How do I know if I'm born again?

[Gamera]

You should open your bible.

Mislollipops, have you read the Bible cover-to-cover? I always ask this when I see a non-Catholic accuse Catholics of Biblical illiteracy.

I have, by the way. Many other Catholic members also have.

 

[juliamajor]

Mislollipops, have you read the Bible cover-to-cover? I always ask this when I see a non-Catholic accuse Catholics of Biblical illiteracy.

I have, by the way. Many other Catholic members also have.

U no us Katliks are igorant and no accountswhen it cums to scriture Wes to buzy iquisting folks and burnnin dem at the steaks

 

[maurin]

Are you suggesting that when the children touched Jesus they would be born again? Lk18:15-17

Would they be baptized by touching Him?

Or Would they be blessed?

While you have your bible open how about reading lk18:13-14
the tax collector REPENTS and then is justified. Wow where have we seen that before?

it is you m.o. to put words in others’ mouths. bait and switch again, eh, lollipops?

You ignore the first generations of the Fathers who taught Infant Baptism, miss. the children and grandchildren of those first Christians.

And you want us to believe a man-made tradition which is less than 500 years old, 1500 years removed from Christ?

Maybe you have fallen for the great deceivers deceptions.

Again, you are entitled to your opinions and your eisogesis. But for me and my house, we will serve the Lord on His terms, not man’s.

 

[Gamera]

And you want us to believe a man-made tradition which is less than 500 years old, 1500 years removed from Christ?

Not even all the Reformers opposed infant baptism. Calvin supported infant baptism and defended it in, “Institutes of Christian Religion.”

 

[maurin]

Yes, of course, Gamera, as did Luther.

Which is why I said “less than 500 years.”

 

[Gamera]

U no us Katliks are igorant and no accountswhen it cums to scriture Wes to buzy iquisting folks and burnnin dem at the steaks

LOL. Once on another board, someone said to me, “As a Catholic, tell me, when was the last time you actually read the Bible?” I answered, “Last night, same as I do every night.” He was astonished. He wasn’t expecting that.

Better still, now that I’m married my wife and I read it together every night, one chapter per night.

 

[djrakowski]

how about acts2:38 Repent and be baptized

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized
You should open your bible.

I have opened by Bible - that’s where I found the quotes in which scripture clearly indicates baptism as a requirement for salvation.

None of us have denied the repentance part - at least for adult converts to the faith.

You have, however, repeatedly denied that baptism has anything to do with salvation, in direct contradiction to the scriptures.

Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate why the new covenant, which is better than the old, is more restrictive than the old one. Infant boys were admitted to the old covenant by way of circumcision 8 days after they were born. Why do you think children of Christians should be denied the same privilege?

 

[Church_Militant]

Yeah, where do these people think we get our doctrines? Alien abduction? d20 dice rolls?

 

[djrakowski]

Yeah, where do these people think we get our doctrines? Alien abduction? d20 dice rolls?

Clearly, those of us who disagree with anything our non-Catholic interrogators claim to be the true interpretation of scripture obviously haven’t read it ourselves, or we’re simply allowing some dumb old man in Rome do our thinking for us

What such people are forgetting is that many of us, including you, me and Teflon, were once as they were, and know what they’re saying. I used to argue the same things as misslollipops, and just as vigorously. I was proud of the way I was able to trap Catholics who didn’t seem to know much about the Bible or theology.

Then I found Catholic media, including Catholic Answers, EWTN and Ave Maria Radio. I found Catholics who were deep in scripture, deep in history, and most importantly, deep in sanctity. I found people who were able to answer every objection I’d ever raised about Catholicism, and were able to make their cases from the pages of scripture. Not only that, but they were also able to provide evidence of distinctively Catholic beliefs held by the earliest of the Early Church Fathers.

But yeah, we’re a bunch of scripturally-illiterate numbskulls. Yeah, that must be it.

 

[misslollipops]

Whoa- do you have an attitude - do you think that the only one who reads scripture and thinks she knows what it means? Becoming Born again has made you superior to us lesser mortals?How about humilityPhlp2:3

I just said open your bible.
I didn’t say I’m better than anyone.

 

[djrakowski]

I just said open your bible.
I didn’t say I’m better than anyone.

You’ve certainly implied that the interpretation to which you hold is the one that’s correct, and the one to which we hold is incorrect. So perhaps you didn’t say you’re ‘better’ than anyone, but you’ve implied that you’re a better and more accurate interpreter of scripture. What is your guarantee? And why should I stake my salvation and that of my children (particularly the oldest, who is severely mentally impaired) on matters you’ve admitted were your personal opinion?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I just said open your bible.
I didn’t say I’m better than anyone.

Well, misslollipops, I have opened my Bible. And in my Bible, in St John’s Gospel, Chapter Three, verse five: Jesus says that we are to be born again of water and the Spirit - baptism. I don’t know why you persistently ignore the very words of Christ and try to make being born again some firecracker earth shattering experience. Emotionalism is not salvation.

