How do I know if I'm born again?

[Mannyfit75]

This is false.
A Jew is a Jew by blood.
Circumcision is a sign of the covenant between God and the Jews.
Converts to Judaism are called proselytes.

the circumcision does not make a jew jewish. He is already Jewish through the blood line

Circumcision is part of the covenant which Abraham and God made. Remember, God told Abraham told Abraham that every male child must be circumcised. This became more clear when Moses wrote the Mosaic Law. Every male child 7 days old must be circumcised.

Circumcision is very much of part Judaism. They still practiced this today.

 

[juliamajor]

!. nobody can force salvation on us not even God.2. Why can’t it happen in infant if God Wills it3. so infants who die go to hell?-they have not made a choice ,they’ve not made a decision for Christ-ergo scripture(according to you) says the are not saved

This is also germane of Deanarrca’s post
Jesus couldn’t be baptized as an infant cause’ John was an infant himself! Since He is Divine and Part of the Trinity Why would he require baptism of the Holy Spirit…hmmm

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Hi, I have brought this up before on other threads, but by this logic my son could Never be born again in this manner. Everyone here talks of infants and it assumes infants will grow up to hear the gospel. My son was born blind and mentally handicapped with an IQ of about 40. He will always be a child. He will not have Misslollipops concept of a born again experience. Shall he be excluded from God’s plan? My son is now 20 years old and was never baptized in the church we were attending because they taught the same as above the “believers only baptism”. He will be baptised/ born again shortly in the Catholic church. I have always had a problem with this whole age of reason or accountability business. I don’t believe it is scriptural. Suffer not the little children to come unto me.
Just my humble opinion

This is a lovely post. I’ve argued similarly with my non-Catholic students. I think God that the “gift” of God is eternal life. It’s not dependent upon our works as so many non-Cs teach. God said it and I believe it.

CDL

 

[Orionthehunter]

How do you do these things without the Holy Spirit?

Only if one accepts your* personal* interpreation of Scripture. By what authority do you presume to interpret Scripture for the rest of us?

I have and I and the Church dont see there what you say is there. Why should I accept your *personal interpration *of Romans? How can you reoncile you *personal *intpepretation of Romans with all the other Scriptural contradictions to your *personal *interpration that have already been pointed out to you?

I generally don’t look at links.
If you have something to say or a question in your post I will address it. But I don’t click on links.

Jesus was offered at the temple as an infant but the Holy Spirit didn’t descend on Him till He was an adult and was baptized. Do you agree?
The point is we are not born again by the infant baptism.

There is nothing offensive in what I said. From what you posted, it could be inferred that Jesus needed to receive the Holy Spirit at His baptism. This is not the case, because He has always been Divine.

Can I summarize this thread?

Misslollipops asserts her personal interpretation of the Scripture. Catholic responds. Misslollipops makes no real response but throws another Scripture quote out of context. Catholic responds. When pressed on her logic she either ignores (ala my post on 218 and 219) or says “well, I don’t read links” or says to lak611 that she doesn’t like him.

She ignores the question why anyone should listen to her personal interpretation since it is novel and was never suggested for the first 1,800+ years of Christianity.

In addition, she tries to support her case by claiming in some way that Jesus is not an eternal part of the Triune God because He needed the Holy Spirit to descend on Him at a particular point in time approximately 2,000 years ago.

 

[Indyann]

Can I summarize this thread?

Misslollipops asserts her personal interpretation of the Scripture. Catholic responds. Misslollipops makes no real response but throws another Scripture quote out of context. Catholic responds. When pressed on her logic she either ignores (ala my post on 218 and 219) or says “well, I don’t read links” or says to lak611 that she doesn’t like him.

She ignores the question why anyone should listen to her personal interpretation since it is novel and was never suggested for the first 1,800+ years of Christianity.

In addition, she tries to support her case by claiming in some way that Jesus is part of the Triune God because He needed the Holy Spirit to descend on Him.

Excellent summation!

 

[Gamera]

I’m still waiting for a Bible verse that uses the phrase “accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.”

But I’ll settle for an answer from MisLollipops to this question: if ONLY an act of faith can constitute being “born again,” then by definition every baby or toddler who dies is doomed to hell, right? Because we all are under original sin, right? So babies and toddlers, who you admit are incapable of repentance, are doomed to hell?

We Catholics believe they can be saved through baptism. We know God made a plan of salvation that allows everyone a chance to be saved, including sweet little babies and toddlers. You don’t believe they can be saved at all – God makes no provision for them in His plan of salvation. Right? They’d better just hope they stay alive until they reach the age of reason so that they can repent, because they cannot enter heaven without being born again which you say requires an act of faith, right?

 

[misslollipops]

I’m still waiting for a Bible verse that uses the phrase “accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.”

But I’ll settle for an answer from MisLollipops to this question: if ONLY an act of faith can constitute being “born again,” then by definition every baby or toddler who dies is doomed to hell, right? Because we all are under original sin, right? So babies and toddlers, who you admit are incapable of repentance, are doomed to hell?

We Catholics believe they can be saved through baptism. We know God made a plan of salvation that allows everyone a chance to be saved, including sweet little babies and toddlers. You don’t believe they can be saved at all – God makes no provision for them in His plan of salvation. Right? They’d better just hope they stay alive until they reach the age of reason so that they can repent, because they cannot enter heaven without being born again which you say requires an act of faith, right?

The bible is silent on where babies who die end up.
So I don’t know that answer.
And I won’t make one up.
I’ll leave that up to others.

 

[juliamajor]

Welcome to shallow theology

 

[PinoyCatholic]

How about those born retarded and never achieve reason? All their lives they’ll never be able to repent and be “born again”. Does that mean when they die they go to hell?

