How do I know if I'm born again?

[rpp]

I am still waiting for MissLollypops to start posting links and put bible verses in quotes!

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

You didn’t?

I know…you are looking for Jesus to spell it out for you, right?

Mk 16:16

Excellent reference “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

So, one with a Baptismal certificate, who has fallen from the faith, and no longer believes (as evidence of the fruit of their life, going to confession, attending Sunday Mass… is condemned. Even if one’s parents say their child was Baptised as a infant, and has a certificate? Here God, I have this certificate to show I believed… don’t pay any attention to how often I prayed, went to confession and Mass, the words out of my mouth, my actions towards others…

Michael
Phil 4:4-9

 

[rlg94086]

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

You’re funny. The verses and Catechism are quite clear. You are making an erroneous argument. Baptism of infants is a valid Baptism, regardless of what the person does later in life. However, I already said their state changes if they commit unrepented mortal sin (i.e. they are not saved). How does that denote OSAS?

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
And, as I said, you are incorrect. You say “no evidence.” The Magisterium, through the Catechism, doesn’t teach that there is no evidence. It bases the teaching on the use of the word “household,” which is implicit evidence. Perhaps you don’t know the difference.

 

[rlg94086]

Excellent reference “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

So, one with a Baptismal certificate, who has fallen from the faith, and no longer believes (as evidence of the fruit of their life, going to confession, attending Sunday Mass… is condemned. Even if one’s parents say their child was Baptised as a infant, and has a certificate? Here God, I have this certificate to show I believed… don’t pay any attention to how often I prayed, went to confession and Mass, the words out of my mouth, my actions towards others…

Michael
Phil 4:4-9

Who is saying that Michael? I certainly have not.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Excellent reference “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

So, one with a Baptismal certificate, who has fallen from the faith, and no longer believes (as evidence of the fruit of their life, going to confession, attending Sunday Mass… is condemned. Even if one’s parents say their child was Baptised as a infant, and has a certificate? Here God, I have this certificate to show I believed… don’t pay any attention to how often I prayed, went to confession and Mass, the words out of my mouth, my actions towards others…

Michael
Phil 4:4-9

No, key word a key word is “AND”. It is not just faith OR baptism as some seem to believe. The scripture is clear, we must believe AND be baptized to be saved. No Catholic is saying that you don’t have to have faith (at least none that I have seen). Catholics say you have to have faith and be baptized, just like Scripture says. But I have seen plenty of non-Catholics say you don’t have to be baptized. (I suspect this is because of their belief that baptism is merely symbolic)

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

You’re funny. How is a comment like that relevant? I’m being serious. Laugh if you think it appropriate. The verses and Catechism are quite clear. That’s what I stated, word for word. You are making an erroneous argument. No, I am going from the Catechism, and referenced relevant Scripture. Studied the catechism previously concerning Baptism, and reviewed it again today. Baptism of infants is a valid Baptism Agreed./COLOR] , regardless That gives the appearance of OSAS. What the person does later in life is important, as the catechism states. of what the person does later in life. However, I already said their state changes if they commit unrepented moral sin (i.e. they are not saved). How does that denote OSAS? Now it does depend on what they do later in life? Good, then that is not OSAS. So which is it, depends or does not depend on what they do later in life?

And, as I said, you are incorrect. You say “no evidence.” The Magisterium, through the Catechism, doesn’t teach that there is no evidence. It bases the teaching on the use of the word “household,” which is implicit evidence. Perhaps you don’t know the difference.

Let’s be polite, and refrain from impolite remarks like "perhaps you don’t know the difference. As the catechism paragraphs states, it is possible, there may have been infants Baptized. They catechism is non-committal: possible, may. Not probably, or we can infer

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Who is saying that Michael? I certainly have not.

Sorry, I can see how it might have appeared the second paragraph was pertaining to you, that was not my intention. Was thinking of a post I had read earlier in this thread, post #26 in response to “How do I know if I’m born again”:
“I’ve seen the baptismal certificate and the photographs, and I believe my parents who have recounted it to me.”

