How do I know if I'm born again?

[Randy_Carson]

Wow. Even the “Proto-Protestant Poster Boy” , Augustine, supports infant baptism and baptismal regeneration in the context of being “born again” through water baptism.

There are some people in this forum who will be very disappointed to learn this.

 

[guanophore]

I think there’s some question regarding this, in that of course Christ’s own baptism did occur before the Cross.

Do we know precisely when the apostles were baptized and whether or not that was before the Crucifixion?

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.

 

[FCEGM]

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.

While some of the Apostles underwent the baptism of John, that isn’t the same as Christian baptism. Baptism for the Apostles was the experience of going through the Passion and Death of Our Lord and His breathing the Holy Spirit on them on the Resurrection Sunday Evening (cf. St. Paul’s teaching that baptism is a sharing in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ).

The Twelve were baptized in the experience of the death and resurrection of Our Lord. Thomas was specifically reconciled to Christ the week after by faith in the experience of meeting the Risen Lord. At Pentecost the completion of this occurred for the Twelve gathered in prayer. There is no hint that the Twelve – or the 120 disciples, for that matter – were baptized by the Sacrament.

 

[guanophore]

Polycarp said: "Eighty-six years I have served him, and he never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?"
Tell me aside from semantics what’s the difference?

The difference is that Polycarp was baptized as an infant by the Apostle John.

 

[guanophore]

I think if you seperate where the NT speaks of just “baptism” and then “water baptism” you’ll see a great difference!

This is not a practical approach, since most of the references, whether they mention water or not, include the idea of water baptism.

 

[guanophore]

While some of the Apostles underwent the baptism of John, that isn’t the same as Christian baptism. Baptism for the Apostles was the experience of going through the Passion and Death of Our Lord and His breathing the Holy Spirit on them on the Resurrection Sunday Evening (cf. St. Paul’s teaching that baptism is a sharing in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ).

The Twelve were baptized in the experience of the death and resurrection of Our Lord. Thomas was specifically reconciled to Christ the week after by faith in the experience of meeting the Risen Lord. At Pentecost the completion of this occurred for the Twelve gathered in prayer. There is no hint that the Twelve – or the 120 disciples, for that matter – were baptized by the Sacrament.

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?

 

[byoby]

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16

There is nothing you can do to save yourself other than having faith in the one who saved you. Through Grace we are saved and not by works, lest anyone should boast. We cannot work our way to God and say that he owes us anything.

 

[Church_Militant]

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16

Catholics believe every word of that verse!

There is nothing you can do to save yourself other than having faith in the one who saved you. Through Grace we are saved and not by works, lest anyone should boast. We cannot work our way to God and say that he owes us anything.

Have you seen anything in actual authoritative Catholic teaching that leads you to think that we believe otherwise?

 

[mgrfin]

I think there’s some question regarding this, in that of course Christ’s own baptism did occur before the Cross.

Do we know precisely when the apostles were baptized and whether or not that was before the Crucifixion?

First of all, we know that Baptism, like the other sacraments, was instituted by Christ.

The Baptism of John was intended to arouse sorrow for sin; it prepared the way for the Baptism of Christ.

There is no direct proof anywhere in the Gospels, that the Apostles and disciples received Baptism before the Crucifixion. But we can deduce that the Apostles were baptised before the Crucifixion, for the Apostles received the Priesthood at the Last Supper, so they would have to have received Baptism to be able to receive the Sacramental character of the Priesthood.

It was after the Resurrection that Christ commanded all to receive Baptism as a necessary condition for salvation.

Peace

September 29th is the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel:

Holy Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the malice and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and the evil spirits who roam through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

 

[Church_Militant]

September 29th is the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel:

Holy Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the malice and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and the evil spirits who roam through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

[SIGN]***It’s my feast day!
***[/SIGN]

 

[lak611]

[SIGN]***It’s my feast day!
***[/SIGN]

I say the prayer as following: St. MIchael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Protect us against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do thou, o Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits, who prowl about the earth seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

My priest taught me that prayer.

 

[Church_Militant]

I say the prayer as following: St. MIchael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Protect us against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do thou, o Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits, who prowl about the earth seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

My priest taught me that prayer.

Yeah, that’s the one that I use.

Ever seen his chaplet?

 

[lak611]

Yeah, that’s the one that I use.

Ever seen his chaplet?

