How do I know if I'm born again?

[guanophore]

As I have said before Jews are Jewish from their bloodline. Circumsicion does not make a person Jewish.
You say baptism makes a baby catholic, not so with circumcision.

Yes, and you are wrong both times! As scripture teaches us:

Rom 2:29
29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal.

A person who is born into the bloodline of Jews is not a “real” Jew unless He becomes a Son of the Covenant.

If this were not true, why did Jesus’ parents have Him circumcised? He was born to solidly Jewish parents (or did you not read the geneologies of Mary and Joseph?)

 

[Church_Militant]

“Critical hit—we’ve lost apostolic succession! Quick, throw 7 books of the Bible into the portable hole, Heretic!”

Well…I think all I was really saying is that contrary to the popular a-C teaching, Catholic teachings do indeed have their basis in the Word of God and frankly, a lot of the stuff that I see coming from some of the n-C posters here is baffling in that while asserting that Catholic beliefs are unscriptural, they seem to ignore or dismiss other passages that speak to the same topic, which often seems to result in some very strange (to say the least) expressions of what they say they believe.

 

[Miserissima]

…a lot of the stuff that I see coming from some of the n-C posters here is baffling in that while asserting that Catholic beliefs are unscriptural, they seem to ignore or dismiss other passages that speak to the same topic, which often seems to result in some very strange (to say the least) expressions of what they say they believe.

I don’t want to sound like I’m bashing n-C posters, but I am always taken aback when a non-C poster defends private interpretation, when it doesn’t agree with other parts of Scripture!

 

[guanophore]

I don’t believe osas

If you sin read Rom7-8

Wow! this is GREAT! I no longer have to repent, go to confession, or do penance, or change my life! If I sin, I just have to read a couple chapters of a book, and I am off scot free! YAY!

I wouldn’t say it is heresy. It is a false teaching that you become born again when you get baptized as an infant

What is the definition for heresy?

How is a heresy different than a “false teaching”?

By what standard are these determined?

If someone teaches something different than what Jesus taught, what is that called?

According to who is this a false teaching?

The infallible ms. lollipops, of course! Didn’t you know her interprestation of scripture is the ONLY right one?

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t want to sound like I’m bashing n-C posters, but I am always taken aback when a non-C poster defends private interpretation, when it doesn’t agree with other parts of Scripture!

I agree. Having been n-C for many years, I have seen this first hand, and in teaching Bible studies it has been the source of some times when I just had to walk away.

It is my opinion, (and just my opinion, mind you) that the modern post reformation n-Cs have sort of over simplified conversion and rebirth down to something that seems (to me…again) like a sort of “Christianity Lite”, even when they are very devout in every way.

I’ve tried to resolve it again and again and it just simply does not add up to the Christianity that is in my New Testament or the Christianity that I find spoken of in the earliest writings of the sainted early church. :hypno:

 

[guanophore]

Which is exactly what happens when Catholics are baptized. We continue to grow in spirit as our conscience becomes more finely attuned to sin, and as we examine our consciences as part of the sacrament of penitence.

Thus the more we avail ourselves of the sacraments Christ has offered us through his Church, the easier our path will be through the narrow gate.

To not do so is to disobey Christ, to risk damnation, and to allow the pride which is the engine of disobedience to consume us.

Woe be to those who claim, as so many of our brothers and sisters in the fundamentalist communities do, that their earthly works will put more “jewels in their crown” in Heaven!

Well, I don’t know if you read the whole thread Teflon, but this did not happen tomisslollipops. She was baptized as an infant and apparently her parents failed to raise her in the faith, poor one. She did not have a proper formation of conscience as she should have had, and fell into a life of sin and debauchery. It was only by getting seized by this evangelical way of thinking that she was able to understand and follow what she received in baptism. She has not had appropriate catechism at all.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well, I don’t know if you read the whole thread Teflon, but this did not happen tomisslollipops. She was baptized as an infant and apparently her parents failed to raise her in the faith, poor one. She did not have a proper formation of conscience as she should have had, and fell into a life of sin and debauchery. It was only by getting seized by this evangelical way of thinking that she was able to understand and follow what she received in baptism. She has not had appropriate catechism at all.

