How do I know if I'm born again?

  • Thread starter Thread starter misslollipops
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
misslollipops said:
Rom6:17 states "But God be thanked that though you were slaves to sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

How could you ‘obey that form of doctrine to which you were delivered’ as an infant?
Click to expand...
Because everyone is born with a sin nature because of the fall.
 
Ignatius said:
Because everyone is born with a sin nature because of the fall.
Click to expand...
That does not address how infants could obey. That is not expected of infants since they are not of the age of reason. One is not expected to do what one is not capable of doing or choosing.

For infants, it is the faith of their parents which is key, and once at the age reason, it shifts to the individual’s faith. As for how another’s faith is recognized by God:
Mt 9:2 “And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, " Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.”
As for those of the age of reason:
Mt 9:29 "Then He touched their eyes, saying, “It shall be done to you according to your faith.”

Michael
 
misslollipops said:
Answer to second question True repentance brings forth the conversion.
When you do it you will be born again.
Click to expand...
No, when you do that you are converted! I’m not sure why you keep trying to redefine being born again when Jesus tells us plainly in John Ch 3 verse 5 how one is born again. Was Jesus wrong?!?!? :confused:
 
rlg94086 said:
Baptism removes Original Sin (as well as all other sin), so it is more than a certificate. Yes, after the age of reason voluntary submission does occur - First Confession, Confirmation, annual (at least) renewal of Baptismal promises. Whether a Catholic “goes with the flow” or not, their Baptism is still valid. However, if they commit mortal sin and fail to receive absolution, they will not be saved.

Mt 9:29 "Mt 9:29 "Then He touched their eyes, saying, “It shall be done to you according to your faith.” It is not enough to go with the flow. One must be remain grafted onto the vine, as begins with Baptism.
Jn 15:5-6 “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.” Going with the flow does not produce much fruit, and can/will lead to drying pu and being cast into fire.
Yes, there is repentance at First Confession and any time someone confesses their mortal sin they make a promise to repent and “sin no more.”

Only God knows whether true repentance goes along with a confession. Some might be merely going with the flow?

What would you expect the Church to say? The Scripture says “whole households,” so that does not explicitly state infants were there. We do have evidence of the Church baptizing infants very early (2nd Century?), but that doesn’t *prove without a shadow of a doubt *it was done before. Then again, there is no evidence to the contrary.

True, no evidence either way.

Yes, it is the faith of the parents at an infant Baptism. Yes, at some point, it becomes the individuals own faith. At an adult Baptism, the parent’s faith is irrellevant.

Pax,
Robert
Click to expand...
God bless,

Michael
 
Ignatius said:
Not True according to Holy Scripture

1 Peter 3:21 The like manner whereunto baptism doth also now save us.

Or do you argue with Peter?
Click to expand...
1220 If water springing up from the earth symbolizes life, the water of the sea is a symbol of death and so can represent the mystery of the cross. By this symbolism Baptism signifies communion with Christ’s death.
 
Ignatius said:
Not True according to Holy Scripture

1 Peter 3:21 The like manner whereunto baptism doth also now save us.

Or do you argue with Peter?
Click to expand...
Pertaining to your post 793, where does Scripture say the Baptism is not symbolic?
 
Mt 28 19_20:
Mt 9:29 "Mt 9:29 "Then He touched their eyes, saying, “It shall be done to you according to your faith.” It is not enough to go with the flow. One must be remain grafted onto the vine, as begins with Baptism.
Jn 15:5-6 “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.” Going with the flow does not produce much fruit, and can/will lead to drying pu and being cast into fire.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say that a Baptism isn’t valid if the individual doesn’t repent later in life? This doesn’t change their Baptism. It does change their state (i.e. not in a state of grace).
Mt 28 19_20:
Only God knows whether true repentance goes along with a confession. Some might be merely going with the flow?
Click to expand...
Yes. This is correct. What is your question? Are they saved? According to the Bible and our Church, that is for God to judge, not us. We can not know whether a fellow Catholic’s confession was with true contrition.
Mt 28 19_20:
True, no evidence either way.
Click to expand...
Not true. There is implicit evidence that infants are included, because the Bible says “household” and a household includes infants. However, there is no explicit evidence because infants are not mentioned directly. There is no evidence that infants are not included as part of a “household.”
 
Mt_28_19_20 said:
1220 If water springing up from the earth symbolizes life, the water of the sea is a symbol of death and so can represent the mystery of the cross. By this symbolism Baptism signifies communion with Christ’s death.
Click to expand...
A Sacrament is a symbol that actually does the thing that it signifies - so, yes, the water is a symbol, but it is a symbol that has an actual effect on the soul when the words of the Trinitarian formula are pronounced, as the water is being poured over the person’s head or as the person is being immersed in the water.

Certain non-Catholics deny the Sacramental effect of baptism, and say that it is only a symbol and has no effect on the soul. This, of course, is false, since Christ Himself has told us that the washing of water and spirit has a salvific effect (John 3) and His Apostles preached and taught likewise, both orally and in their writings.
 
