Define Born again

[edwinG]

Catholic4aReasn:

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. 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). He does so through water.** **
****This occurs, normatively, through water baptism. There is only one baptism, not two.

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

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.

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

In Christ,
Nancy

Hi Nancy,
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’

There is no mention of water.

So many posts here have not placed scripture beside their quotes and when you check the passage it is different to the claim. I do hope this is caused by a busy schedule and not for any other reason.
Every mention of the word “baptise” in scripture is a reference to water baptism.
John 1:33 I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, "Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who** baptizes** with the Holy Spirit.
Nancy are you saying this is a water baptism?
One would now receive the holy Spirit when one is baptised with water. It would no longer merely be symbolic.
**Acts **19:3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said,"Into John’s baptism.
These people did not have the Holy Spirit, They had to be baptized in Jesus name to receive the Holy Spirit.
Christ be with you Nancy
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[Fiat]

Hi EdwinG:

If John the Baptist marks the beginning of the New Covenant, even though Jesus had not yet offered Himself as the sacrificial lamb, then why did Jesus command people to obey the scribes and pharisees since they sit in Moses’ seat? Why was the Holy of Holies still concealed?

Your brother,
Fiat

 

[Fiat]

Hi EdwinG:

Sorry I didn’t combine this post with the previous one, but I got distracted.

You said:

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

My point in using the Acts 19:1-7 passage was to illustrate that these men did not receive the Holy Spirit until they were baptized and Paul had laid hands on them. The men said they were baptized by John, but Paul points out that John’s water baptism is different from Christ’s baptism. I guess I am wondering whether Jesus’ baptism cannot involve water, and I am also wondering why these men did not receive the Holy Spirit until after Paul laid hands on them?

Your brother,
Fiat

 

[edwinG]

Fiat:

Hi EdwinG:

Sorry I didn’t combine this post with the previous one, but I got distracted.

You said:
My point in using the Acts 19:1-7 passage was to illustrate that these men did not receive the Holy Spirit until they were baptized and Paul had laid hands on them. The men said they were baptized by John, but Paul points out that John’s water baptism is different from Christ’s baptism. I guess I am wondering whether Jesus’ baptism cannot involve water, and I am also wondering why these men did not receive the Holy Spirit until after Paul laid hands on them?

Your brother,
Fiat

Hi Fiat,
I am rushing and will come back. I see Acts 19:1-7 as these desciples being baptised not by John, by by his method, a baptism of water only. John died, I suppose, many years before as this is Paul who came some years after Christ had died. My bible puts the date of Acts at AD 62, but of course that does not positively define the time these people were baptised, but it does open the gate. Again the only thing we can be certain of is the act of Johns style of baptism which was of water does not bring the Holy Spirit. It is well to consider the meaning of baptism. I believe it means to submerge and in those days it was used in the everyday sense of dyeing clothes to a uniform colour. That is to submerge them in a dye to make the garment the same colour instead of one of several hues. Therefore to be baptised in the Spirit means immersion in the Spirit. This is not immersion in water.
Now where are we?
May Christ grow in you
walk in love
edwinG

 

[John_of_Woking]

Born Again refers to water Baptism.

However, The Scriptures talk of ‘metanoia’ which refers to an going conversion experience in the heart of all those who are already born-again. This metanoia may be what people mistakenly refer to as being ‘born again’.

 

[exrc]

To all,

I think It is safe to say that we have defined born again sufficiently.

Let’s review!

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.

Our next task should be to discover what this has procured for us.

exrc

 

[Sarah_Jane]

“William Webster, a former Catholic turned Evangelical, in his recent book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, freely admits the unanimous position of the Church Fathers as to what is called ‘baptismal regeneration’ :‘The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers…From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.’ (Webster, page 95-96)”

Source : bringyou.to/apologetics/num2.htm

 

[Fiat]

Hi EdwinG:

Thank you for your posts. By the way, I wanted to apologize for my misreading of Acts 2. That was my mistake, and I thank you for correcting me on it.

Also, there is no question that John’s baptism is different from Jesus’ baptism. I guess what I’m having difficulty understanding is why noncatholics insist that the baptism of the Holy Spirit must not include water. When I read John 3:5, “water and spirit” go together. I don’t see them as an either-or proposition. Plus in John 3:22-24, we read that Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea where “he spent some time with them baptizing.” In John 3:23, it also states that John was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, “because there was an abundance of water there, and people came to be baptized.”

