Regeneration/Born-Again

[all4one]

josephdavid:

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
They can not enter until they have a clear free will to. (They haven’t completely left yet.)
Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. See my note above There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.
I agree. The only criteria is free choice in the matter.I can not enter the Kingdom for my child. He/she has to enter of their own free will.
Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.
ditto
Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.”
You have made a big assumption here. Jesus means that he who does not believe won’t be baptized either because he would ONLY do that if he believed. This verse is clearly illustrating my point.Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

You may be right. But I would say to follow Him is certainly dependent upon the age of reason. Do you disagree?
Thanks for your comments. You have helped me very much. God bless, Al

 

[Romans5_1]

Kendy:

To those involved the justified by faith discussion or anyone interested, I suppose. I think we should spent some time talking about regeneration. What does it mean? Is it the same thing as born again or are we talking about different things? How does it happen? Can it be undone? Or whatever other things should be included here.

Kendy

Regeneration does not happen during baptism. Our spirits or souls are virtually disconnected with God until we are born again. It truly is like being born anew because once it happens God gives us a whole new perspective of life. I never knew him until I was born again. Now I now him and I want to share him with everyone because he is love.

 

[josephdavid]

all4one:

You may be right. But I would say to follow Him is certainly dependent upon the age of reason. Do you disagree?
Thanks for your comments. You have helped me very much. God bless, Al

All4One,
Here is my view: Faith alone is not gonna cut it. But if we read the entire scriptures and digest it we should get the following:

Faith with out baptism and with out works does not work. Baptism with out Faith and with out good works dos not work. good works with out faith in Christ and baptism does not work.

One must be Baptised, must have faith and do good works. Why do good works? Because God instructs us. Good works can include repentence for falling off the Path Christ instructs us to take. It is all or none.

 

[all4one]

josephdavid:

All4One,
Here is my view: Faith alone is not gonna cut it. But if we read the entire scriptures and digest it we should get the following:

Faith with out baptism and with out works does not work. Baptism with out Faith and with out good works dos not work. good works with out faith in Christ and baptism does not work.

One must be Baptised, must have faith and do good works.
Babies can not have faith and do good works.Why do good works? Because God instructs us. Good works can include repentence for falling off the Path Christ instructs us to take. It is all or none.

I won’t bore you with the same ol Faith alone stuff except to say that you are correct, it’s just that most of us say or think we have faith because we belong to a ‘faith’. This is not having faith. Faith is inseperable from works if it is living. Most church goers think they have faith because they go to or belong to a church and meanwhile are busy going through all the ceremonials without really believing in their power because we are doing the works of the flesh. Faith is to believe by revelation of grace that i am doomed and that the love of God as expressed in the Cross has opened the door to Life. If this is really hitting home then there will be fruit unto righteousness (what you mean by works). There are many ‘works’ we can do to keep our attention sharp, our hearts open (prayer) and our body in check but these don’t and won’t save our souls. This stuff is maintanance after we have been ‘translated into the life of His Son’.
What do you think??? Al

 

[Romans5_1]

Contarini:

Actually, that ritual/moral distinction is standard Catholic theology. It doesn’t “pose a problem” at all. Perhaps I haven’t been following this thread carefully enough. You and Bene appear to be saying that there is no continuity between the Covenants–that the New Covenant is completely new and is not a fulfillment or transformation of the Old. You’re distinguishing between ritual and moral, fine. But even the ritual laws pointed to Christ and were fulfilled in Christ. Otherwise what was the point? Furthermore, it’s obvious that Christ did establish new rituals for Christians to observe. Obviously they function differently than the rituals of the Old Law. But there is also continuity. I don’t see how Hebrews contradicts this.

Furthermore, Jesus does not say in Matt. 5:17 that He only fulfilled the moral law. The traditional (patristic/medieval) view is that Christ fulfilled the different kinds of law in different ways (medieval commentators produce long lists of these ways). He fulfilled the moral laws by teaching their true meaning and bringing them to perfection. He fulfilled the ceremonial laws by enacting the reality they prefigured. But that is still a fulfillment/transformation, not a simple abolition. I don’t know if we disagree on this point or not.

Is the point at issue whether baptism and Eucharist are fulfillments of the ceremonies of the Old Law? I don’t see how Hebrews helps you here at all. If Hebrews’ “abrogation” refers to Christ’s fulfillment of the ceremonies through His death and resurrection (as it surely does), and if baptism and Eucharist are memorials of Christ’s saving work (as they surely are, whatever else we may think about them), then you can’t deny logically that they have a certain relation to the ceremonies of the Old Law. I don’t see what this argument is about, frankly.

As for keeping the Law perfectly–of course we don’t (at least in my view–I’ll let the Catholics argue for themselves on this one). Even John Wesley said that he sinned against the perfect law of love every day. We all need forgiveness. But that does not mean that the moral law ceases to be the guide for our lives.

It is a memorial of Christ’s one sacrifice, which makes that sacrifice present to us. Again, we can argue about how this happens–I have problems with traditional Roman Catholic language on this point myself. Charles Wesley spoke of Christ “pleading” His one eternal sacrifice in the presence of God, and of the Eucharist as our reception of the benefits of that eternal offering (in the hymn “Victim Divine”).

From the elders of the early Church, who led the community in the sacrifice of thanksgiving by which we receive the fruit of Christ’s one eternal sacrifice. I agree that the medieval priesthood came to be thought of as fundamentally different from the universal priesthood of all believers, and that this had disastrous consequences. The Reformation was a very healthy corrective in this regard.

