How do I know if I'm born again?

  • Thread starter Thread starter misslollipops
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn’t say it is heresy. It is a false teaching that you become born again when you get baptized as an infant
Yeah. Uh huh.

Early Church Fathers on Infant Baptism

Polycarp (69-155 AD)


“Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (*Martyrdom of Polycarp *9: 3)

Irenaeus

“For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

**Justin Martyr (100 – 166 AD) **

“Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15).

Hippolytus (170-236 AD)

“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Commentary on Romans, 5.9).

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

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

Council of Carthage (254 AD)

“We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.”

Cyprian

“Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.” (To Fidus 1: 2).

“In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man… Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision… we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another” (Letter 58 to Fidus).

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (*Letters *64:2 [A.D. 253]).

(cont.)
 
Pope Sircius

“…we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy Baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls.” (Letter to Bishop Himerius, [A.D.385]).

**Ambrose **

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant. (Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387])

Gregory of Nazianzen

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (*Oration on Holy Baptism *40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly *, if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (*Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian *1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

"They are citizens of the Church who were wandering in error. They have their lot in RIGHTEOUSNESS who were in the confusion of sin. For not only are they free, but HOLY also; not only holy, but RIGHTEOUS too; not only righteous, but SONS also; not only sons, but HEIRS as well; not only heirs, but BROTHERS even of Christ; not only brothers of Christ, but also co-heirs; not only co-heirs, but His very members; not only His members, but a temple too; not a temple only, but likewise the instruments of the SPIRIT. You see how many are the benefits of BAPTISM, and some think its heavenly GRACE consists ONLY in the remission of sins; but we have enumerated TEN honors. For this reason we baptize even INFANTS, though they are not defiled by sin [or do not have sins]: so that there may be given to them HOLINESS, RIGHTEOUSNESS, ADOPTION, INHERITANCE, BROTHERHOOD with Christ, and that they may be His MEMBERS. (from Baptismal Catecheses 2:4)

Council of Carthage (418 AD)

“If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema.”

Augustine

What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400])

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (*The Literal Interpretation of Genesis *10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (*Letters *166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.”

“Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ.”

“For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin” (Enchiridion; ch. 43).*
 
I wouldn’t say it is heresy. It is a false teaching that you become born again when you get baptized as an infant
You’ve already been proven wrong, with Scripture, on this point. Why do you persist? You have already admitted that you cannot be “clothed in Christ” without the Holy Spirit and Gal 3:27 says we are clothed in Christ when we are baptized. Thus, we are born of Spirit and water at baptism.

Accrording to John 3:3-5 being “born again” requires being born of Spirit AND water. You are not born of water when you say a sinner’s prayer. Accepting the Lord as your personal Savior is necessary to being saved, but it is NOT the same thing as being “born again”. That phrase has been hijacked and redefined by evangelical Christians, but one only need to look at Scripture to see that thier definition of “born again” is a false teaching.
 
Please quote. I find the exact opposite that the bible says.
We have already discussed what it means to be born again of the Spirit in this thread. I have explained what happens when you put to death the flesh and are born of the Spirit.
If you would please go to previous posts. Thanks
 
We have already discussed what it means to be born again of the Spirit in this thread. I have explained what happens when you put to death the flesh and are born of the Spirit.
If you would please go to previous posts. Thanks
😉
 
You’ve already been proven wrong, with Scripture, on this point. Why do you persist? You have already admitted that you cannot be “clothed in Christ” without the Holy Spirit and Gal 3:27 says we are clothed in Christ when we are baptized. Thus, we are born of Spirit and water at baptism.

According to John 3:3-5 being “born again” requires being born of Spirit AND water. You are not born of water when you say a sinner’s prayer. Accepting the Lord as your personal Savior is necessary to being saved, but it is NOT the same thing as being “born again”. That phrase has been hijacked and redefined by evangelical Christians, but one only need to look at Scripture to see that their definition of “born again” is a false teaching.
👍 Never seen it stated better than that! :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
 
We have already discussed what it means to be born again of the Spirit in this thread. I have explained what happens when you put to death the flesh and are born of the Spirit.
If you would please go to previous posts. Thanks
You’re apparently completely bent on your insistence in making the tired old claims that infants can’t receive the Holy Spirit, that we are “born again” by faith alone (differing from “salvation by faith alone” only in semantics), and “baptism is only symbolic.”

When you have been challenged, you have danced and dodged, or evaded and ignored questions. You have refused to answer questions, or provide asked for Biblical support for your claims and assertions. Instead, you give vague references (“You really should just read Romans 3-8”), or have provided verses that don’t prove your claims. You repeatedly ignore Biblical citations that show that show your claims to be incorrect.

Your posts show that you are either trolling on the Apologetics board of this forum, or you are looking for non-Catholics to share their own “Damascus road experiences”, since you seem to insist that something similar is the only way to be “born again”.

(I suppose I can understand your insistence that Paul knows what “born again” means better than Jesus does - after all, Jesus never had a “Damascus Road Experience”. :rolleyes: )

If you are not trolling, but looking for protestant “Damascus road”/“born again” testimonies, you would probably be served better in the “non-Catholic Religions” board of this forum.

