Define Born again

[Catholic4aReasn]

uniChristian:

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.?

Muddled interpretations of scripture are a direct result of individual interpretations of scripture. With all due respect, there’s really no way that you can be certain that your interpretation is not actually the one that is muddled. The best you can do is hope that it’s not. Simply believing that one’s interpretation is correct is no guarantee that it is.

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.

The discussion here seems to be WHEN/HOW being “born from above” takes place. The Catholic position is not that being born again is merely the act of being baptised but rather it’s through baptism that one is born again (dies and rises to new life- Romans 6:3-4). Baptism actually does what it symbolizes.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

exrc:

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!

There is only ONE baptism (Eph 4:5). That one baptism is water baptism. Water baptism and baptism in the holy Spirit are not two separate things because there is only ONE baptism. When one is baptised with water one receives the holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Water baptism actually does what it symbolizes. Every mention of the word “baptise” in scripture is a reference to water baptism.

Matt 3:11 does not imply that water would no longer be used in baptism but rather that now the water would actually effect something. One would now receive the holy Spirit when one is baptised with water. It would no longer merely be symbolic.

Water baptism is the normative means for receiving the holy Spirit, not the exclusive means. God can do things any way He wants. Some receive the holy Spirit before baptism, which is what happened to Cornelius. Cornelius wasn’t baptised once when he received the holy Spirit and then again when he was baptised with water. That would be two baptisms and scripture is clear that there is only ONE (Eph 4:5). Cornelius was filled with the holy Sprit (not a baptism) and then baptized in water.

What more can water do???

Well, it must do something or Peter would not have ordered water baptism. Peter didn’t suggest it or say it’d be a nice, meaningful gesture. He ordered it. Why, if it couldn’t do anything?

When one is baptised in water one is incorperated into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). It is through water baptism that one is adopted into the family of God. Under the old covenenat that was accomplished through circumcision. Under the new covenenant water baptism replaced circumcision as the means through which one enters God’s family (Col 2:11-12).

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.

He does so through water.**

**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 occurs, normatively, through water baptism. There is only one baptism, not two.**

**

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

**

Nah, it’s how you interpret scripture. Scripture interpreting scripture only works if your first interpretation is correct.

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

I’m not the slightest bit confused about baptism. Scripture is clear that there is one baptism through water through which we receive the holy Spirit and become a member of God’s family.

How much clearer can I get?

You’ve made your opinion very clear. I completely understand where you’re coming from!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

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.

Water baptism is the normative means for being born from above, not the exclusive means.

There are cases when a person simply has no opportunity for water baptism. Baptism takes place anyway. The Church refers to this as “baptism of desire”.

Dying for Christ is also a type of baptism. The Church refers to martyrdom as “baptism of blood”.

While baptism is the means by which one is born from above, it’s not necessarily water baptism.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Descipleof1]

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.

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

I would have to agree with unichristian, wonder why he was booted, oh well.
Let us not miss quote the Messiah, Jesus did not say tonight he said “today” in regard to the thief. Luke23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. You may think this as mere semantics but when I quoute the Messiah I want to be as accurate as possible. Granted Jesus did not ascend to heaven immediately, according to Eph.4: 9-10 we read: 9 Now this, “He ascended”–what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things. I agree with you about the necessity for the thief to descend with Christ to Abraham’s bosom. Jesus says of the thief “today you will be with me in Paradise” My definition of Paradise is as follows “anywhere the Lord is”. The point of this is to show that the thief was never baptized in water but he was baptized in the Lords death. When the thief came to the realization of who Jesus was, he uttered these words in Luke 23:42 “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom”. This is what it is to be born again, The thief came to the conclusion that Jesus was Lord and that his kingdom was not of this world. The thief surrendered his present circumstances and put faith in the Messiah for his immediate future. There was and is no Earthly process or right of passage that we as Humans attain that entitles us the kingdom of God. I agree with you when you say that the process was not yet complete, it was impossible for anyone to be born again at this time, for the born again plan was not yet complete. Jesus had not died, been buried, and risen again. God has always had a plan of salvation for each dispensation of time. In Noah’s day the only way of salvation was to get in the ark. In Moses’ day the only plan was the law. In the church dispensation, the only way to be saved is to be born again. Jesus told Nicodemus, “Ye MUST be Born Again.” He did not say you must be baptized, there is a difference. We have to be born from above. God bless you. P.S. If I were waiting in Abraham’s bosom for literally thousands of years and then Jesus appeared and said, “I AM the Messiah” and then offers subsequent proofs. I would have listened to him and followed him. I have listened and I am following him today. I think that Abraham’s bosom was emptied and they all followed their long awaited Messiah. I am looking forward to meeting the thief in Heaven.

 

[exrc]

Fiat:

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.

Was this accomplished by water baptism? Or Spirit baptism? I think you know the answer.

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?

