How do I know if I'm born again?

[thomasf]

I think this thread should be renamed to “How long can a stubborn protestant not really interested in catholic theology talk in circles?” I am amazed that this has gone on for almost 60 pages.

 

[guanophore]

They are set apart from judgement.

How did the child escape the punishment of death due to original sin?

I will give my OPINION on this.

Yes, that was the point of the question. However, since what we have seen of you is your own private intepretation of scripture, it seems like everything we have read here is your own opinion.

I have a few scriptures to back up that opinion. But nothing is concrete. First 1cor7:14 children of believers are holy, as you already stated.

Well, I believe that is because the believing parent had them baptized! Why do you think they are holy, and have escaped original sin?

Then check out Rom5:13, sin is not imputed when there is no law.
The law(ten commandments) is our schoolmaster. It shows us what sin is. Rom7:7
Keep in mind this is just my OPINION.

Of course. But these verses are talking about personal sin, which the baby can’t commit yet. What about original sin?

Since the bible is silent on this issue this is the only way I can come up with an answer.

Might you conside the teaching of Jesus, passed on by His apostles?

Since God is just, I don’t believe He would judge a baby who does not even understand the law or sin. This is an opinion.

In that case, we don’t need to worry about original sin at all, since God is loving, and will not enforce the punishment He gave to Adam and Eve?

 

[guanophore]

Ask a Jew.

Are you saying I should take the word of an apostate over the Word of God?!

 

[guanophore]

I know this for certain: I was baptized as an infant , Confirmed at age twelve,then Holy communion and in church for many years.
But it wasn’t until many years later that I became born again of the spirit. I learned about true repentance and turned my whole life over to God.As soon as I did that I began to see a change in my life. The old me was going away and there was a new me emerging.
The new person looks nothing like the old person.
So Pauls words in Romans really strike home about putting to death the flesh.
Baptism by the spirit is like cutting your flesh, that is why it is compared to circumcision. I have never felt anything like this before.
My life is so radically changed, my old friends do not even want to be around me anymore. I talk different, think different, I am immersed in the Word, go to my church 4 times a week, head up an evangelism team, and a bunch of other stuff.
So did I get born again as an infant?

Sounds like you had several infillings of the HS, one at baptism, another at confimation, then a drastic one later on. Each instance is a graced event. The grace you received in baptism has been released into you life.

 

[Philthy]

You know that if he was baptized before he repented it wouldn’t matter anyway.

Which, of course, renders your point in even bringing it up irrelevent; all you are doing now is reiterating the unsubstantiated claim which you had hoped to prove by introducing someone who was saved apart from baptism. But it is unknown whether he was baptized, and therefore, you have no point in bringing it up.
Furthermore, you continue to wallow in ambiguity based on your theological bias. How would you know whether the thief had ever repented (and been baptized) prior to being crucified alongside Christ, and that his final repentance/confession was the one recorded in Scripture?

 

[Teflon93]

The thief on the cross died BEFORE the New Covenant went into effect. Jesus hadn’t yet died! Baptism wasn’t required under the Old Covenant.

Had the theif died AFTER the New Covenant went in to effect, then we could discuss the idea of baptism by desire. But we never get that far with this example. Nobody beleives baptism was needed back under Old Covenant. Only after Jesus died and rose again did God commence the New Covenant, into which we are initiated by sacramental baptism.

I think there’s some question regarding this, in that of course Christ’s own baptism did occur before the Cross.

Do we know precisely when the apostles were baptized and whether or not that was before the Crucifixion?

 

[heisenburg]

I just get back to if water baptism is so unimportant… that its just a nice nice thing to do, then why is there so much talk in the NT about water baptism.

Just seems odd to me…

In Christ

 

[Teflon93]

I just get back to if water baptism is so unimportant… that its just a nice nice thing to do, then why is there so much talk in the NT about water baptism.

Just seems odd to me…

In Christ

And if the age of reason requirement was so important, why isn’t it mentioned amid all the mentions of baptism?

 

[Gamera]

I think there’s some question regarding this, in that of course Christ’s own baptism did occur before the Cross.

Do we know precisely when the apostles were baptized and whether or not that was before the Crucifixion?

John the Baptist didn’t give a sacramental baptism. That would have to be a trinitarian baptism (a baptism done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I wonder if any of our non-Catholic friends can quote any of those early Christian martyrs as having said that they, “accepted Jesus as their personal Savior.”

Polycarp said: "Eighty-six years I have served him, and he never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?"
Tell me aside from semantics what’s the difference?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

John the Baptist didn’t give a sacramental baptism. That would have to be a trinitarian baptism (a baptism done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

Aside from Paul we don’t even know that they did get baptized!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I just get back to if water baptism is so unimportant… that its just a nice nice thing to do, then why is there so much talk in the NT about water baptism.