No, I have not. Please give me a link. I would love to say a chaplet to St. Michael. He is a powerful Saint.

 

[mgrfin]

No, I have not. Please give me a link. I would love to say a chaplet to St. Michael. He is a powerful Saint.

Here is a link:

premier.net/~avemarie/St_Michael.htm

peace

 

[johnnydigit]

You should talk to a Catholic Priest. It is called an “illumination of conscience” and happens to Catholics more then you think. It is life changing if/when it first happens to those who have been away from the Church.

i agree. psychologically there is the term spiritual “awakening”, epiphany, “outpouring of the Holy Spirit”, etc. basically an unexplainable and drastic change that happens in a single moment. a moment of clarity and peace. sometimes, an immeasurably bright light, like the lightning with St. Paul? a lot of this can be seen from people in Catholic charismatic movements. they are large numbers of people who are spiritually on fire for the Lord and behave similarly to “born again” christians, and many Catholics don’t understand this.

in the song “Show Me Your Glory” by Third Day, he talks about such an experience,

I caught a glimpse of Your splendor
In the corner of my eye
The most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen
** And it was like a flash of lightning**
Reflected off the sky
And I know I’ll never be the same

Show me Your glory
Send down Your presence
I want to see Your face
Show me Your glory
Majesty shines about You
I can’t go on without You, Lord

When I climb down the mountain
And get back to my life
I won’t settle for ordinary things
I’m gonna follow You forever
And for all of my days
I won’t rest 'til I see You again

Show me Your glory
Show me Your glory
I can’t live without You

it’s a beautiful song that often brings me to tears.

Most of who you are talking with have had this infused slowly throughout their lives since baptism and at every examination of conscience starting at 7 or 8 y.o. This is why your getting flack about it. Tim

this makes sense. there are some whom God blesses with a profound conversion. it is God’s decision that they need a swift kick in the back of the head. the rest are infused slowly.

i think the error may be when these people who were forgiven much and blessed with a profound conversion, and who usually in turn love Jesus very much (like in the parable of the Two Debtors), are viewing those who have not have a profound conversion as “unsaved” or not “born again”, due to their lack of fruits.

the reality is, those who have had profound conversions (“saved”, “born again”) can still go astray and not produce good fruits (thus indicating “they were not really saved then.” which fallacy is that?), while those who have not had a profound conversion and were infused slowly can produce good fruits all their lives. either can end up rotten and in hell.

i think these “born again” churches are a concentrated congregation of such people with profound conversions who just seem to be so on fire for God. the majority of such churches are filled with people who produce good fruits. when they see the Catholic Church with its majority of people not appearing to be on fire for God, they assume this low density of people on fire for God is due to them not having profound conversions, not being “born again”, or not “saved”. this also contributes to the idea that the Catholic Church may not be the right church because it is not producing many of these conversions.

the Catholic Church numbers over 1 billion people worldwide. if you could count the number of Catholics with profound conversions, it would eclipse those in Protestant churches completely. so what we see is the ratio of “born again” Catholics is small compared to the total number of Catholics, whereas the ratio in Protestant churches is high. fyi the SCRC is a charismatic movement in southern California which draws over 30,000 of “on fire” people in one weekend conference.

so what does this all mean? there are many who are callled to live the Word of God without an extraordinary experience to help them along, while some are given that “kick in the back of the head” by God as i like to call it, to help them complete His eternal plan for them. this does not mean that those who were not given this most special gift by God do not have His Spirit within them. they just have a heavier cross to bear and many don’t seem to be succeeding as well. Mother Teresa would be a prime example of one who persevered to the end even without any profound “born again” or “saved” conversions, as far as i know.

if you have had this “born again” experience, you are very blessed and uniquely chosen by God for a purpose. for the non-Catholic ones, i imagine your church is like a safe haven with many around you who were also given this gift. the burden and cross you may be called to bear is to find out if the Catholic Church is truly the one church Jesus established on Earth, and to help lead the many who weren’t blessed with your gift, safely back home to Him.

 

[johnnydigit]

**misslollipops **forgive me if i missed it, but i still don’t think you’ve addressed the following verse, you just said it was moot.
Act 16:33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

You can produce no evidence that children were not to be baptized.

I can produce evidence that the earliest Christians included baptizing their children.

Thats a major difference between Apostolic Churches and non-Apostolic churches.

The point is mute.

how is it moot if it completely justifies the 2000 year old tradition of infant baptism? if a baby isn’t mature enough to experience a profound “born again” experience but is still able to be baptized, then perhaps a profound “born again” experience isn’t necessary after all?

 

[mgrfin]

i agree. psychologically there is the term spiritual “awakening”, epiphany, “outpouring of the Holy Spirit”, etc. basically an unexplainable and drastic change that happens in a single moment. a moment of clarity and peace. sometimes, an immeasurably bright light, like the lightning with St. Paul? a lot of this can be seen from people in Catholic charismatic movements. they are large numbers of people who are spiritually on fire for the Lord and behave similarly to “born again” christians, and many Catholics don’t understand this.

in the song “Show Me Your Glory” by Third Day, he talks about such an experience,

it’s a beautiful song that often brings me to tears.

this makes sense. there are some whom God blesses with a profound conversion. it is God’s decision that they need a swift kick in the back of the head. the rest are infused slowly.

i think the error may be when these people who were forgiven much and blessed with a profound conversion, and who usually in turn love Jesus very much (like in the parable of the Two Debtors), are viewing those who have not have a profound conversion as “unsaved” or not “born again”, due to their lack of fruits.

the reality is, those who have had profound conversions (“saved”, “born again”) can still go astray and not produce good fruits (thus indicating “they were not really saved then.” which fallacy is that?), while those who have not had a profound conversion and were infused slowly can produce good fruits all their lives. either can end up rotten and in hell.

i think these “born again” churches are a concentrated congregation of such people with profound conversions who just seem to be so on fire for God. the majority of such churches are filled with people who produce good fruits. when they see the Catholic Church with its majority of people not appearing to be on fire for God, they assume this low density of people on fire for God is due to them not having profound conversions, not being “born again”, or not “saved”. this also contributes to the idea that the Catholic Church may not be the right church because it is not producing many of these conversions.

the Catholic Church numbers over 1 billion people worldwide. if you could count the number of Catholics with profound conversions, it would eclipse those in Protestant churches completely. so what we see is the ratio of “born again” Catholics is small compared to the total number of Catholics, whereas the ratio in Protestant churches is high. fyi the SCRC is a charismatic movement in southern California which draws over 30,000 of “on fire” people in one weekend conference.

so what does this all mean? there are many who are callled to live the Word of God without an extraordinary experience to help them along, while some are given that “kick in the back of the head” by God as i like to call it, to help them complete His eternal plan for them. this does not mean that those who were not given this most special gift by God do not have His Spirit within them. they just have a heavier cross to bear and many don’t seem to be succeeding as well. Mother Teresa would be a prime example of one who persevered to the end even without any profound “born again” or “saved” conversions, as far as i know.

if you have had this “born again” experience, you are very blessed and uniquely chosen by God for a purpose. for the non-Catholic ones, i imagine your church is like a safe haven with many around you who were also given this gift. the burden and cross you may be called to bear is to find out if the Catholic Church is truly the one church Jesus established on Earth, and to help lead the many who weren’t blessed with your gift, safely back home to Him.

I think we are confusing things here. Let’s stay theological.
Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration, of rebirth. This rebirth, this ‘born again’ applies to all Christians baptised in Christ.
John 3:5, “Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”. That rebirth comes as a result of Baptism, to all who are baptised.

We all receive the same measure of santifying grace at baptism. But some people do more with it than others, depending upon the measure of actual grace, and the cooperation with all the graces sent to an individual.

Don’t forget, Protestants don’t accept this ‘merit’ thing - we are all equal in their eyes, cause otherwise they would have to accept the concept of ‘merit’ which they won’t.

Those who end up ‘rotten and in hell’ are those to have disavowed their baptismal vows, and sinned seriously and died unrepentant.
Maybe there are those Christians among us who respond to a higher calling of grace, have received more and responded to that ‘more’. Nonetheless, all of us who have been baptised are called to holy lives, and therefore to heaven.

peace

 

[misslollipops]

**misslollipops **forgive me if i missed it, but i still don’t think you’ve addressed the following verse, you just said it was moot.
Act 16:33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

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?

 

[Gamera]

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?

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.

 

[rlg94086]

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.

Exactly! It is not rational to ASSUME that the early Church got it wrong, and rely on the ASSUMPTIONS of theologians who came around 1500 years after the fact.