How do I know if I'm born again?

[mgrfin]

No. Infant baptism was practiced for centuries before the New Testament Canon was closed. The argument that it emanates from a misunderstood New Testament verse ignores history. People were baptizing babies before they even knew what books belonged in the New Testament.

I don’t want to misunderstand: the end of direct revelation from scriptures ended with the death of the last apostle, not when the canon of scripture was set.

Revelation (scripture and tradition) also ended with the death of the last apostle.

peace.

Speaking of Scripture, tomorrow (Sept 30) is the Feast of St. Jerome, Priest, Confessor and Doctor of the Church. He trranslated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (The Vulgate).

 

[Gamera]

I don’t want to misunderstand: the end of direct revelation from scriptures ended with the death of the last apostle, not when the canon of scripture was set.

Revelation (scripture and tradition) also ended with the death of the last apostle.

peace.

Speaking of Scripture, tomorrow (Sept 30) is the Feast of St. Jerome, Priest, Confessor and Doctor of the Church. He trranslated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (The Vulgate).

Mislollipops’ assertion was that we baptized infants because we had miscontrued a New Testament verse. My point is just that Christians were baptizing babies before the New Testament Canon even was known to them.

 

[Philthy]

We can safely assume that all the Apostles were baptized. Many were disciples of John, so were baptized by him, then later, Jesus had them baptizing. I don’t think He would have had them baptize if they had not already BEEN baptized.

When MFMartin posed “We dont even know if the Apostles were baptized!” He undoubtedly intended to minimize the concept of the significance of water baptism, but in reality all it really does is point out how incomplete the witness of Scripture is on some very basic items. For example, is it actually recorded anywhere that any of the Apostles were “born again”? Do we have on record any of them “accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour”? Maybe Peter, but then again he denied Christ 3 times afterwards so maybe he was never really saved… The Scriptural record - alone - is conspicuously incomplete.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So it is perfectly acceptable to ASSUME there were INFANTs in that household and then base 2000 years of tradition on that ASSUMPTION? Is that your position?

It is more reasonable to assume that if any of the apostles had taught that infants should NOT be baptized, then the Bible would expressly prohibit the practice.

Instead, what we find is a blizzard of quotations from the Early Church Fathers endorsing the baptism of infants while those who oppose it because of their modern theological presuppositions have bupkus.

For example:

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])

 

[savedsinner]

It is more reasonable to assume that if any of the apostles had taught that infants should NOT be baptized, then the Bible would expressly prohibit the practice.

Instead, what we find is a blizzard of quotations from the Early Church Fathers endorsing the baptism of infants while those who oppose it because of their modern theological presuppositions have bupkus.

For example:

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])

Randy, you should know by now that it doesn’t matter to some non-catholic Christians what was handed down from the Apostles.
What matters is what scripture is telling them.
If they see a few hundred years of silence, then they assume that it wasn’t something that was passed down, and even if it was, what matters is what they perceive the Holy Spirit is telling them what scripture says.
If they believe that only adult believers were baptized, then, no matter what proof you might show them will not sway them, even if scripture clearly states the fact.
Take for example “saved by faith alone”, the bible says that we are not saved by faith alone, and even with this clearly written in the book of James, they dance around what is written because it goes against what they believe.
So even is scripture were to say “go and baptize infants”, they would somehow dance around that.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t want to misunderstand: the end of direct revelation from scriptures ended with the death of the last apostle, not when the canon of scripture was set.

At the death of the last Apostle around 95-100 AD, there were a great many more than 27 Christian books being distributed among the Churches. Our New Testament contains the writings of only 8 or 9 persons, six of whom were Apostles, two of whom were Disciples, and one of whom is not known to us (and might be one of the known 8 - we just don’t know) - and yet I think it is safe to assume that all 12 of the Apostles and all 120 of their original followers were writing books about Jesus - they didn’t have the printing press, but they did live in a literate era, and books were very common among them.

It took some time (about 300 years or so) for the Church to, first of all, realize that a New Testament had been written, in the first place, and then secondly, to discern which of those 100~ books were inspired of the Holy Spirit and belonged in the canon of the New Testament scriptures.

Speaking of Scripture, tomorrow (Sept 30) is the Feast of St. Jerome, Priest, Confessor and Doctor of the Church. He trranslated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (The Vulgate).

Yes - and of course he did so after the canon of the New Testament was set, in the late 300s and early 400s AD.

 

[mgrfin]

Which does bring up an interesting question:

Can we be saved against our will?

Can we be saved against our will?

No. The Council of Trent, in response to the errors of Luther, said:
Sixth Session, Canon 4: “If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.”

peace

 

[estesbob]

Can we be saved against our will?

No. The Council of Trent, in response to the errors of Luther, said:
Sixth Session, Canon 4: “If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.”

peace

But we can be saved through anothers will-which is why we baptize infants.