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

No. I thought I asnwered you in the first sentence.

Well, it would seem your argument just collapsed, in light of Gal 3:27. It says "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. " You have conceded, that to be clothed in Christ you “put on your new self” and “make no provision for the flesh”. But you also say we cannot do this without the Holy Spirit. There is only one logical conclusion and that is that we DO receive the Holy Spirit upon our baptism. Gal 3:27 does not refer to being “born again” to clothe yourself in Christ. It says “baptized”.

We have no need to repent in our infancy, for we have not committed any sins. Of course, when we are of the age of reason, then repentence is absolutely necessary-- but not just a one time repentence. You have to repent continuously of your sins, or else the devil can get a toehold. When we participate in the Sacrament of Confirmation we repent our sins and we consciously ask the Holy Spirit to be our Helper and Guide. This is apparently the process you refer to as being born again. I feel this is theologically and scripturally incorrect, but what does it matter? The point is that Catholics very definitely ask for the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

 

[juliamajor]

The bible is silent on where babies who die end up.
So I don’t know that answer.
And I won’t make one up.
I’ll leave that up to others.

Remember if it ain’t in the bible -it doesn’t exist and no decision can be made about it-logic says that unsaved babies(and unless they have a believer’s baptism and are born again) they are hell bound-the inference can be drawn

 

[misslollipops]

I’m still waiting for a Bible verse that uses the phrase “accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.”

Jesus Christ(Christ is not His last name it it means Messiah

                or    Savior)

Lord means God

Therefore Jesus is the Christ or Messiah or Savior and He is Lord

These among others are basic tenets of the Christian faith.
Do you still need scriptural proof?

 

[juliamajor]

Jesus Christ(Christ is not His last name it it means Messiah

                or    Savior)

Lord means God

Therefore Jesus is the Christ or Messiah or Savior and He is Lord

These among others are basic tenets of the Christian faith.
Do you still need scriptural proof?

HUH??

 

[misslollipops]

Well, it would seem your argument just collapsed, in light of Gal 3:27. It says "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. " You have conceded, that to be clothed in Christ you “put on your new self” and “make no provision for the flesh”. But you also say we cannot do this without the Holy Spirit. There is only one logical conclusion and that is that we DO receive the Holy Spirit upon our baptism. Gal 3:27 does not refer to being “born again” to clothe yourself in Christ. It says “baptized”.

We have no need to repent in our infancy, for we have not committed any sins. Of course, when we are of the age of reason, then repentence is absolutely necessary-- but not just a one time repentence. You have to repent continuously of your sins, or else the devil can get a toehold. When we participate in the Sacrament of Confirmation we repent our sins and we consciously ask the Holy Spirit to be our Helper and Guide. This is apparently the process you refer to as being born again. I feel this is theologically and scripturally incorrect, but what does it matter? The point is that Catholics very definitely ask for the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

If you do that at confirmation and repent and accept Jesus as Lord. Then you are born again.
You have to consciously make the choice.
I’d like you to explain how this is scripturally incorrect though.
And if possible use scriptural references.

 

[misslollipops]

Remember if it ain’t in the bible -it doesn’t exist and no decision can be made about it-logic says that unsaved babies(and unless they have a believer’s baptism and are born again) they are hell bound-the inference can be drawn

You are drawing that inference not me

 

[ChrisWRIT]

If you do that at confirmation and repent and accept Jesus as Lord. Then you are born again.
You have to consciously make the choice.
I’d like you to explain how this is scripturally incorrect though.
And if possible use scriptural references.

You’ve quoted the scripture yourself!

John 3:3-6

• 3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]”

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit** gives birth to spirit.***

 

[juliamajor]

You are drawing that inference not me

O Lord you did use circular thinking- if the inference doesn’t fit you must omit!

 

[misslollipops]

Part 2

Catholics will agree that a person living in sin will not inherit the kingdom. However, we do not believe that (except in the case mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-6 which I avoid only because it is a thread in and of itself) our sin expels the Holy Spirit. We are just choosing to not listen to Him. We believe that the Holy Spirit is relentlessly calling us to repentance and never gives up on us. Furthermore, we reject that your Baptism “didn’t work”. Proof that it is working in you is your desire to follow Christ. Because of the graces of your Baptism, you had your Damascus moment.

Catholics believe that your Baptism was also miraculous. And, it made you more receptive to the call of the Holy Spirit later in your life.

Catholics have no disagreement here.

We know the Bible quite well thank you. In fact, our interpretation has been known and practiced since the Apostles and those who knew the Apostles. And, we don’t agree that your interpretation is inspired nor that the Holy Spirit would allow mankind for 2,000 years to live in errancy.

And when Cradle & Revert Catholics answered at their Baptism, Confirmation and each time they go to Confession, you dismissed the response without charity. Just because the experience wasn’t like yours, you gave it no credence. That, my friend was an attack. I think the references of many to see the plank in your eye was referring to this attitude and lack of charity.

I really don’t see a question that needs to be answered in this post or #219. Pose a question and I will answer.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I really don’t see a question that needs to be answered in this post or #219. Pose a question and I will answer.

They are answers from a Catholic perspective. Like all of the Catholic responses, you just act as if they didn’t exist. They provide an alternative interpretation of Scripture to your new interpretation. They are the same teachings of the Christian faith since the Apostles and those who knew them.

 

[misslollipops]

They are answers from a Catholic perspective. Like all of the Catholic responses, you just act as if they didn’t exist. They provide an alternative interpretation of Scripture to your new interpretation. They are the same teachings of the Christian faith since the Apostles and those who knew them.

Is there a question in this post you need me to answer?
I read all your posts and responded where I saw fit. But if you don’t ask the question please don’t expect a response to everything you write. Fair enough?