Now, we know that John absolutely baptized with water. How do people then conclude that Jesus’ baptism did not include water?

Your brother
Fiat

 

[Church_Militant]

Lisa4Catholics:

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

Lisa , you & Maria are right on…
the fact is that he has no concept of Baptism of Desire, or Baptism of Blood…two ways that the church explains salvation w/o water baptism, which is not always possible but which also explains the fairness of God in the case of St. Dismas (the good thief on the cross). A/C’s gimme a pain… Gotta love 'em though.

A Blessed Christmas to you all

 

[Church_Militant]

edwinG:

Hi Nancy,
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’

There is no mention of water.

So many posts here have not placed scripture beside their quotes and when you check the passage it is different to the claim. I do hope this is caused by a busy schedule and not for any other reason.
Every mention of the word “baptise” in scripture is a reference to water baptism.
John 1:33 I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, "Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who** baptizes** with the Holy Spirit.
Nancy are you saying this is a water baptism?
One would now receive the holy Spirit when one is baptised with water. It would no longer merely be symbolic.
**Acts **19:3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said,"Into John’s baptism.
These people did not have the Holy Spirit, They had to be baptized in Jesus name to receive the Holy Spirit.
Christ be with you Nancy
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

Nice if you wanna believe Pentacostalism…but I refuse to speak in tongues to PROVE I have the Holy Ghost…another doctrine that did not exist in the early church and is far younger than the Reformation. This is a case of passages pulled out of context and pushed to extremes. While I do not deny the gifts of the Holy Spirit, (I have both prayed in tongues and prophesied) the way it is carried out in most Pentecostal churches in unscripturally undisciplined and may even in some cases be of the devil. This is NOT an attack…it is a simple statement of what I saw in the pentecostal churches that I have attended and been members of.

A blessed Christmas to you all

 

[eddie]

Good Evening all. I have spent the last hour reading this entire thread, I have to say it was not only interesting but stimulating. What I mean by that is I was compelled to post a statement to all of you, perhaps the Holy Spirit:

Reading your comments and replys to one another without an emotional (meaning without taking sides, like you wouldn’t with your kids) attachment to the disscussion. I feel that not one person here has accomplished or has fullfilled what they came here to do. Whether it be prove this or that. Change him or her. Whatever. I STRONGLY believe God has and continues to call each and everyone of us to be Christlike. For some it maybe preaching, if that is your calling but all are called to walk in His footsteps. So, as brothers and sisters in Christ we have a mission to bring to all to know, love and serve the Lord. In doing this great mission we must not forget our own salvation is not measured upon the amount or number we bring to know, love and serve the Lord but rather in the very action/feeling/intention in our hearts :ehh: .

Remember the Lord Commanded all of us to First: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength.
Second Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self.

The passion of most of you here can be very much felt through your words and I am moved by so many that have such passion for their beliefs.

I will say to the Catholic Apologetic here in this thread and for the rest of the forums I strenuously reccomend this book “How Not To Share Your Faith.” It is a wonderful, no wait, an AWESOME book!!

Also, to my Christian brothers and sisters in this forum and outside to please keep your hearts and yourselves open at all times (it’s hard, but with Christ everything is possible) to find the desire and strength to fully know, love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ through His Church.

With Love In Christ ,

Eddie

 

[exrc]

To all,

I have waited long enough.

Are there any brave souls out there?

Is anyone going to reply to my last post?

I didn’t think so, which is why I asked the question to begin with.

Come out into the light where the truth is, and bask in it!

I’m especially surprised with, you, Maria! Since you started the thread, I expected you to finish it.:tsktsk:

You have shown everyone that you are not honest!

I have refuted the false belief that we are justified by water baptism !

Let this go on record that RCism has been debunked. Finally by the concession of RC’s through they’re unwillingness to reply to the undisputable truth in my posts on this thread.

I hope this has opened your eyes.
blessings to all, exrc!

 

[dennisknapp]

exrc:

To all,

I have waited long enough.

Are there any brave souls out there?

Is anyone going to reply to my last post?

I didn’t think so, which is why I asked the question to begin with.

Come out into the light where the truth is, and bask in it!

I’m especially surprised with, you, Maria! Since you started the thread, I expected you to finish it.:tsktsk:

You have shown everyone that you are not honest!