Darn! What a drag!

 

[JoeyWarren]

BUMP

Gamera said:
See, Mislollipops, this is the fatal flaw in the doctrine of sola fide (“faith alone”).

You’ve personally posted three contradictory positions:

(1) babies come into this world as “filthy sinners” (inheriting orignal sin);

(2) babies are holy until the age of reason; and

(3) the Bible is silent about babies so you don’t know the answer.

These three are all mutually exclusive. That isn’t your fault – the fault lies in the false doctrine of “salvation by faith alone.”

Misslollipop, you have to answer these accusations before we can continue…

 

[Church_Militant]

BUMP

Misslollipop, you have to answer these accusations before we can continue…

Did she really say all that?

 

[guanophore]

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

Perhaps you are just showing your ignorance of human development here misslollipops. Infants understand plenty before they can speak. It has also been demonstrated that receptive language develops long before expressive language. Children are understanding and using language non-verbally by the age of one. Just because the baby has not developed the language speaking skills does not mean they don’t know what they want and need! See this link, don’t take my word for it!

signingbaby.com/main/

Children DO develop faith by hearing, and hearing by words. That is why it is SO important to start early. I am sorry your parents failed in their duty to do this for you.

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

This is also an error, since men do not even know what is in their own hearts. Only Jesus knows that. Peter thought he believed with all his heart too, and came to find out that some darkness of faithlessness lived in there.

Infant cannot be baptized till he believes with all his heart

Where does it say THAT in scripture, lollipops? You have become the victim of reformed theology, and you don’t realize that you are going against the Apostolic teachings.

What do you have to say about all the early church fathers, who wrote about baptizing infants?

Give me some time I will find others

Take as much time as you need!

Children are holy until the age of reason

This is fascinating! Is “holy” the same as “born again”. If not , do you mean children can get into heaven before the age of reason even if they are not “born again”?

Does “holy” mean they have no original sin? Or do they suddenly “inherit” original sin when they reach the age of reason and not at conception as we thought?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Did she really say all that?

yessirreebob, you have to see all of her posts to see that. She changes doctrine in mid stream…

 

[Teflon93]

Well, I don’t know if you read the whole thread Teflon, but this did not happen tomisslollipops. She was baptized as an infant and apparently her parents failed to raise her in the faith, poor one. She did not have a proper formation of conscience as she should have had, and fell into a life of sin and debauchery. It was only by getting seized by this evangelical way of thinking that she was able to understand and follow what she received in baptism. She has not had appropriate catechism at all.

And this is what I believe lies behind the Church’s teaching that non-Catholic Christian communities do have a role to play in salvation.

Where is the poorly-catechized Catholic to go once they’ve been away from the Church and fallen into sin and despair? Far better surely for them to return to Christianity through even an errant evangelical community than to languish completely outside of Christ.

The questions asked in this thread, and misslollipops’ obvious inability to respond to the answers the Catholic Church provides, or the follow up questions Catholics ask, do not fall upon deaf ears. They cannot.

And, God willing, exchanges like these may ultimately lead her back home, a stronger Catholic than she otherwise may have been.

And let’s not entertain the notion that Misslollipops’ inability to address these arguments is any sort of individual failing. NOBODY can honestly resolve the inherent contradictions of Protestant theology; they simply must ignore large swaths of Scripture which argue against various tenets and underpinnings of their interpretations. Only the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth regarding God’s plan for the salvation of the world; she is the sun about which the other Christian communities must orbit, some closer, some further away. We cannot expect these communities to be able to address all aspects of Scripture as the Church, the Bride of Christ, does. It is folly to try, and eventually one must either acknowledge the truth or create a hermetically-sealed alternate universe where the truth is forever barred from entering.