Just seems odd to me…

In Christ

I think if you seperate where the NT speaks of just “baptism” and then “water baptism” you’ll see a great difference!

 

[estesbob]

Polycarp said: "Eighty-six years I have served him, and he never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?"
Tell me aside from semantics what’s the difference?

He didnt use the Protestant buzzword of “personal savior”. I have been told repeatedly by our seperated bretheren that i can only be saved if i accept Jesus Christ as my" personal savior"-a concept that is not supported by either Scripture of Tradition.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

He didnt use the Protestant buzzword of “personal savior”. I have been told repeatedly by our seperated bretheren that i can only be saved if i accept Jesus Christ as my" personal savior"-a concept that is not supported by either Scripture of Tradition.

Bob its not a magic hocus pocus thing, its about making Christ the LORD of YOUR life…Living for HIM, having all decisions based on HIM, waking and sleeping HIS word. It’s not some thing like saying "Lord I am making you my “personal Savior” and then bam it happens…Read beyond the words on the page a little bit…It is all over in scripture…Here is a good one for you!
**LOVE THE GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART ALL YOUR SOUL AND ALL YOUR STRENGTH!

That is making HIM your personal savior**

 

[estesbob]

Bob its not a magic hocus pocus thing, its about making Christ the LORD of YOUR life…Living for HIM, having all decisions based on HIM, waking and sleeping HIS word. It’s not some thing like saying "Lord I am making you my “personal Savior” and then bam it happens…Read beyond the words on the page a little bit…It is all over in scripture…Here is a good one for you!
LOVE THE GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART ALL YOUR SOUL AND ALL YOUR STRENGTH!

That is making HIM your personal savior

Actually it appears to be all about emotion triumphing over theology. I am sure its all over Scripture based on your *‘personal’ *interpretaton of it-but funny how no one else saw it for 1500 or so years…

 

[misslollipops]

He didnt use the Protestant buzzword of “personal savior”. I have been told repeatedly by our seperated bretheren that i can only be saved if i accept Jesus Christ as my" personal savior"-a concept that is not supported by either Scripture of Tradition.

You don’t have to use the word personal.
If you don’t want Him as your personal Savior, you could call Him Misslollipops Savior if you want. Or you could just call Him ‘Savior’
Or the Savior of the Jews. Among many other names.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Actually it appears to be all about emotion triumphing over theology. I am sure its all over Scripture based on your *‘personal’ *interpretaton of it-but funny how no one else saw it for 1500 or so years…

Really Bob? I just showed you Polycarp, furthermore if you wish to label evangelics as emotion over theology whats to stop us from labeling you “piety over theology” ? its the same thing Bob!

EMOTIONS Bob? where’d ya get that from?

It about the “fruits of the spirit”

 

[Church_Militant]

Polycarp said: "Eighty-six years I have served him, and he never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?"

Tell me aside from semantics what’s the difference?Hey Simon,
Bear in mind that Polycarp is saying this in the context of his having been “saved” (in the context that you use it) at the point where he was infant baptized.:ehh:

 

[rpp]

Really Bob? I just showed you Polycarp, furthermore if you wish to label evangelics as emotion over theology whats to stop us from labeling you “piety over theology” ? its the same thing Bob!

EMOTIONS Bob? where’d ya get that from?

It about the “fruits of the spirit”

Polycarp was not making a plea to emotions. There is a great emphasis by some evangelicals on the “feelings” aspects of conversion and worship. While certainly that can be part of our spiritual life, to pursue it as central or a sign of spirituality , rather than a momentary gift, is not helpful. It can lead to a shallow belief and an attitude where worship becomes entertainment.

The contrast that you made was curious, “piety over theology”. Certainly, focusing and emphasizing one aspect of faith and worship is generally not spiritually healthy, but I would say I would prefer a pious person over one seeking an emotional high. The former contributes much to a stable, consistent and sustainable spiritual life. The later strikes me a formula for a roler-coaster relationship with God.

 

[Teflon93]

Bob its not a magic hocus pocus thing, its about making Christ the LORD of YOUR life…Living for HIM, having all decisions based on HIM, waking and sleeping HIS word. It’s not some thing like saying "Lord I am making you my “personal Savior” and then bam it happens…Read beyond the words on the page a little bit…It is all over in scripture…Here is a good one for you!
**LOVE THE GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART ALL YOUR SOUL AND ALL YOUR STRENGTH!

That is making HIM your personal savior**

That’s on awful lot of emphasis on salvation being in OUR hands, not God’s!

Surely, we should love God, but we have the capacity to do so only through God’s grace.

It is an interesting paradox that our evangelical brothers and sisters, so wary of works salvation, so emphasize our reaction to God. It is akin to “Do this, or you’re not really saved.”

I think this may be the nub of why folks who hew to OSAS are paradoxically some very white knuckle Christians sometimes.