I have refuted the false belief that we are justified by water baptism !

Let this go on record that RCism has been debunked. Finally by the concession of RC’s through they’re unwillingness to reply to the undisputable truth in my posts on this thread.

I hope this has opened your eyes.
blessings to all, exrc!

Blah, blah, blah…

Please show me anyone in the history of the Church prior to the 16th century that taught that we are not born again in baptism.

Not even Luthur rejected this truth.

 

[exrc]

dennisknapp:

Blah, blah, blah…

Please show me anyone in the history of the Church prior to the 16th century that taught that we are not born again in baptism.

Not even Luthur rejected this truth.

blah,blah,blah, study this thread, and study your bible! Answer my last post if you have the courage. #105 wise guy!

exrc

 

[dennisknapp]

exrc:

To all,

I think It is safe to say that we have defined born again sufficiently.

Let’s review!

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.

Our next task should be to discover what this has procured for us.

exrc

This is a nice assertion but the case in not your favor, my friend. All of history is against you and so is the proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Your belief came with the Anabaptist in the 16th century and therefore is an innovation and a “tradition of men.”

As I stated before, not even Luther believed that being born again came anywhere but by water baptism, and he was disgusted with what the Anabaptist did in thier corruption of many Sacred Teachings.

 

[exrc]

dennisknapp:

This is a nice assertion but the case in not your favor, my friend. All of history is against you and so is the proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Your belief came with the Anabaptist in the 16th century and therefore is an innovation and a “tradition of men.”

As I stated before, not even Luther believed that being born again came anywhere but by water baptism, and he was disgusted with what the Anabaptist did in thier corruption of many Sacred Teachings.

Really? so salvation by faith alone really means by water baptism? Maybe you should spend some time reading Luther before you engage me, lest you make short work of yourself.

exrc

 

[dennisknapp]

exrc:

Really? so salvation by faith alone really means by water baptism? Maybe you should spend some time reading Luther before you engage me, lest you make short work of yourself.

exrc

Here is Luther in his Large Catechism:

“In these words you must note, in the first place, that here stand God’s commandment and institution, lest we doubt that Baptism is divine, not devised nor invented by men. For as truly as I can say, No man has spun the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer out of his head, but they are revealed and given by God Himself, so also I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red coat. For it is of the greatest importance that we esteem Baptism excellent, glorious, and exalted, for which we contend and fight chiefly, because the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit. But let it be ever so much an external thing here stand God’s Word and command which institute, establish, and confirm Baptism. But what God institutes and commands cannot be a vain, but must be a most precious thing, though in appearance it were of less value than a straw.”

 

[dennisknapp]

Luther Cont.

“Therefore it is pure wickedness and blasphemy of the devil that now our new spirits, to mock at Baptism, omit from it God’s Word and institution, and look upon it in no other way than as water which is taken from the well, and then blather and say: How is a handful of water to help the soul? Aye, my friend, who does not know that water is water if tearing things asunder is what we are after? But how dare you thus interfere with God’s order, and tear away the most precious treasure with which God has connected and enclosed it, and which He will not have separated? For the kernel in the water is God’s Word or command and the name of God which is a treasure greater and nobler than heaven and earth.”

“Comprehend the difference, then, that Baptism is quite another thing than all other water; not on account of the natural quality, but because something more noble is here added; for God Himself stakes His honor His power and might on it. Therefore it is not only natural water, but a divine, heavenly, holy, and blessed water, and in whatever other terms we can praise it, – all on account of the Word, which is a heavenly, holy Word, that no one can sufficiently extol, for it has, and is able to do, all that God is and can do [since it has all the virtue and power of God comprised in it]. Hence also it derives its essence as a Sacrament, as St. Augustine also taught: Aocedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. That is, when the Word is joined to the element or natural substance, it becomes a Sacrament, that is, a holy and divine matter and sign.”

 

[dennisknapp]

Cont.

“But as our would-be wise, new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer: It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests. Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it. Now, if I believe this, what else is it than believing in God as in Him who has given and planted His Word into this ordinance, and proposes to us this external thing wherein we may apprehend such a treasure?”

So, who has misunderstood Luther?

 

[dennisknapp]

In Luther’s Small Catechsim:

"How can water do such great things? - Answer. It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying."