How do I know if I'm born again?

[misslollipops]

book, chapter and verse, please.

Rom6:17. How could you ‘obey from the heart that form of Doctrine’ as an infant

Eph 2:8-9 we are saved by faith
Rom10:17 Faith comes by hearing.

As an infant there is no way you could have faith from hearing when you don’t even speak or understand yet

Acts 8:36-37 eunuch cannnot be baptized till he believes with all his heart

Infant cannot be baptized till he believes with all his heart

Give me some time I will find others

 

[maurin]

The HS is the Helper, imparted to you as a gift from God when you become born again.
My point is as an infant we cannot make a decision for Christ.
We cannot call on the name of Christ.
Our parents may desire that we live a Godly life. But they cannot force salvation on us. They cannot force us to put away our flesh and be renewed and be born again in the spirit. Nobody can do it for you.
Each person must accept Jesus as the Christ and repent. Then the helper will come.
This cannot happen at infancy.
Sure parents can offer their child to God when it is born, but the renewing of the mind, and putting to death of the flesh must be done by the individual. And this comes by hearing the word of God and accepting it.
One person(the parent) cannot bestow salvation,or the HS, or regeneration, or God’s grace,on another person(the child.)
Each must make his own choice to accept the truth.
Salvation comes by grace through faith. Eph2:8
Faith comes by hearing Rom10:17
Cannot happen as an infant.

This is your response to my request for book, chapter and verse?

YOUR interpretation of these verses?

book, chapter and verse, please. Or the writings of an Early Church Father teaching against infant Baptism. Otherwise you admit that you have offered nothing but your own fallible interpretation of the Scripture.

 

[djrakowski]

1 cor7:14 believers children are holy

Here’s the verse, quoted from the NIV: “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

This doesn’t say anything about reaching the ‘age of reason,’ nor does it cover the children of non-Christians. Are such children, as well as adults and children with mental disabilities, condemned? And, please quote scripture to make your case.

Does this verse also mean that the unbelieving spouses are ‘saved’ by virtue of the faith of the believing spouse? If that’s so, then ALLFORHIM (a non-Catholic Christian sister) has no reason to worry about her ‘unsaved’ husband, since she’s a believer, and this verse, according to your interpretation, means that her husband is saved whether he believes or not.

This verse doesn’t appear to say what you believe it does.

 

[Teflon93]

Here’s the verse, quoted from the NIV: “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

This doesn’t say anything about reaching the ‘age of reason,’ nor does it cover the children of non-Christians. Are such children, as well as adults and children with mental disabilities, condemned? And, please quote scripture to make your case.

Does this verse also mean that the unbelieving spouses are ‘saved’ by virtue of the faith of the believing spouse? If that’s so, then ALLFORHIM (a non-Catholic Christian sister) has no reason to worry about her ‘unsaved’ husband, since she’s a believer, and this verse, according to your interpretation, means that her husband is saved whether he believes or not.

This verse doesn’t appear to say what you believe it does.

I quoted the entire chapter a couple of screens back.

Didn’t faze her. She simply ignores the evidence and restates her claim, unchanged.

She doesn’t believe in papal infallibility, but man does she believe in her own!

 

[krissy343]

Like Jimmy Swagert, Jim Bakker those guys? Cheap grace, no logic, and narrow view of scripture-.You stated your argument in oneliners you were countered by other arguements .your mind has been so prejudiced against anything Catholic that it is really sad to see.That’s the thing I despise about OSAS or born againe philosophy is why are they so hateful toward Catholics? is that what Christ taught us"love one another as I have loved you>" I s almost never see it from excatholics that go into Protestantism-Lot’s of Ex protestants look fondly back to their spiritual roots but say “I finally found the whole truth” If you are taught nthat Catholics are not saved then they are very wrong. ! Who can see the human heart? Do we know everybody’s back stories? Do we know why a person drinks or fornicates?Do understand that people who are hurt act out and do sinful things? I deal with lot of kids and if you saw what the go through you would not judge them.So they didn’t live up to your image of “holy “people… Do you know in your church you could and probably are sitting next to some who is an adulterer,fornicator,liar, thief etc. Do you know their hearts? God is more expansive and loving because people don’t live up to “your” standards doesn’t mean they aren’t struggling step by step toward redemption & salvation. -do you think that being sinful is catholic thing? If you fall off the “born again” wagon-does that mean maybe you thought you were saved but really weren’t or that warm and fuzzy feeling was all an illusion ? Or the Holy Spirit deserted you or you deserted the HS?Do you really believe that all you’ve got to say is"jesus I take you as my Lord and savior” and bam!! your saved . is there no cost to your discipleship? cheap grace is the watered down substitute of NT grace- a grace that costs- that was struggled for fought for … I’m sorry - I don’t believe saying Alleluia I’m saved is enough I believe picking up your cross and carrying in the steps of Christ day after day is true discipleship- Real grace costs, real justification costs- saying something is easy- living it is not.Warm fuzzy feelings and emotions fade but we have to have is a solid idea of discipleship and grace that will help us to work our salvation in"fear and trembling” Broken record theology is not the way-Discipleship is not limited to the Bible as we comprehend it-we must rise above all comprehension. we must be immersed in Christ Himself- become part of Him-We do it in the Eucharist which transcends all knowledge, all theology all earthliness-so we can be united with Him-something which words cannot do

AAAAMEN!!!

 

[maurin]

Rom6:17. How could you ‘obey from the heart that form of Doctrine’ as an infant

Eph 2:8-9 we are saved by faith
Rom10:17 Faith comes by hearing.

As an infant there is no way you could have faith from hearing when you don’t even speak or understand yet

Acts 8:36-37 eunuch cannnot be baptized till he believes with all his heart

Infant cannot be baptized till he believes with all his heart

Give me some time I will find others

Please keep searching because you have not proven anything other than that which you put forward are nothing but your own opinions.

Not that your opinions are valueless. Neither are they Truth.

Origen, AD 248: The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which are washed away through water and the Sprit. Commentaries on Roman 5:9.

Luke 18:15-17: Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’

 

[djrakowski]

I quoted the entire chapter a couple of screens back.

:doh2: Sorry, Tef, I didn’t see that!

Didn’t faze her. She simply ignores the evidence and restates her claim, unchanged.

She doesn’t believe in papal infallibility, but man does she believe in her own!

That verse doesn’t say anything about final salvation at all. It seems to me that it’s referring to the *possibility *of the influence of believing parents and spouses on nonbelieving children and spouses. In other words, it’s likely that the unbelieving parties discussed here would be attracted to the faith of the believer, and thus choose to convert.

But that’s not what misslollipops said.

And re: your last point… I’ve always found that curious. The very same people who loudly denounce our Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility insist that their own interpretations are correct, which is essentially a claim of infallibility.

 

[clmowry]

bump

I thought you prommised not to post any more to the thread?

Chuck

 

[Church_Militant]

Rom6:17. How could you ‘obey from the heart that form of Doctrine’ as an infant

Eph 2:8-9 we are saved by faith
Rom10:17 Faith comes by hearing.

As an infant there is no way you could have faith from hearing when you don’t even speak or understand yet

Acts 8:36-37 eunuch cannnot be baptized till he believes with all his heart

Infant cannot be baptized till he believes with all his heart

Give me some time I will find others

But doesn’t the doctrine of salvation come from all of the New Testament and not just a few verses? IOW, it is not correct to take a few passages that seem to support a belief and ignore others that also apply. This is mainly what Catholics are trying to point out here, that our beliefs are based on the context of the entire New Testament and not a handful of cherry picked verses that are then twisted to make them appear to teach a doctrine that conflicts with the New Testament context.

 

[JoeyWarren]

okay miss lollipop answer the question.

Let’s leave out the children part for a moment.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife

and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband

**You don’t actually believe a non-believer can be sanctified do you?
**

 

[Teflon93]

:doh2: Sorry, Tef, I didn’t see that!
That verse doesn’t say anything about final salvation at all. It seems to me that it’s referring to the *possibility *of the influence of believing parents and spouses on nonbelieving children and spouses. In other words, it’s likely that the unbelieving parties discussed here would be attracted to the faith of the believer, and thus choose to convert.

No problem—for all I know, given the way this thread has run, several other folks have put the verse in its proper context before I weighed in. It seems to be a recurring theme to act as though evidence has not been presented to refute this claim.

And re: your last point… I’ve always found that curious. The very same people who loudly denounce our Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility insist that their own interpretations are correct, which is essentially a claim of infallibility.

I think this bears out the thread on the biggest difference between Protestants and Catholics having to do with authority. When I was a Protestant, I would never give the Catholic Church’s teachings a second look simply out of pride. “Hey, I can read the Bible as well as anybody.”

But of course, the more I read, and the more I learned of Catholic teaching, the more I came to realize my pride was misplaced.

And not just in interpreting Scripture.

When I came to understand what Catholic priests and deacons actually do, and how they do it, it put my poor accomplishments to shame. I have never anointed a dying baby while praying with her grieving parents, a daily occurrence for our priests. I have never washed the feet of our poorest parishioners, as our Bishop does.

It was a very humbling experience to watch these men of God live true Christian lives, lives of deprivation and of suffering, while I who had prided myself previously on being a good Christian because I went to worship services and read and prayed (while doing nothing except throwing a few dollars at my neighbors in need).

I may have been baptized an Episcopalian, but I have only truly begun to grow in Christ since overcoming my pride and joining the true Body of Christ as he bid me do.

 

[deanarrca]

Ephesian Chapter 2
Actually baptism or born again is not referred to at all in Ephesians 2 specifically. It is inferred. You would have to compare scriptures from other parts of the Bible. There are scriptures that compare being sealed with the spirit to being born again. There are other passages that compare babtism to being born again, and baptism in other passages is also compared with circumcision.

Eph2:8
Salvation comes by grace through faith.

Actually it doesn’t say who’s faith just through faith. (I’m thinking parents or sponsors in the case of infant baptism)

Anyway continuing down the entire passage in Ephesians Chapter 2- The passage is making a point that it is all by Gods grace that you are saved (that there is salvation, we now have hope). That we as gentiles can also be saved and reconciled to God.
If you then continue to read the entire chapter it is a comparison of the old covenant and the new covenant. Compares the Circumcised with the Uncircumcised. It is trying to explain how us gentiles under the new covenant can also be reconciled to God
Eph 2:12-13
12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

You can do a whole comparison of Circumcision In the OT and See the Similarities with New Covenant Baptism. Baptism has the similar purpose.
Under the old dispensation, circumcision of the flesh was the sign, seal, and token of the covenant with God. “Ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin…a token of the covenant”—Gen. 17:11. “The sign of circumcision, a seal”—Rom. 4:l1.

Circumcision of the flesh was a type of but not a substitute for circumcision of the heart, as shown below. The latter was not possible as a human act, but was done by the Holy Spirit.

“Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart”—Jer. 4:4. “All the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart”—Jer. 9:26. “Strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh”—Ezek. 44:7. “Circumcision is that of the heart”—Rom. 2:29. “The circumcision made without hands”—Col. 2:11.

As such you can also do a study of covenantal relationships and see that how covenants applies to families not just individuals.

Through baptism we become part of God’s Family Eph 2:22
Like babies were circumcised in the old covenant, babies can be sealed with the holy spirit and made heirs of the new covenant through baptism. Doesn’t mean they won’t ever fall away from the faith.

 

[djrakowski]

I think this bears out the thread on the biggest difference between Protestants and Catholics having to do with authority. When I was a Protestant, I would never give the Catholic Church’s teachings a second look simply out of pride. “Hey, I can read the Bible as well as anybody.”

But of course, the more I read, and the more I learned of Catholic teaching, the more I came to realize my pride was misplaced.

I was an evangelical for nearly 10 years, so I can completely relate to what you’re saying.

It’s important to note while reading the Bible that Jesus expressed his desire that we all be one (John 17:11, 20-23), a desire that was echoed by St. Paul (Romans 15:6, 1 Cor. 1:10). Is this desire for unity evident in the doctrinal confusion that characterizes non-Catholic Christianity? For heaven’s sake, they can’t even agree on what baptism does, whether it’s necessary for salvation, or whether it should be administered to children. They can’t agree on whether the Lord’s supper is symbolic of Christ’s death for our sins, or whether He’s really present (and if the latter, what form His presence takes in celebrating it). And, they can’t agree on sacraments - some, including Anglo-Catholics, accept 7, others accept two (baptism and the Lord’s supper), and still others reject sacramental practices altogether, relegating them to mere ordinances.

Note, too, that we’re not talking about such practices as whether a service should be free-form or liturgical or whether the music used in worship should be traditional or contemporary. We’re talking about the core elements of the message of salvation as evidenced in the pages of the New Testament. Therefore, the notion that Protestants ‘agree on the essentials’ is absolutely fallacious.

And yet, I’m supposed to believe that every individual who regards himself as a Christian is able to simply pick up a Bible and start reading, and come away with an accurate interpretation thereof? Has that produced the unity for which Jesus prayed? Which position - ours, or theirs, requires suspension of disbelief in order to be accepted?

And not just in interpreting Scripture.

When I came to understand what Catholic priests and deacons actually do, and how they do it, it put my poor accomplishments to shame. I have never anointed a dying baby while praying with her grieving parents, a daily occurrence for our priests. I have never washed the feet of our poorest parishioners, as our Bishop does.

It was a very humbling experience to watch these men of God live true Christian lives, lives of deprivation and of suffering, while I who had prided myself previously on being a good Christian because I went to worship services and read and prayed (while doing nothing except throwing a few dollars at my neighbors in need).

I may have been baptized an Episcopalian, but I have only truly begun to grow in Christ since overcoming my pride and joining the true Body of Christ as he bid me do.

There’s not much I can add… this was so beautifully written. Thank God for the faith of these humble servants of God, and for giving both us eyes of faith to recognize the truth of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!

 

[deanarrca]

BELIEVER’S BAPTISM
The proof text for this objection is Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.”

If the first part of the verse excludes infant baptism, because infants cannot believe, the second part denies infant salvation for the same reason, but those that advocate a believers only baptism do not usually advocate this. But why interpret one half of a verse one way and refuse to take the other half the same way? The absurdity of this interpretation is seen also in passages like II Thessalonians 8:10: “If any would not work, neither should he eat.” Should infants, therefore, be starved?

Furthermore, in Romans 4:11, circumcision, although administered to an 8-days-old child, is designated “a seal of…faith.” That token of the covenant was administered on the faith of the parents; why, then, is it absurd to administer to a child in the new dispensation “a seal of faith”? to administer to a child the new token of the “everlasting” covenant in the God-directed way on the faith of the parent?

 

[misslollipops]

Here’s the verse, quoted from the NIV: “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

This doesn’t say anything about reaching the ‘age of reason,’ nor does it cover the children of non-Christians. Are such children, as well as adults and children with mental disabilities, condemned? And, please quote scripture to make your case.

Does this verse also mean that the unbelieving spouses are ‘saved’ by virtue of the faith of the believing spouse? If that’s so, then ALLFORHIM (a non-Catholic Christian sister) has no reason to worry about her ‘unsaved’ husband, since she’s a believer, and this verse, according to your interpretation, means that her husband is saved whether he believes or not.

This verse doesn’t appear to say what you believe it does.

Children are holy until the age of reason

 

[djrakowski]

Children are holy until the age of reason

Please defend the concept of ‘age of reason’ from the scriptures.

Furthermore, please explain what you believe happens to those with mental disabilities, and how the ‘age of reason’ concept applies to them. And, as I’ve asked in my other posts, please make your case from the scriptures.

And further still, you didn’t answer my questions about the non-believing spouses and children of believers.

OOPS… that last sentence should’ve read, “And further still, you didn’t answer my questions about the non-believing spouses of believers, nor the children of non-believers”

 

[misslollipops]

BELIEVER’S BAPTISM
The proof text for this objection is Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.”

If the first part of the verse excludes infant baptism, because infants cannot believe, the second part denies infant salvation for the same reason, but those that advocate a believers only baptism do not usually advocate this. But why interpret one half of a verse one way and refuse to take the other half the same way? The absurdity of this interpretation is seen also in passages like II Thessalonians 8:10: “If any would not work, neither should he eat.” Should infants, therefore, be starved?

Furthermore, in Romans 4:11, circumcision, although administered to an 8-days-old child, is designated “a seal of…faith.” That token of the covenant was administered on the faith of the parents; why, then, is it absurd to administer to a child in the new dispensation “a seal of faith”? to administer to a child the new token of the “everlasting” covenant in the God-directed way on the faith of the parent?

To believe you have to hear and make a choice.He that believeth not has made the choice not to believe. Infants do not have a choice so they are not included. But excellent scriptural reference! thanks

 

[misslollipops]

Please defend the concept of ‘age of reason’ from the scriptures.

Furthermore, please explain what you believe happens to those with mental disabilities, and how the ‘age of reason’ concept applies to them. And, as I’ve asked in my other posts, please make your case from the scriptures.

And further still, you didn’t answer my questions about the non-believing spouses and children of believers.

As I have said before, the bible is silent on these issues. I will not guess at an answer. But as I have also siad before God knows thier heart

 

[djrakowski]

As I have said before, the bible is silent on these issues. I will not guess at an answer. But as I have also siad before God knows thier heart

You have done no such thing as to claim that the Bible is silent on these matters. IN fact, you have stated repeatedly that this concept of the ‘age of reason’ applies to children, without defending the concept from the scriptures. That’s a mighty stretch for someone who claims to base all of her beliefs on the scriptures!

Further, the verse you cited, 1 Cor. 7:14, does indeed talk about unbelieving spouses being sanctified through their believing husband/wife. Does that mean that the spouse of a believer needn’t have any faith of his/her own to be saved?

 

[JoeyWarren]

To believe you have to hear and make a choice.He that believeth not has made the choice not to believe. Infants do not have a choice so they are not included. But excellent scriptural reference! thanks

There were natives here in America at the time of Christ. These natives lived and died without hearing for centuries upon centuries. Are these natives that have lived and died, in heaven or in hell. By your statement, since they have not heard, they are not subjected to a choice. But at the same time you claim that these same infants stop being holy at the age of reason. Does God damn those to hell that did not have the benefit of hearing the word and then given an opportunity to make a choice?