He said repent and be baptized. When you repent, it is an acknowledgement that you are a sinner. This is a confession that you believe what God already knows. What does he know? That you’re a sinner, and Jesus is Lord and savior alone. Water baptism should always accompany true belief, because it reveals what has already happened internally to your spirit. The words of Christ through Peter here are regenerative, they washed the believers, and the Spirit renewed those who heard and believed when they repented. Then they were Water baptized.

You cannot be water baptized then repent. Repentance must come first. When God through his grace reveals to you your sinfulness, you are overwhelmed with the need to repent. The desire to be water baptized follows. Just like the Ethiopian eunuch, but Phillip was emphatic that he truly believed first.

**As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” Some late manuscripts baptized?” 37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] **

Water baptism is optional because it is **not **efficacious, but faith is never optional, because it **is **efficacious.

exrc

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Born again : Baptism in the Early Fathers

bringyou.to/apologetics/num2.htm

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

exrc:

Water baptism is optional because it is **not **efficacious,

This is certainly true for non-Catholic Christians. However, keep in mind that you aren’t describing absolute truth. It’s not absolute truth that in all cases baptism is not efficacious. Catholic baptism, IS efficacious…absolutely. This teaching does not require your approval to be true. In other words, this teaching is true, even if you don’t personally believe that it is in much the same way that God is True even for those who don’t believe that He exists. Not believing in God doesn’t cause Him to cease to exists and not believing that baptism is efficacious doesn’t mean that it’s not.

but faith is never optional, because it **is **efficacious.

Faith opens the channel of grace. Baptism applies it. It’s been that way for 2000 years.

It would be interesting to find out exactly when the idea that baptism is merely symbolic and optional began being taught.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Fiat]

Dear Exrc

You said:

Was this accomplished by water baptism? Or Spirit baptism? I think you know the answer

Are you saying that the people at Pentecost had already received Spirit Baptism since they were speaking in tongues?

In faith
Fiat

 

[Descipleof1]

exrc:

Was this accomplished by water baptism? Or Spirit baptism? I think you know the answer.

He said repent and be baptized. When you repent, it is an acknowledgement that you are a sinner. This is a confession that you believe what God already knows. What does he know? That you’re a sinner, and Jesus is Lord and savior alone. Water baptism should always accompany true belief, because it reveals what has already happened internally to your spirit. The words of Christ through Peter here are regenerative, they washed the believers, and the Spirit renewed those who heard and believed when they repented. Then they were Water baptized.

You cannot be water baptized then repent. Repentance must come first. When God through his grace reveals to you your sinfulness, you are overwhelmed with the need to repent. The desire to be water baptized follows. Just like the Ethiopian eunuch, but Phillip was emphatic that he truly believed first.

**As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” Some late manuscripts baptized?” 37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] **

Water baptism is optional because it is **not **efficacious, but faith is never optional, because it **is **efficacious.

exrc

ex-roman catholic take care they may boot you too!

 

[Descipleof1]

Catholic4aReasn:

This is certainly true for non-Catholic Christians. However, keep in mind that you aren’t describing absolute truth. It’s not absolute truth that in all cases baptism is not efficacious. Catholic baptism, IS efficacious…absolutely. This teaching does not require your approval to be true. In other words, this teaching is true, even if you don’t personally believe that it is in much the same way that God is True even for those who don’t believe that He exists. Not believing in God doesn’t cause Him to cease to exists and not believing that baptism is efficacious doesn’t mean that it’s not.

Faith opens the channel of grace. Baptism applies it. It’s been that way for 2000 years.

It would be interesting to find out exactly when the idea that baptism is merely symbolic and optional began being taught.

In Christ,
Nancy

So what you are saying is that there are two standards, one for Catholics and another for non catholic Christians?

 

[Descipleof1]

Catholic4aReasn:

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

It does not happen when you are baptized as an infant.

 

[exrc]

Fiat:

Dear Exrc

You said:
Are you saying that the people at Pentecost had already received Spirit Baptism since they were speaking in tongues?

In faith
Fiat

Yes of course, how can you speak in tongues if you are not born again? Can’t you see that they are now tabernacles of the Holy Spirit? The tongues of fire rested over their heads while they were still in prayer. Where can we see this symbolism elsewhere?

So the cloud of the LORD was over the tabernacle by day, and fire was in the cloud by night, Exodus 40:38

The unique thing about the church age is that the Spirit is now **in **us making our spirits alive. Never before was this seen until the day of pentecost. Praise God !

I think I’m gonna have a Holy Ghost party right now ! You’re all invited!!

In love exrc Dan!

 

[exrc]

Descipleof1:

ex-roman catholic take care they may boot you too!

Thank you my dear brother, or sister?! However, if they haven’t yet, it is unlikely they will.

You’ve made some good posts, keep fighting the good fight!

But remember convincing is the job of the Holy Spirit. I am so often guilty of this myself.

Love and blessings Dan!