You have certainly not said that, and sorry if my words gave that impression.

Michael

 

[rlg94086]

Sorry, I can see how it might have appeared the second paragraph was pertaining to you, that was not my intention. Was thinking of a post I had read earlier in this thread, post #26 in response to “How do I know if I’m born again”:
“I’ve seen the baptismal certificate and the photographs, and I believe my parents who have recounted it to me.”

You have certainly not said that, and sorry if my words gave that impression.

Michael

By the way, as you may know another good passage to quote in support of Baptism is Mt 28:19-20.

Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, ***baptizing them ***in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

No, key word a key word is “AND”. It is not just faith OR baptism as some seem to believe. The scripture is clear, we must believe AND be baptized to be saved. No Catholic is saying that you don’t have to have faith (at least none that I have seen). Catholics say you have to have faith and be baptized, just like Scripture says. But I have seen plenty of non-Catholics say you don’t have to be baptized. (I suspect this is because of their belief that baptism is merely symbolic)

That’s why I put in bold the word AND. Baptism is the “easy” part, especially as an infant. Believing is an everyday necessity, we Catholics must not rest on our Baptismal certificates, or going through the motions as we get older… the faith must be authentic, our own, not our parent’s when we were infants. The OP question is “How do I know if I’m born again.” It doesn’t end with infant Baptism, just the gateway.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

By the way, as you may know another good passage to quote in support of Baptism is Mt 28:19-20.

Yes indeed, thank you for the reminder. Obviously one of my favorite verses because of the parts highlighted in red:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Michael
Phil 4:4-9

 

[rlg94086]

Let’s be polite, and refrain from impolite remarks like "perhaps you don’t know the difference. As the catechism paragraphs states, it is possible, there may have been infants Baptized. They catechism is non-committal: possible, may. Not probably, or we can infer

Michael

Michael,

Here is the definition of implicit from Websters (bolding mine):

1 a**:** capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed : implied <an implicit assumption> b**:** involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed.

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.

Pax,
Robert

 

[Gamera]

I am curious as to whether Mislollipops (or anybody else) can cite any historic example of any Christian believing that “born again” means anything other than baptism, anytime after the New Testament was written and the Protestant Reformation. That’s a span of about 1400 years. Surely the Holy Spirit would have told somebody that “born again” means something other than baptism, if in fact that were the case. So, anybody, please provide us with a quotation from any post-Biblical, pre-Reformation Christian describing “born again” to mean something else besides baptism.

 

[rlg94086]

Baptism of infants is a valid Baptism Agreed. , regardless That gives the appearance of OSAS. What the person does later in life is important, as the catechism states. of what the person does later in life. However, I already said their state changes if they commit unrepented moral sin (i.e. they are not saved). How does that denote OSAS? Now it does depend on what they do later in life? Good, then that is not OSAS. So which is it, depends or does not depend on what they do later in life?

You seem to be confusing Baptism and salvation. You are also confusing “born again” with salvation.

Baptism is a one time event, which saves us. It is when we are “born again.” Sin doesn’t change the event - it changes our salvation. If it changed the event, then we would need to be re-Baptized after falling away. We don’t, because our Baptism as an infant is still valid. However, we need to repent (Sacrament of Reconciliation) in order to be saved.

So, no, our Baptism is not changed on what we do later in life. And, this has nothing to do with OSAS.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

That’s why I put in bold the word AND. Baptism is the “easy” part, especially as an infant. Believing is an everyday necessity, we Catholics must not rest on our Baptismal certificates, or going through the motions as we get older… the faith must be authentic, our own, not our parent’s when we were infants. The OP question is “How do I know if I’m born again.” It doesn’t end with infant Baptism, just the gateway.

Michael

sorry, i reread your post and found I had misread. Thanks for pointing out the error.