Chris
 
You’re apparently completely bent on your insistence in making the tired old claims that infants can’t receive the Holy Spirit, that we are “born again” by faith alone (differing from “salvation by faith alone” only in semantics), and “baptism is only symbolic.”

When you have been challenged, you have danced and dodged, or evaded and ignored questions. You have refused to answer questions, or provide asked for Biblical support for your claims and assertions. Instead, you give vague references (“You really should just read Romans 3-8”), or have provided verses that don’t prove your claims. You repeatedly ignore Biblical citations that show that show your claims to be incorrect.

Your posts show that you are either trolling on the Apologetics board of this forum, or you are looking for non-Catholics to share their own “Damascus road experiences”, since you seem to insist that something similar is the only way to be “born again”.

(I suppose I can understand your insistence that Paul knows what “born again” means better than Jesus does - after all, Jesus never had a “Damascus Road Experience”. :rolleyes: )

If you are not trolling, but looking for protestant “Damascus road”/“born again” testimonies, you would probably be served better in the “non-Catholic Religions” board of this forum.

Chris
I don’t know what trolling means.
See post 435
 
Luke 18

The Little Children and Jesus

15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.

16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

17 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

Q: Where did we get these writings?

A: The Apostles.

Q: Who were the Apostles?

A: They were the church of Christ.

Q: So the church wrote the letters that we read today?

A: Yes.

Q: So if I have a question or a problem where do I go?

A: Take it to the church.

Q: Not the Bible?

A: The Bible does not say “Take it to the Bible”?! Besides the canon for the Bible wasn’t decided until around 384ad.More than 300 hundred years after Jesus rose from the dead.

Q: So we have a problem here in this thread. What should we do?

A: Take it to the church.

Q: O.K. but which church? There are so many.

A: The Protestant Reformation happened in 1517. **490 **years ago. They broke off from the Catholic Church which dates back to the Apostles. St. Peter made first head bishop by Jesus almost 2000 years ago. And even if people refuse to believe that, what about the second bishop or the third? Look at the list of head bishops.Look at the dates.Even if you take the fourth pope (whos letters we still have) that is still over **1,900 **years ago.And closer to the time of Jesus and his Apostles.
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Q: But what if the people refuse to listen to the church?

A: You know what the church wrote.

Some people have a problem with obedience.🤷
 
Is it me or has the thread just lapped itself?

Welcome back from hiatus, Missylollipops!
 
Gamera;2762650:
So how does a baby get born again?
It doesn’t
Then a baby who dies cannot enter heaven, right? Because only people who have been born again can enter heaven.

This is the gaping logical fallacy in the doctrine of salvation by “faith alone.” Does it really sound correct that Jesus offers a plan of salvation which ignores millions of babies and toddlers who die before reaching the age of reason? Did Jesus really die for the sins only of adults? That doesn’t sound like the Jesus Whom I love and serve, the Jesus on Whom I have built my life. He loves little children.
 
**
How do I know if I’m born again?
The answer is easy. You can only know for sure with 100% confidence only and only after your death. You will be either be in hell or not be in hell…**
 
** The answer is easy. You can only know for sure with 100% confidence only and only after your death. You will be either be in hell or not be in hell…**
You’ll know when you are born of the Spirit and not of the flesh. A total change comes over your life. You start to get convicted of any thing you do that is not in the will of God.
 
Where are you now anyway?
Still atheist?
No. As I mentioned in the first post you responded to, thankfully, the Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church.
And I never even mentioned the letters osas until you did
I acknowledged that and explained that you implied/inferred OSAS by your posts. I don’t really care about the letters. If you don’t believed that once you are saved you can’t lose your salvation, then I apologize for my mistake.

Work out your salvation in fear and trembling.
 
No. As I mentioned in the first post you responded to, thankfully, the Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church.

I acknowledged that and explained that you implied/inferred OSAS by your posts. I don’t really care about the letters. If you don’t believed that once you are saved you can’t lose your salvation, then I apologize for my mistake.

Work out your salvation in fear and trembling.
No problem
Still saved though, praise God!
 
Then a baby who dies cannot enter heaven, right? Because only people who have been born again can enter heaven.

** This is the gaping logical fallacy in the doctrine of salvation by “faith alone.”** Does it really sound correct that Jesus offers a plan of salvation which ignores millions of babies and toddlers who die before reaching the age of reason? Did Jesus really die for the sins only of adults? That doesn’t sound like the Jesus Whom I love and serve, the Jesus on Whom I have built my life. He loves little children.
I’m so glad you’ve posted this!

I’m a convert (Deo Gratias!) from evangelicalism. In my old church, we would’ve answered the question in this manner: a person who dies before the ‘age of reason’ would go straight to heaven. Supposedly, this included unbaptized adults with mental disabilities as well. Curiously, I was never able to piece together a cogent scriptural argument to make this case.

misslollipops, please let us know how this dilemma is solved in your theology, using scripture to back up your claims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top