 

[misslollipops]

Mislollipops, have you read the Bible cover-to-cover? I always ask this when I see a non-Catholic accuse Catholics of Biblical illiteracy.

I have, by the way. Many other Catholic members also have.

numerous times
You wear that ‘cover to cover’ thing like you have a doctorate in biblical studies.
If you want to be the mighty apologist you need to do more than one chapter a night.

 

[misslollipops]

U no us Katliks are igorant and no accountswhen it cums to scriture Wes to buzy iquisting folks and burnnin dem at the steaks

You said that, not me!

 

[djrakowski]

If you want to be the mighty apologist you need to do more than one chapter a night.

Likewise, you could read the Bible cover-to-cover several times a year and still have no idea how to explain it. So the amount and/or frequency of your Bible reading really has no bearing on the quality of your interpretation, and to believe otherwise is just plain silly.

 

[misslollipops]

You have, however, repeatedly denied that baptism has anything to do with salvation, in direct contradiction to the scriptures.
?

I NEVER said baptism has nothing to do with salvation!!!

You know, you all can say nasty stuff and persecute me all day long. Someone told me long ago that I would be persecuted for speaking the truth.
And I’ll debate 20 of you all at the same time.
BUT DON"T put words in my mouth.
I never said baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Got it?

 

[djrakowski]

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

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.
You do not become born again because you went to a ceremonial baptism. 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 NEVER said baptism has nothing to do with salvation!!!

You know, you all can say nasty stuff and persecute me all day long. Someone told me long ago that I would be persecuted for speaking the truth.
And I’ll debate 20 of you all at the same time.
BUT DON"T put words in my mouth.
I never said baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Got it?

Yes, you did. See your post that I quoted above.

There’s no persecution here. There’s just been a rather serious questioning of your interpretive techniques. For example:

First, you claim that children come into the world as filthy sinners. Then, you turn around and claim that children who’ve not reached the age of reason (a concept you’ve repeatedly refused to define Biblically) will be saved. Are filthy people saved?

You claimed that the scripture you cited, John 1:12, didn’t apply to those without the capacity to understand the gospel (including the disabled and infants) or those who’ve not yet heard it (aborigines or indians), but you’ve not made a case for this belief from the scriptures.

Then, you claimed that one is only born again by repenting and accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. Then, in this response, you claim that baptism is indeed necessary for salvation.

You’re not being persecuted (Puh-leaze! Nobody’s taken away your right to speak, hold down a job, own property or practice your faith, nor have they threatened you with death! Talk to the Christians in the underground church in China if you want to know about real persecution!). You’re just being asked to hold yourself to your own standard. And with this post, you’ve demonstrated that you’re quite unwilling to do so.

 

[Gamera]

numerous times
You wear that ‘cover to cover’ thing like you have a doctorate in biblical studies.
If you want to be the mighty apologist you need to do more than one chapter a night.

That is just rude. I know that other people have posted rude things to you, but I haven’t, and I don’t appreciate this.

No, I do not “wear” having read the Bible. It is only what is expected of me, nothing to brag about. But you have suggested several times that Catholics who disagree with you “need to open the Bible.” Am I not allowed to respond to that charge by stating that we have, in fact, read the Bible?

 

[misslollipops]

Yes, you did. See your post that I quoted above.

There’s no persecution here. There’s just been a rather serious questioning of your interpretive techniques. For example:

First, you claim that children come into the world as filthy sinners. Then, you turn around and claim that children who’ve not reached the age of reason (a concept you’ve repeatedly refused to define Biblically) will be saved. Are filthy people saved?

You claimed that the scripture you cited, John 1:12, didn’t apply to those without the capacity to understand the gospel (including the disabled and infants) or those who’ve not yet heard it (aborigines or indians), but you’ve not made a case for this belief from the scriptures.

Then, you claimed that one is only born again by repenting and accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. Then, in this response, you claim that baptism is indeed necessary for salvation.

You’re not being persecuted (Puh-leaze! Nobody’s taken away your right to speak, hold down a job, own property or practice your faith, nor have they threatened you with death! Talk to the Christians in the underground church in China if you want to know about real persecution!). You’re just being asked to hold yourself to your own standard. And with this post, you’ve demonstrated that you’re quite unwilling to do so.

First of all, being born again and salvation are two different things.
Being born again means you put to death your flesh and be born of the spirit. The Holy Spirit actually comes down and lives inside of you and guides your life on earth.
Salvation means forgiveness of our sins and eternal life in heaven.
Two different things.

 

[misslollipops]

That is just rude. I know that other people have posted rude things to you, but I haven’t, and I don’t appreciate this.

No, I do not “wear” having read the Bible. It is only what is expected of me, nothing to brag about. But you have suggested several times that Catholics who disagree with you “need to open the Bible.” Am I not allowed to respond to that charge by stating that we have, in fact, read the Bible?

So far you have said to me three times that you and your wife read a chapter a night. I don’t mean to be rude. But that is not a heck of a lot of bible time.