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Yes, that is right convincing is for the Holy Spirit. We will welcome you with open arms back to the Lords Church

 

[exrc]

Lisa4Catholics:

Yes, that is right convincing is for the Holy Spirit. We will welcome you with open arms back to the Lords Church

I appreciate the kind offer, but I would rather be burned at the stake, and watch my family tortured.

Thanks anyway!

Love Dan!

 

[edwinG]

MariaG:

Not true Edwin. Coming from the background that I did, I kind of came at it differently than most Catholics. I believe the Bible 100%. I believe there is no contradictions in the Bible. It is 100% accurate as God’s inspired word. Would you agree?

The Bible tells us that the Church will be a pillar of foundation and truth. The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth. While there were those who *tried *to falsely teach or like in the case of Peter, failed to practice what he knew to be the revealed truth. But the Early Church successfully defeated all false teachings. If this is not true, then Scripture is false when it says He will lead us to all truth.

The history of the Early Church shows that baptism is considered to be regenerative and infants should get baptized. This has been the consistent teachings of all Christians. Even during the Reformation, this teaching was not in dispute.

So if Christians were wrong about this until the 1800’s or so, then the Holy Spirit did not lead the us to all truth for 1800 years? The Church was not a pillar and foundation of truth until 1800’s? This would mean Scripture is a lie.

My arguments about Baptism are firmly rooted in Scripture. If the Catholic Church is wrong, Scripture lies. Although most Catholics would not word it this way, Regenerative, infant baptism is based on Scripture and history (tradition) validates this interpretation.

Catholic teachings of baptism are firmly Scriptural and more, they are apostlic.

**I would ask you, do you think the early Church fell into false teachings about regenerative infant baptism and was not rescued from that falsehood until the last several hundred years? If yes, how do you then interpret Scripture that tells us that the Church is a pillar and foundation of truth if the only Christian Church around, the Catholic Church, taught falsehood for 1000 years ? **

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Hi Maria,
The confusion lies in the words, The church. The church is Jesus body. The Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Catholic Church. See another thread, The Eastern Orthodox ( I think) make the exact same claims about the EO church that the Roman Catholic church does, ie the original and the one true church. Christ’s body is the church.And in His church are all believers, irrrespective of which denomination they belong to.
Belonging to this or that church is no guarantee.
And within even strict churches as I suppose the Roman Catholic church is you must find people who have different beliefs on some points and we dont have the wisdom to make these decisions for other people. We all are responsible.
Blind leaders lead blind believers into ditches.
Christ fill you Maria
walk in love and in peace
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[edwinG]

Fiat:

Dear Exrc:

Muslims believe in Christ. Are they born again?

In faith,
Fiat

Hi Fiat,
Do muslims believe the Jesus is the Son of God?
Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[edwinG]

Fiat:

Dear Exrc:

You stated:
However, the Bible flatly contradicts what you just said. In Acts 19:1-7, there are men who are described as “believers.” They are also described as “disciples.” Now, based on your definition of “born again,” we should be able to conclude that these men have received the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible says otherwise. These men did not receive the Holy Spirit until they were baptized and Paul laid his hands on them. So, your conclusion that “when you believe” is when you receive the Holy Spirit, is misleading at best.

In Faith,
Fiat

Hi Fiat,
You have quoted Acts 19 1-7 to support your viewpoint. It doesnt : it fact it does the opposite. These people were baptised in water , a baptism of repentance and they did not receive the Holy Spirit. It wasnt until they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus and when Paul laid hands on them the Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke in tongues.
19:2 he said to them, " Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, " We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit"
19;3 And he said to them,“Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, " Into John’s baptism"
19:4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptised with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is on Christ Jesus.
19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
19:6 and when Paul laid hands on them the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[edwinG]

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.

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

Hi Fiat,
John heralded the new age in. He established the kingdoms for Christ who followed him. He is greater than Mary, Matthew 11:11 " Assuredly I say to you, among those born of women, there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist , but he who is least in the kindgom of heaven is greater then he."
So the thief was in the new age.The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven had already been established.
The thief was one who the gates of hell could not prevail against and the thief escaped and pressed into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force.
Matthew11:13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Luke 16:16 The law and prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached and everyone is pressing into it.

The believers in Acts 19 did not receive the Holy Spirit because they had only received the water baptism , the baptism of repentance.
Acts 19:3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptised?” So they said , " Into John’s baptism"
19:4 Then Paul said, " John indeed baptised with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should on Him who would come after him, that is on Christ Jesus.
19:5 When they heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus
19:6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Does your bible differ?

Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[edwinG]

Fiat:

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

Hi Fiat,
You are incorrect when you claim those in Acts 2:38 were the same as those in Acts 2;4
Acts 2;38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent and let everyone of you be batized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 2:41 states that about 3000 were baptized.

These were NOT the people who had received the Holy Spirit earlier in the day, but of the crowd that gathered because of the commotion.
Christ be with you
walk in lovehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG