getting baptised again

[MIZER]

Pastor Jim, You stated also that:

This is a good example of a Catholic strawman. I never said that those who are born again do not sin and the Bible doesn’t say that those who are born again do not sin.

What the OP described is not merely a sin in the context of a momentary moral lapse, but an abandonment to sin. That is, a decision to openly and unrepentedly serve sin.

I would like to address this but I don’t have time right now so I’ll have to come back to this. For the moment just let me ask you this.

I’ve read on this forum before where people will say this or that statement is a strawman. It seems to me that this is a way of saying one does not wish to answer the question. Why is what I said a strawman?

I don’t think what I described of my nephew in the OP is “an abandonment to sin” on his part. Don’t you think it is possible for a person who still believes in the Saving grace of Christ to fall into sin in a particular area of life and sit there for a time, all the while still believing and trusting in Christ for ones ultimate salvation? Isn’t this the basis of the prodigal son? He was away for sometime but he never forgot who his father was and he was never forgotten by his father and when he returned he didn’t have to be re-born into his family or re-adopted by his father. He was still a member of the family.

I’ll have more for you later. I hope you will stay with me on this and be patient. I’m looking forward to reading your responses.

 

[TriuneUnity]

“One baptism” is not about being baptized only one time. It refers to the authentic baptism of the Church. If you’re baptized by a gnostic sect, then you are not participating in the “one” baptism but in “another” baptism – as Paul says: another Gospel.

The idea that it can be done only once lies in the belief that Baptism is EFFECTIVE. This is the belief of the Ancient Apostolic Churches and it is not shared by those who have re-defined it as an “ordinance.”

For those who believe in the efficacy of sacraments, “doing it again” is to disbelieve and to “insult” the action of God. It is therefore a sacrilege – especially if the second baptism is in a tradition that rejects the Church.

For those who do not believe that Baptism is effective, then it stands to reason that it might be done any number of times as people experience the successive, ever-deeper conversions that mark the life of all committed Christians.

 

[MIZER]

Mercygate posted: “One baptism” is not about being baptized only one time. It refers to the authentic baptism of the Church. If you’re baptized by a gnostic sect, then you are not participating in the “one” baptism but in “another” baptism – as Paul says: another Gospel.

The idea that it can be done only once lies in the belief that Baptism is EFFECTIVE. This is the belief of the Ancient Apostolic Churches and it is not shared by those who have re-defined it as an “ordinance.”

For those who believe in the efficacy of sacraments, “doing it again” is to disbelieve and to “insult” the action of God. It is therefore a sacrilege – especially if the second baptism is in a tradition that rejects the Church.

For those who do not believe that Baptism is effective, then it stands to reason that it might be done any number of times as people experience the successive, ever-deeper conversions that mark the life of all committed Christians.

This is very good. And it makes sense. I guess my idea of one baptism was off a bit. Thanks for the clarity on this.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

I’ve read on this forum before where people will say this or that statement is a strawman. It seems to me that this is a way of saying one does not wish to answer the question. Why is what I said a strawman?

For the same reason I have already explained: because it demands that I defend a position that I never held.

I don’t think what I described of my nephew in the OP is “an abandonment to sin” on his part.

I see. So he was an unwilling participant in “drinking and carousing” for “several years”?

Don’t you think it is possible for a person who still believes in the Saving grace of Christ to fall into sin in a particular area of life and sit there for a time, all the while still believing and trusting in Christ for ones ultimate salvation?

Sure. However, the passage of scripture I referred you to three times states that it isn’t possible for someone who is born again to do so.

Isn’t this the basis of the prodigal son?

No.

He was away for sometime but he never forgot who his father was and he was never forgotten by his father and when he returned he didn’t have to be re-born into his family or re-adopted by his father. He was still a member of the family.

The problems with your understanding of the parable of the Prodigal Son aside, we’re not talking about somebody who “remembered who his father is”, we’re talking about somebody who claimed to be a Christian, but bore the fruit of somebody who was not a Christian.
Triune Unity:

Doesn’t every Christian produce bad fruit to some extent in their lives?

Are you familiar with 1 John 4?

 

[TriuneUnity]

The problems with your understanding of the parable of the Prodigal Son aside, we’re not talking about somebody who “remembered who his father is”, we’re talking about somebody who claimed to be a Christian, but bore the fruit of somebody who was not a Christian.