 

[misslollipops]

But we can be saved through anothers will-which is why we baptize infants.

Do you really believe you can be saved through another persons will?

 

[estesbob]

Do you really believe you can be saved through another persons will?

Sciture , tradition and the magestrium all affirm they can. Surely you dont beleive a child who died before he has had the purely emotional response you hold dear is condmened to eternal hellfire?

 

[misslollipops]

Sciture , tradition and the magestrium all affirm they can.

So say your unsaved neighbor Bob is sleeping, you have your priest go over and sprinkle some water on him and say a prayer and Bob goes to heaven? Is that the way it works?

Or is a person saved through a belief in Jesus and repentance?

 

[estesbob]

So say your unsaved neighbor Bob is sleeping, you have your priest go over and sprinkle some water on him and say a prayer and Bob goes to heaven? Is that the way it works?

Or is a person saved through a belief in Jesus and repentance?

If he dies in a state of mortal sin he is going to hell even if the priests immerses him in a vat of holy water. If , however, he had not reached the age of reason he would go to heaven as he would have been incapbale of sin and his origianl sin was washed away at baptism.

 

[Gamera]

So say your unsaved neighbor Bob is sleeping, you have your priest go over and sprinkle some water on him and say a prayer and Bob goes to heaven? Is that the way it works?

Or is a person saved through a belief in Jesus and repentance?

If my adult neighbor is starving because he simply chooses not to eat, I won’t force-feed him. But if my little 2 year old boy is starving, then yes, I will make him eat for his own good. What kind of a parent would I be if I just shrugged and said, “He must make up his own mind whether to eat or starve.”

Yes, once he grows up, it’ll be his own personal responsibility to keep eating. But right now it is my responsibility to feed him.

Once a child grows up, it is their responsibility to remain in a state of grace. That has nothing to do with my present duty. Right now, it is my responsibility to get my child into a state of grace via baptism.

 

[FCEGM]

This has always been a puzzle for me. It is clear that the baptism of John is a baptism of repentance. However, when Jesus took that and made it a Triune baptism, the act of repentance was included. What I wonder is, what form of baptism did they use BEFORE the crucifixion? Were the Apostles giving John’s baptism? Is the great commission the FIRST time it was made triune?

I’m sorry I’m a little late in responding, Quanaphore; I was out of town yesterday on a lake. Before the crucifixion, it remained the baptism of repentance that St. John the Baptist preached which prepared the people for baptism into Christ, so, yes, it was at the Great Commission that baptism was given its full triune significance, and it began its effective realization at Pentecost. So while the aspect of repentance remains, the fuller meaning is seen in the rebirth of the baptized through baptism into Christ’s death, burial and resurrection which gives the baptized their new identity, placing them (us) into a new relationship to God, i.e., not just as a penitent servant, but as a redeemed child of the Father by adoption into the Son.

 

[lak611]

Here is a link:

premier.net/~avemarie/St_Michael.htm

peace

Thank you!

 

[mgrfin]

But we can be saved through anothers will-which is why we baptize infants.

The sacraments work ‘ex opere operato’, The infant is not acting willfully against its own salvation.

I think you are answering another thread, about salvation against my own will.

peace

 

[guanophore]

So it is perfectly acceptable to ASSUME there were INFANTs in that household and then base 2000 years of tradition on that ASSUMPTION? Is that your position?

Actually we have to take the passage in historical context. In that time and culture, the man was the head of the household. He made the decisions about how his household would function incuding matters of faith. As Joshua said “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”. Did Joshua ask all the members of his house first? No, if a person was not willing to accept this, they were out of the house!

Infant baptism is based on the Teaching of Jesus, not on assumption. Our position is that Jesus got it right! He predestined that circumcision should prefigure baptism, and included babies.

 

[FrankLawrence]

Are you born again?
If so how do you know?

I’ve only read the original post, but I find it shocking that a topic that could be answered as simply as, “If you were properly Baptised, then you’ve been born again,” would have over 900 replies.

 

[mgrfin]

I’ve only read the original post, but I find it shocking that a topic that could be answered as simply as, “If you were properly Baptised, then you’ve been born again,” would have over 900 replies.

You are right.

This thread has gotten way off topic.

Maybe the Moderator can bring it back, or just close it.

peace

 

[estesbob]

You are right.

This thread has gotten way off topic.

Maybe the Moderator can bring it back, or just close it.

peace

The problem is mslollipops and others disagree with that premise. thats what discussion groups are all about-at any rate the thread will die a natural death when it hits a thousand posts.

Infant Baptism and ongoing salvation stirkes at the very core of many Protestant’s beliefs. For them its all about “Me” and my “buddy” Jesus. The idea that one can be saved other than via a momentary emotional flash is contrary to everything they believe in.