 

[guanophore]

God knows her heart!
You can’t believe that if you or her parents or whoever baptizes her she becomes born again.

Really? Where in the Bible does it say we **can’t believe **that a person can be born again from water and the Spirit?

This thread is about becoming born again. We become born again when we recognize we are a sinner. Repent and accept Jesus as Lord and savior.
That is the only way.

When did Peter become born again? Was it after he sinned by betraying Christ?

You do not become born again because you went to a ceremonial baptism.

What does that mean, “ceremonial baptism”?

If you are talking about the Catholic rites of baptism, the whole congregation repeats their baptismal vows (just in case they didn’t grasp them sooner! ) at each baptism, making a confession of faith.

Jn1:12 ‘those who believe’
You must believe and repent
If your cousin didn’t have that capacity, this verse does not pertain to her, it also doesn’t apply to infants, or aborigines, or indians who never heard the gospel, or anyone else who has never been given the choice to believe.

I am glad you finally recognize that this verse does not apply to large populations of people. This is what we have been trying to tell you. This verse, and the great commission, are about the believers’ baptism of adults.

 

[misslollipops]

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, "**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

Notice in your very own quote that you sent me it says you must REPENT then be baptized.

A person must repent before being baptized. I have been saying this since the beginning.
An infant cannot repent because they cannot understand sin. So they cannot be baptized.
It is clear that you are not grasping this concept.
So I will keep repeating it.
Maybe through repetition it will sink in.
Repentence comes first.

 

[djrakowski]

Notice in your very own quote that you sent me it says you must REPENT then be baptized.

A person must repent before being baptized. I have been saying this since the beginning.
An infant cannot repent because they cannot understand sin. So they cannot be baptized.
It is clear that you are not grasping this concept.
So I will keep repeating it.
Maybe through repetition it will sink in.
Repentence comes first.

Did repentance come first for those infants who were circumcized into the Old Covenant?

Why is the New Covenant, which is supposed to be better than the Old (according to Hebrews, chapters 7 and 8), more restrictive on how one enters into it?

 

[misslollipops]

Misslollipop, you have to answer these accusations before we can continue…

I stand by all three statements.
We are all sinners Rom 3:23 among other scriptures

The second statement was my opinion.

The third statement was my opinion.

I stand by all three

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Notice in your very own quote that you sent me it says you must REPENT then be baptized.

A person must repent before being baptized. I have been saying this since the beginning.
An infant cannot repent because they cannot understand sin. So they cannot be baptized.
It is clear that you are not grasping this concept.
So I will keep repeating it.
Maybe through repetition it will sink in.
Repentence comes first.

Notice how it doesn’t say repent then be baptized. It says repent AND be baptized. There isn’t a “then” in Acts 2:38. You changed the word from “and” to “then”.

 

[misslollipops]

Wow! this is GREAT! I no longer have to repent, go to confession, or do penance, or change my life! If I sin, I just have to read a couple chapters of a book, and I am off scot free! YAY!

What is the definition for heresy?

How is a heresy different than a “false teaching”?

By what standard are these determined?

If someone teaches something different than what Jesus taught, what is that called?

If you want to call it heresy go right ahead

And if you want me to explain Rom7 and 8 open a new thread.
This is important scripture for the believer.

 

[misslollipops]

Did repentance come first for those infants who were circumcized into the Old Covenant?

Why is the New Covenant, which is supposed to be better than the Old (according to Hebrews, chapters 7 and 8), more restrictive on how one enters into it?

Repentance before circumcision is not a requirement under that covenant.

 

[maurin]

I stand by all three statements.
We are all sinners Rom 3:23 among other scriptures

The second statement was my opinion.

The third statement was my opinion.

I stand by all three

So basically you “stand behind” your own contradictory statements? How is that possible?