Doesn’t every Christian produce bad fruit to some extent in their lives?

 

[MIZER]

OK Pastor Jim,

You’re going to have to explain how 1John 4 tells us that one who is “born again” cannot fall into a state of habitual sin for any period of time because I don’t see that. Can you be more specific than this?

Not just by my standard, but according to 1 John 4.

and:

I have already cited 1 John 4 for you, which shows that one cannot do this and claim to be born again.

“This” is what you are calling an “abandonment to sin” and what I am calling a state of habitual, perhaps chronic sin. Do you fail to recognize that a momentary moral lapse can lead to further moral lapses? And all the while a person who is continually lapsing into this state may still believe in and trust in Christ. Do you not realize that pretty much everyone sitting in the pews on Sunday morning failed to live up to the ideals of Christianity in some way or another during the week?

The fact is we are all in a state of sin to one degree or another at any given time. Where in 1John4 does it state that one who is “born again” will not fall or at least will not remain in a fallen state for any length of time?

 

[MIZER]

Pastor Jim posted:

While we cannot judge the state of someone’s soul in eternity, the Bible does give us numerous criteria by which to judge whether or not someone is exhibiting fruit compatible with being born again.

But you must agree that it is impossible to know the true nature of another’s salvation, don’t you? According to your faith, if I understand it correctly, one is “born again” at the point at which they “believe on Christ.” How can you know for certain what another truly believes? Even Atheists can lead ethical lives and can produce positive outcomes from the acts of charity which they may perform. How can anyone look at the life and the “fruit” it produces and know what is in that persons heart? How can you truly know the mind of another?

 

[Pastor_Jim]

But you must agree that it is impossible to know the true nature of another’s salvation, don’t you? According to your faith, if I understand it correctly, one is “born again” at the point at which they “believe on Christ.” How can you know for certain what another truly believes? Even Atheists can lead ethical lives and can produce positive outcomes from the acts of charity which they may perform. How can anyone look at the life and the “fruit” it produces and know what is in that persons heart? How can you truly know the mind of another?

Jesus told us that we can know them by the fruit that they produce.

You’re going to have to explain how 1John 4 tells us that one who is “born again” cannot fall into a state of habitual sin for any period of time because I don’t see that. Can you be more specific than this?

Excuse me, that’s 1 John 3, not 1 John 4.

1 John 4:6-10 tells us:

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 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. 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

This is talking about ongoing, unrepentant sin, such as described in the OP.

 

[MIZER]

Pastor Jim,

With all due respect Pastor, I think you misunderstand 1john3 because of the false premise you lead with, which is your mistaken ideas about what Baptism is and what the Bible means when it says that we must be “born again” in order to enter heaven.

By your standard, that to be born again one cannot then enter into a prolonged state of sin, most of us are not capable then of being born again and most of us will not enter heaven. God became man and died a horrible death and was resurected to save sinners not to save the righteous. We are born again once in our life through the sacrament of Baptism and from then on we must fight the forces of darkness which would lead us into sin. Sometimes we fail in that endeavor and the proper response to that failure, regardless of how long it takes us to get there, is repentance which sets us back in God’s grace and fellowship and the sacrament of reconciliation which sets us back in the good graces of HIS church.

It is incorrect and not biblically sound to say that one who falls into a state of sin for any prolonged period of time must not have been “born again” in the first place and so must start over and “get saved” by being “born again” and getting baptized again.

According to the Bible, being “born again” is being baptized. Because you are mistaken in your interpretation of Jesus’ words to Nicodemus you are also then, mistaken in you understanding of 1john3. I’m not going to re-invent the wheel on this thread, highjacking it in the process as there are several other threads on this forum which deal with this issue already.

You might try this one, it’s called Are Catholics Born Again and it is here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?=122289
highlight=baptising+again

This particular thread is already up to 28 pages and I haven’t read through it but even just the first few posts may shed some light on this for you. I hope you will take a look at it and perhaps study the Catholic teachings on Baptism.

May God Bless

 

[MIZER]

Evidently I don’t know how to send people to another thread via a link. Can someone help me out with that?

Pastor Jim, you can find the thread by searching, Are Catholics “born again” I think. I don’t know.

 

[MIZER]

This might be interesting.

This is an excerpt from the 11th post on the thread I was trying to send the good Pastor to called Are Catholics “born again”

Originally posted by JohnWilliams:

Even after I was born again I went through a frustrating period of a couple of years where I was not being used by the Lord. I kept trying to choose what He wanted me to do. I could not see that I was going through a process of sanctification, and didn’t understand the extent to which I was still too filthy for Him to even consider using me as a representative. I am still, of course, a sinful wretch, but I can see how I was from here.

John is a non-catholic who considers himself to be both born again and a sinful wretch at the same time.

Pastor Jim,

According to your reading of 1john3, how is this possible? Would you say JohnWilliams is not really born again and should start over and get re-baptized?

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Pastor Jim,

With all due respect Pastor, I think you misunderstand 1john3 because of the false premise you lead with, which is your mistaken ideas about what Baptism is and what the Bible means when it says that we must be “born again” in order to enter heaven.

By your standard, that to be born again one cannot then enter into a prolonged state of sin, most of us are not capable then of being born again and most of us will not enter heaven. God became man and died a horrible death and was resurected to save sinners not to save the righteous. We are born again once in our life through the sacrament of Baptism and from then on we must fight the forces of darkness which would lead us into sin. Sometimes we fail in that endeavor and the proper response to that failure, regardless of how long it takes us to get there, is repentance which sets us back in God’s grace and fellowship and the sacrament of reconciliation which sets us back in the good graces of HIS church.

It is incorrect and not biblically sound to say that one who falls into a state of sin for any prolonged period of time must not have been “born again” in the first place and so must start over and “get saved” by being “born again” and getting baptized again.

According to the Bible, being “born again” is being baptized. Because you are mistaken in your interpretation of Jesus’ words to Nicodemus you are also then, mistaken in you understanding of 1john3. I’m not going to re-invent the wheel on this thread, highjacking it in the process as there are several other threads on this forum which deal with this issue already.

You might try this one, it’s called Are Catholics Born Again and it is here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?=122289
highlight=baptising+again

This particular thread is already up to 28 pages and I haven’t read through it but even just the first few posts may shed some light on this for you. I hope you will take a look at it and perhaps study the Catholic teachings on Baptism.

May God Bless

I’ve shown you exactly where in the Bible we’re told that a person who continues on in willful, unrepentant sin is not born again so your argument is not with me, but with God.

John is a non-catholic who considers himself to be both born again and a sinful wretch at the same time.

According to your reading of 1john3, how is this possible?

Would you say JohnWilliams is not really born again and should start over and get re-baptized?

I don’t know if he’s saved or not. You didn’t provide enough information. Of course, I’m sure you’ll say “well you just don’t understand”, since that seems to be the Catholic fall-back position you must run to in order to reassure yourself that no non-Catholic could possibly know what he’s talking about.

From the little bit you’ve posted, it doesn’t sound like he’s involved in ongoing sin, but just hasn’t been discipled very well.

 

[MIZER]

Dear Pastor,

Surely you can do better then this:

I’ve shown you exactly where in the Bible we’re told that a person who continues on in willful, unrepentant sin is not born again so your argument is not with me, but with God.

What you showed me was a passage (1John 3:4-10), taken out of context, which does not in fact, say anything about being born again or not being born again. And I have no argument with God. My argument is with you inasmuch as you misinterpret the written word of God in order to defend a system of faith which is schismatic by definition.

I’m sure you’ll say “well you just don’t understand”, since that seems to be the Catholic fall-back position you must run to in order to reassure yourself that no non-Catholic could possibly know what he’s talking about.

I was trying to point out to you that the problem arises in a misguided understanding of Jesus’ words to Nicodemus.

Just as you resort to calling my arguments strawmen, it appears you must resort to insulting my intelligence rather than placing before me some reasonable argument for your position. I expect more from a man of the cloth then that. I am not running to a “fall-back” position and I have no need to reassure myself that on certain issues, non-Catholics don’t know what they are talking about.

If you would back up in 1John to the second chapter you would see that John is talking about antichrists. The purpose of the letter is to combat certain heresies that had arisen about Jesus.

The second chapter begins with an admonishment not to sin. Catholics are fully aware that sin seperates us from christ and while we are in a persistent state of sin we are not “in Chirst” until such time as we repent and reconcile with the body of Christ, His One Church.

Because you misinterpret what it means to be “born again” you must believe that a person is not born again if he is in a persistent state of sin. Thus you point to 1John 3:4 where it says that, “in him there is no sin.” This is a very harsh understanding of John’s letter. John is not saying that one who persists in sin is not born again.

Once we receive the grace which comes from being born again, (which is found in Baptism) it is ours forever. If we die in a state of unrepentant mortal sin then we forfeit that gift but as long as we live, we can reconcile through repentance because we have that gift. Hence 1 John 2:27 states that, "As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you…"

When we are born again through baptism/confirmation we receive this anointing. It is a gift and it is ours forever as long as we keep it, nurture it and allow it to grow within us. 1Tim 4:14 **“Do not neglect the gift you have…” **

Obviously sin gets in the way of this growth and grave sin can even stifle it. Persisting in sin would be considered grave or serious sin and we acknowledge that it is a problem and can ultimately be fatal (mortal) to our spiritual life. As long as we live, however, we can hope because we have that gift and there is the sacrament of pennence and a way to find our way home.

Those who believe in Faith Alone rather then Baptism for the conferring of this gift and in the doctrine of OSAS have an inherent problem with the issue of sin. You must view persistent sin as a sign that one does not have the gift at all rather than realizing the reality that one who has been Baptized (born again), does have the gift and he has temporarily lost his way. John is warning us against that which might cause us to lose our way, he is not telling us that we never had the gift in the first place.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

You know, Mizer, I tried very hard to be respectful to you.

If this is the way you’re going to be, then it’s probably best that I just ignore you.

 

[Harmony1988]

You know, Mizer, I tried very hard to be respectful to you.

If this is the way you’re going to be, then it’s probably best that I just ignore you.

All I can say is, if you’re a representative of Catholicism, thank God I am not a Catholic.

Fallacy!

 

[MIZER]

originally posted by Pastor Jim:

I don’t know if he’s saved or not.

Of course you don’t. Let me help you. Yes, he is saved because he has been validly Baptized.

From the little bit you’ve posted, it doesn’t sound like he’s involved in ongoing sin, but just hasn’t been discipled very well.

He called himself a sinful wretch. What more do you need? Of course he is involved in ongoing sin, we all are. Even you, Dear Pastor are involved in ongoing sin. That is the whole point.

According to your understanding of what it means to be born again, none of us can be because we are all sinners. According to your understanding we would have to make a practice of “getting saved” and being baptized every single day. This is what had me confused about the actions of my nephew and what prompted me to start this thread.

Mercygate really had the answer on this. You (and other protestants as well) deny the effects of Baptism. You deny that the gift of God’s Grace, his life in us, is conferred upon us in the Sacraments, beginning with Baptism.

So I ask you, what do you make of the following verses?

Acts 2:38, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 22:16 “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” .

1 Pet. 3:20–21 “God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.

Titus 3:5 says that God, “saved us…, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.”

 

[mercygate]

This is very good. And it makes sense. I guess my idea of one baptism was off a bit. Thanks for the clarity on this.

You weren’t “off” in thinking that one baptism means “do this only once.” It is (like everything else in Catholic theology) that there is more to it than that. The “do it only once” part is the practical end point of what we believe in full understanding of the Sacrament.

 

[mercygate]

Jesus told us that we can know them by the fruit that they produce.

Excuse me, that’s 1 John 3, not 1 John 4.

1 John 4:6-10 tells us:

This is talking about ongoing, unrepentant sin, such as described in the OP.

Your view of sin among the “born again”, if I understand you correctly, almost exactly mirrors Catholic teaching on mortal versus venial sin.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Your view of sin among the “born again”, if I understand you correctly, almost exactly mirrors Catholic teaching on mortal versus venial sin.

Not even close.

 

[MIZER]

Oh for crying out loud Pastor Jim! I mean really.

You know, Mizer, I tried very hard to be respectful to you.

If this is the way you’re going to be, then it’s probably best that I just ignore you.

You know this has been my experience every time I try to converse with Baptists. They simply cannot reasonably answer the many questions their beliefs bring to mind and they end up begging out of the conversation. Why is that? What have I said that would so offend you that you feel you now must ignore me?

Was it that I pointed to a verse in the context of the verse you pointed me to, which refutes your interpretation? Can you not tolerate me because you cannot tolerate the truth?

Aren’t you obligated as a christian to set me straight if I am in error and openly seeking answers? Don’t you, as a Minister of God, care about my fallen immortal Catholic soul?

I really expected that a Pastor would have more staying power. How disappointing.