 

[lak611]

If you want to call it heresy go right ahead

And if you want me to explain Rom7 and 8 open a new thread.
This is important scripture for the believer.

What is your definition of heresy? You never did answer the question posed to you. All you did what side-step once again.

 

[Gamera]

That quotation also drew my attention to the contrast between these two posts.

And if you want me to explain Rom7 and 8 open a new thread.

You wear that ‘cover to cover’ thing like you have a doctorate in biblical studies.

What exactly qualifies Mislillipops to “explain” Scripture to us? This is what I mean by talking down to us. Mislollipops, if you’d like to persuade us that you have some authority, perhaps you should tell us about your doctorate in Biblical studies. If you lack such references, why would you think you are capable of “explaining” Scriptures to us? There is a marked difference between someone humbly sharing their understanding of Scripture and someone arrogantly trying to “educate” us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Baptism is salvific. Since when?
I never got the memo.

You should have…it’s right in your New Testament:

1 Peter 3:21
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

“Baptism…now saves you…”

And you’re offering to teach us scripture???

 

[djrakowski]

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?

Michael,

Actually, relevant scripture passages have been posted a number of times, right here on this thread - Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:20-21, Acts 2:38, Matthew 28:19-20 and others speak of the necessity of baptism for salvation. Other passages mention the baptism of entire households, and such households were likely to include children (Acts 16:15, 18:8, 1 Corinthians 1:16). Baptism parallels the means by which Jewish boys were made members of the Old Covenant community (Colossians 2:10-12), and since this New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant (Hebrews 7:22, 8:6-13) - why would a new, better covenant have more stringent entrance criteria than the one it superseded? And finally, we have the instruction directly from Jesus that nobody is to prevent little children from coming to him (Matthew 19:13-14, Mark 10:13-14, Luke 18:15-16), and the fact that there’s no prohibition against infant baptism anywhere in scripture.

Individuals with diminished capability to determine right from wrong, such as those suffering from mental disabilities, are likely to be as little children for their entire lives - that is, they are not likely ever to reach the ‘age of reason.’ Thus, they remain sinless, which removes the necessity for individual repentance (without sin, a person has nothing from which to repent).

The Catechism contains a section in which the consequences of Adam’s sin are listed, starting in paragraph 396 and continuing through paragraph 409. Of these, #402-404 are of particular note:

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
**http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/403.htm');
**403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

289 Rom 5:12,19.
290 Rom 5:18.
291 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1512.
292 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1514.
293 St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1.
294 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512

In my next post, I will quote paragraphs of the Catechism that connect the ‘age of reason’ with the sacrament of baptism.

 

[djrakowski]

Please accept my apologies for having included a slight inaccuracy in my previous post. This post will list paragraphs from the Catechism that list the reasons that baptism is necessary for salvation, as well as the reasoning behind the practice of baptizing infants, rather than connecting baptism to the ‘age of reason.’ There are references to ‘age of reason’ in a handful of paragraphs in the CCC, but none of them are explicitly connected to baptism.

First, I would like to quote a paragrpah that best explains necessity of baptism for salvation:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

60 Cf. Jn 3:5.
61 Cf. Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5.
62 Cf. Mk 16:16.

Secondly, here are the paragraphs relating to infant baptism:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

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

50 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1514; cf. Col 1:12-14.
51 Cf. CIC, can. 867; CCEO, cann. 681; 686,1.
52 Cf. LG 11; 41; GS 48; CIC, can. 868.
53 Cf. Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16; CDF, instruction, Pastoralis actio: AAS 72 (1980) 1137-1156.

 

[Philthy]

thanks. what would be the source for quoting the bible?

Here are a few links for various translations. The first is a Protestant source:

blueletterbible.org/

It has an excellent search feature(if you remember part of the verse but cant remember what book its in) and also has several translations and other great features.

Here is probably the most used Catholic translation:

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/

The catechism is also online from the same site.

Enjoy -