How do I know if I'm born again?

  • Thread starter Thread starter misslollipops
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we are confusing things here. Let’s stay theological.
that’s great for theologians, scholars, apologists, and the parishioners who usually sit in the first 3 rows during Mass, but there are many who respond better to practical experience and logic before getting into deeper theological discussion, if they ever get into it at all…
 
I’ll play the silly game everyone else is so fond of here:

“Show me in scripture where it explicitly says that the Apostles were not baptized.”

Until then I’ll go with the “preponderance of evidence,” as I see it, that they were “water” baptized.

Chuck
Yes, it was fitting that Christ was baptized (which, of course, was not a Christian baptism), and this explains the why of it well:

“In presenting Himself to receive the baptism of John, Jesus submits to the will of His Father (Mt. 3:14f) and humbly placed Himself among sinners. He is the Lamb of God who thus takes upon Himself the sins of the world (Jn. 1:29, 36). The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan announces and prepares for His baptism ‘in death’ (Ll/ 12:50; Mk. 10:38), which indeed frames His public life between two baptisms. This is what John the Evangelist means when he reports that water and blood flowed from the pierced side of Jesus (Jn. 19:34f) and when he says that the Sprit, the water and the blood are intimately connected (1 Jn. 5:6-8),” Xavier Leon-Dufour, Dictionary of Biblical Theology.

What strikes me in the above is the imagery of Our Lord, the innocent Lamb of God, entering the water in which sinners have entered as a sign of repentance and comes out of the water bearing the weight of those sins - and also cleansing the water, the material that will be used to bring about sinners’ rebirth in Christian baptism (the Church Fathers speak of this).

All this, of course, is not something that the Apostles could accomplish through their own baptisms (for those who were baptized by John, which, again, was not a Christian baptism).

Yes, He did, because they were commissioned to bring others to the rebirth into His Kingdom through the baptism that is the Christian’s immersion in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, as St. Paul makes clear. Since Pentecost, of course, everybody is normally to be baptized by the sacrament, even St. Paul.

Yes, he was. He required baptism because - unlike the Apostles and the close disciples - he wasn’t present as were the Apostles to all that Baptism signifies. 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. Garrigou-Lagrange’s classic book, The Three Ways of the Spiritual Life, summarizes a whole tradition of understanding the development of the Twelve’s spirituality from beginners (during the earthly life), the purification of the senses (in the event of the Passion and Death), the infusion of contemplative prayer (in the 40 days of the Resurrection), the purification of the spirit (in the awaiting of the Counselor in the presence of the Blessed Mother drawing down the Holy Spirit), and Pentecost Day (the grace of union or the mystical life) that propels them to preach and incorporate new members from among the Jews through baptism and confirmation.

Yes, it is. 🙂
 
I’ll play the silly game everyone else is so fond of here:

“Show me in scripture where it explicitly says that the Apostles were not baptized.”

Until then I’ll go with the “preponderance of evidence,” as I see it, that they were “water” baptized.

Chuck
This is very interesting. My wife and I were just talking about how in Catholic apologetics vis-a-vis Protestants, we automatically use Scripture, even in their butchered versions, and argue on these grounds. After all, if you want to convince someone of the rightness of your position, doing it on their own ground is the most powerful way to achieve your goal.

Yet Protestants almost never seek to engage us on our own turf. We have to beg them to look at the Catechism, which is a great advantage for Protestants attacking Catholicism since it’s actually written down and all Catholics are expected to align to it. It’s the natural place to go if one wants to criticize what the Church teaches, and yet Protestants avoid it like the plague.

Which leads me to believe one of two possible explanations:
  1. Protestants do not want to win any arguments with Catholics.
  2. Protestants are more afraid of learning what the Church actually teaches and finding it compelling than in losing arguments.
It is certainly reasonable to ask Protestants to prove something didn’t happen in Scripture—they surely wield that hammer against us readily enough when it comes to the two solas and other Protestant Greatest Hits.
 
This is very interesting. My wife and I were just talking about how in Catholic apologetics vis-a-vis Protestants, we automatically use Scripture, even in their butchered versions, and argue on these grounds. After all, if you want to convince someone of the rightness of your position, doing it on their own ground is the most powerful way to achieve your goal.

Yet Protestants almost never seek to engage us on our own turf. We have to beg them to look at the Catechism, which is a great advantage for Protestants attacking Catholicism since it’s actually written down and all Catholics are expected to align to it. It’s the natural place to go if one wants to criticize what the Church teaches, and yet Protestants avoid it like the plague.

Which leads me to believe one of two possible explanations:
  1. Protestants do not want to win any arguments with Catholics.
  2. Protestants are more afraid of learning what the Church actually teaches and finding it compelling than in losing arguments.
It is certainly reasonable to ask Protestants to prove something didn’t happen in Scripture—they surely wield that hammer against us readily enough when it comes to the two solas and other Protestant Greatest Hits.
Yes, “Sola Fides” is an easy one. Protestants can’t seem to grasp that we believe in Justification by Faith - not “Faith Only”, but that we are saved by Faith.

Protestants also believe, per Luther, that we believe we buy our way into heaven by good works, which is another slander.

“Sola Scriptura”. I don’t know. That was a debating rule instituted by Luther, and we let him away with it.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. So were the Seven Sacraments, which the Protestants dismantled. They have no priesthood, where a true and inviolate Sacrifice is offered from the setting of the sun to the rising thereof.

And, oh yea, OSAS…that’s another Protestant winner.

Yeah, reading the Catechism is a scary thing for Protestants. They are afraid they might become convinced of the truth of our claims: “Credo in…unam sanctam, catholicam, apostolicam ecclesiam…”

peace
 
1,000 post limit exceeded. Thread is closed.
Feel free to open another on this if needed.
MF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top