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:
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?
Click to expand...
Pardon me, but do you NOT realize the large number of children in households during the 1st century A.D.?

This is not the 2.5 children per household of the late 20th century.

Whom do you believe comprised “the household” if children were excluded?

You are reasoning backwards from the spurious notion that one must reach some magical “age of consent” which is completely anachronistic, is nowhere found until the Reformers needed a convenient lie to justify their schisms after the fact, and is frankly complete hogwash in light of an argument you likewise have not responded to: that the apostles believed the end of the world was IMMINENT, and thus would hardly be expected to wait 13 or 16 or 18 or 21 years or whatever this magical age of consent was to bring children to Christ through baptism as he commanded.

Why are you so wed to the notion that infant baptism is somehow evil? Is it simply because you think yours was somehow invalid?
 
Philthy said:
The Scriptural record - alone - is conspicuously incomplete.
Click to expand...
It should be noted, of course, that quite often Scripture is incomplete simply because the questions being asked 2,000 years after the fact are, quite frankly, specious.

Jesus emphasized water baptism, even submitting to it himself. Can one even conceive of the apostles not so doing? The reason we are not given a specific depiction of the baptism of the apostles in Scripture is no doubt because it was unnecessary to do so.

The apostles did a lot of walking, and a lot of preaching, and a lot of eating. Why does Scripture not say so? Why shouldn’t we presume that the apostles were magically teleported between locales featured in the Gospel, or that Christ fed them on manna, or that apostolic preaching pre-Crucifixion was limited to mime?

Because to do so would be to strain credulity.

Scripture is not the apostolic age equivalent of reality TV.
 
rpp said:
951 posts. Wow! Not too many more and this thread will close.
Click to expand...
It is a wonder of invincible ignorance that the thread has survived this long given how well-attested salvific baptism is in Scripture.

Even were this NOT the case, Catholics also have a sacrament of confirmation which makes evangelical nattering about “age of consent” moot.

About the only thing this long, long thread has established is that Bishop Fulton Sheen was right on when he noted that there are those who would not even accept Christ if the introduction were provided by the Catholic Church.
 
From a Scripture Alone POV, not one person in Bible times ever went to the bathroom. 😃
 
rlg94086 said:
“I didn’t get a harrumph out of you…” 😃

Okay…now, we are off-topic.
Click to expand...
I’ll reel us back in.

I know I’m born again because, having watched “Blazing Saddles” again recently after having joined Christ’s Church, I found myself noting just how uncharitable Mongo was being when he punched out that horse, and that St Francis wouldn’t like that.

Before my conversion, I would have simply laughed. And rewound.
 
Teflon93 said:
I’ll reel us back in.

I know I’m born again because, having watched “Blazing Saddles” again recently after having joined Christ’s Church, I found myself noting just how uncharitable Mongo was being when he punched out that horse, and that St Francis wouldn’t like that.

Before my conversion, I would have simply laughed. And rewound.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
 
Teflon93 said:
I’ll reel us back in.

I know I’m born again because, having watched “Blazing Saddles” again recently after having joined Christ’s Church, I found myself noting just how uncharitable Mongo was being when he punched out that horse, and that St Francis wouldn’t like that.

Before my conversion, I would have simply laughed. And rewound.
Click to expand...
Because that was back in the days of VHS? 😛
 
Teflon93 said:
I’ll reel us back in.

I know I’m born again because, having watched “Blazing Saddles” again recently after having joined Christ’s Church, I found myself noting just how uncharitable Mongo was being when he punched out that horse, and that St Francis wouldn’t like that.

Before my conversion, I would have simply laughed. And rewound.
Click to expand...
I watched it and was glad they didnt serve beans at the Last supper- other wise we might be washing more than feet on Holy thursday…
 
So let me summarize the various sacraments available to Catholics which entail being born again:
  1. Baptism - typically performed when we’re infants, it initiates us into Christianity and marks the awakening of God’s grace within us
  2. Confirmation - continues our growth in grace and represents increased responsibility to spread and defend the faith
  3. Eucharist - culminates Christian initiation by physically taking Christ within us
  4. Penance - restores us to communion after sin has led us astray; marks our rebirth as members of the Body of Christ and continues sanctification
So even if you’re an evangelical who insists upon combining 1 and 2 into the same moment in time and who insists that moment be in adulthood (as opposed to our Eastern brothers who do both in infancy); how you maintain that the 4 Catholic sacraments are not even equivalent to the 1 evangelical is an interesting exercise in logic if not math.
 
estesbob said:
Infant Baptism and ongoing salvation strikes at the very core of many Protestant’s beliefs. For them its all about “Me” and my “buddy” Jesus. The idea that one can be saved other than via a momentary emotional flash is contrary to everything they believe in.
Click to expand...
Not all though, in the late 20th century this phenomenon has grown more. For instance they are many Protestants who agree with infant Baptism and know that Salvation is more than just a momentary emotional flash and that sometimes there is never one.

The things you speak of I’ve seen more in Pentecostal/Charismatic fundamentalist movements.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lak611 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Actually, the two thieves died after Jesus. The soldiers had to break their legs, but not Jesus’ legs because He had already died. From the NASB:
Gamera said:
Yes. But Jesus was still alive when the thief repented. Jesus was alive when He said, “Today you will be with me in paradise.”
Click to expand...
Hmm…just a thought. Was the “good thief” “baptized” by the water that flowed from Jesus’ side?

Chuck
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top