said in my posts, there’s no disagreement on WHAT being born again is but only on WHEN/HOW that occurs.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top