Mt_28_19_20 said:
Which Scripture references and catechism paragraphs does your answer include?
Click to expand...
I’m not questioning the Catholic belief. That’s settled for me by the Magisterium. Since we’re not sola scripturists, we needn’t feel that we have to provide an explicit scriptural reference for each and every Catholic teaching. The burden of proof is on those who accuse the Church of holding to teachings that contradict the scriptures.

If I were to provide references fromm scripture that defend the doctrine that baptism is salvific, and that children aren’t to be prevented from approaching Christ, and that baptism parallels the Old Covenant practice of circumcision, I’d just be repeating what I’ve already posted (and what many others have posted as well).
 
djrakowski said:
I’m not questioning the Catholic belief. That’s settled for me by the Magisterium. Since we’re not sola scripturists, we needn’t feel that we have to provide an explicit scriptural reference for each and every Catholic teaching. The burden of proof is on those who accuse the Church of holding to teachings that contradict the scriptures.

If I were to provide references fromm scripture that defend the doctrine that baptism is salvific, and that children aren’t to be prevented from approaching Christ, and that baptism parallels the Old Covenant practice of circumcision, I’d just be repeating what I’ve already posted (and what many others have posted as well).
Click to expand...
Baptism is salvific. Since when?
I never got the memo.
 
misslollipops said:
Baptism is salvific. Since when?
I never got the memo.
Click to expand...
Goodness, I’ve repeated myself so much that I’m beginning to think I’m the broken record!

1 Peter 3:21 (NASB) - “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you– not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”

This really isn’t all that difficult a passage to understand. The words are quite plain, in fact.
 
jmcrae said:
A Sacrament is a symbol that actually does the thing that it signifies - so, yes, the water is a symbol, but it is a symbol that has an actual effect on the soul when the words of the Trinitarian formula are pronounced, as the water is being poured over the person’s head or as the person is being immersed in the water.

Certain non-Catholics deny the Sacramental effect of baptism, and say that it is only a symbol and has no effect on the soul. This, of course, is false, since Christ Himself has told us that the washing of water and spirit has a salvific effect (John 3) and His Apostles preached and taught likewise, both orally and in their writings.
Click to expand...
Apparently you and I know it is symbolic of a spiritual reality. I merely pointed out in reply to post 793 that Baptism is symbolic. If we are going to defend our faith and correct others, perhaps we should be careful not to deny what the Church teaches. Baptism is indeed symbolic. Symbolic or a reality.

Michael
 
Mt_28_19_20 said:
Apparently you and I know it is symbolic of a spiritual reality. I merely pointed out in reply to post 793 that Baptism is symbolic. If we are going to defend our faith and correct others, perhaps we should be careful not to deny what the Church teaches. Baptism is indeed symbolic. Symbolic or a reality.
Click to expand...
The problem with this approach is that many non-sacramental Protestants stop at the word ‘symbolic’ and assume that baptism affects no permanent change. That’s why it’s a bit counterproductive to describe it in that manner.
 
djrakowski said:
I’m not questioning the Catholic belief. That’s settled for me by the Magisterium. Since we’re not sola scripturists, we needn’t feel that we have to provide an explicit scriptural reference for each and every Catholic teaching. The burden of proof is on those who accuse the Church of holding to teachings that contradict the scriptures.

If I were to provide references fromm scripture that defend the doctrine that baptism is salvific, and that children aren’t to be prevented from approaching Christ, and that baptism parallels the Old Covenant practice of circumcision, I’d just be repeating what I’ve already posted (and what many others have posted as well).
Click to expand...
I’m not saying you are questioning, I am assuming you know the answer and can point out the catechism paragraphs and Scripture references pertinent to infant Baptism, and/or Baptism of those not capable of rational reason and faith.
I did not see your post with relevant Scripture, is it in this thread or another?

Thank you in advance for your consideration,

Michael
 
djrakowski said:
The problem with this approach is that many non-sacramental Protestants stop at the word ‘symbolic’ and assume that baptism affects no permanent change. That’s why it’s a bit counterproductive to describe it in that manner.
Click to expand...
If some Protestants stop at the word symbol, we should not throw away the word symbol. That would be counterproductive. It’s not either or, it’s both. Just like faith and work. Not either/or, both.

Michael
 
rlg94086 said:
Are you trying to say that a Baptism isn’t valid if the individual doesn’t repent later in life? This doesn’t change their Baptism. It does change their state (i.e. not in a state of grace).

The Scripture verses and catechism teaching are clear. Certainly you are not in favor of OSAS?

Yes. This is correct. What is your question? Are they saved? According to the Bible and our Church, that is for God to judge, not us. We can not know whether a fellow Catholic’s confession was with true contrition.

As I said, “Only God knows…” It was a statement, not a question, and not a judgement of who is saved or not.

Not true. There is implicit evidence that infants are included, because the Bible says “household” and a household includes infants. However, there is no explicit evidence because infants are not mentioned directly. There is no evidence that infants are not included as part of a “household.”
Click to expand...
As I said, “True, no evidence either way.” Which is consistent with the catechism: 1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top