In Christ,

Edwin

Edwin: I don’t know what the intent of your post might be but I hope it is not to further divide? I have studied religions for years and in my opinion an answer to your question of, “No need for sacrifice, no need for a priesthood to offer a sacrifice; from where does the Catholic priesthood come?” might be: the ancient Pagan religion Mithras. It was prevalent in Rome long before Christianity. It had a priesthood and a leader know as the “Holy Father or Pontificus Maximus”. This Holy Father would carry a staff and he had a rather prominent ring. I have noticed many similarities between the Catholic priesthood and this ancient religion. However Catholics are not Pagans they are Christians because of their simple faith in Christ. This is the only reason any of us are saved. This religious one ups man ship must stop at some point so we can come together don’t you agree? I believe that we are all part of the body of Christ and I believe that Satan in his best effort has given the world “religion” so that we would not be as one. Peace to you friend. P.S. my religious affiliation none. I worship Jesus along with the body at a Calvary Chapel.

 

[Philthy]

Romans5:1:

I have studied religions for years and in my opinion an answer to your question of, “No need for sacrifice, no need for a priesthood to offer a sacrifice; from where does the Catholic priesthood come?” might be: the ancient Pagan religion Mithras.

You’ve been studying for years and this is your answer? I would “pack it in” my friend if that is the best you have come up with. At the very least you need to take a few steps backwards before you can proceed forward.
Have you considered that there was a priesthood in Judaism? And do you not realize that Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism? Why would you need to explain the Catholic priesthood apart from a transformed continuation of the Judaic priesthood? That makes no sense at all.
In addition, in all your “years” of “study” have you actually examined the record of how the earliest Christians worshipped together? It doesn’t sound like it.

Peace,

Phil

 

[wpr]

It in no way precludes a sovereign declaration of justification to those who are His, those who have put their faith "in Him

."

No, it does not. But it also does not preclude a fall from grace.
Soveriegn: above all others, chief, supreme.

Is it faith to “ask” for forgiveness of sins when He has already proclaimed forgiveness through the blood sacrifice of His own Son?

It is faith to be humble before God. If you think you are without sin, you are a liar. Thank God we have an advocate in Christ Jesus. Our faith is in Him and we repent of sins through him and by His mercy and passion we are forgiven. We continue to look to the cross.

Is it faith to seek to be reconciled to God through men, when He has already reconciled you to Himself through the death of His Son?

No, it would not be faithfull to seek to be reconciled to God through men. As a Catholic I have never done so.

The Preist is the servant of Christ given his authority by Christ. I place myself humbly before the servant of Jesus Christ! Read John 20:19~23, Christ gives the Apostles the power to both forgive and bind sin. Therefore, they must hear the sins to forgive or hold them bound otherwise how would they know which to do?

2 Cor 5:17~20 Paul teaches the ministry of reconciliation. Also, James 5:13~16 shows us the presbyters had such authority as well. All through the will of our Lord!

In Gen. 15:6 Abraham finally believed "in

" the Lord, and upon that faith God reckoned it to him as righteousness. Paul agrees with the same kind of faith in Rom. 4:5, “…but believes “in Him” who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned to him as righteousness.”

I am familar with your argument. But you added the “finally” which is not in the text. Just as Martin Luther added “alone” where it was not found.

Remember, the much respected Protestant Charlie still thinks Abraham was justified in Gn 12. So does the author of Hebrews. In fact, James says he was justified in Gn 22! Your point is not made.

In both cases it’s not just faith, but faith "in Him

." It’s faith “in Him” who says He HAS forgiven your sins through the shed blood of His Son. Faith “in Him” who says He HAS reconciled you to Himself through the death of His Son. Faith “in Him” is trust in what He says He has done.

Amen brother! Me too.

Still seeking to BE forgiven is not true faith. Still seeking to BE reconciled is not true faith.

You may want to take that up with James. Look to James 5:16. And James 5:19~20.

*My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whomever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. *

Seeking to be healed from the stain of sin and reconciled with Christ Jesus does not shame the cross as you seem to think. Rather the opposite. It continues to glorify the salvation through the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What is “true faith”? In your view Abraham did not have it in Gn 12. But Rahab must have had it in Jos 2 for James to tell us she was justified “in the same way” as Abraham was in Gn 22. How can one be justified who has not been imputed? Yet God did not make any declaration for Rahab. Is James wrong? Was her faith in Jos 2 “true faith” and that of Abraham in Gn 12 not “true faith”? How do you know?

MAT 7:21-23

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’”

He speaks of those who know God exists, but do not put their faith in his grace. This is not Catholic teaching.

Yet one would think that by all those good works they were doing the will of His Father. These would be canonized saints

in the eyes of Rome. But yet, Christ says, “I never knew you.” Why? Because Jesus says in John 6:29, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

Yes, we put our faith in Jesus Christ. Amen. Otherwise, we cannot please Him.

Believing "of Him

," and believing “in Him” are two completely different faiths. One forever saves, the other cannot. One forever justifies, the other does not.
Amen! As shown by our Lord.

 

[wpr]

ALWAYS

in sight of the cross, knowing and rejoicing, daily, that what was laid there on the Substitute can never be laid back on the sinner (now “saint”).

Amen Bene.

I just think you have an interesting definition of “true beleiver” in the sense of time. A true believer is a forgone conclusion for you; past tense. This error forces you into many strange interpretations of the Scripture.

Can you beleive the Catholic guy thinks Abraham was right with God in Gn 12 because of his faith, while the Protestant guy argues that Abraham’s faith was not sufficient until Gn 15?

Is’nt that ironic?

Plus you relegate the Lord’s Prayer as not applicable because you cannot deal with “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” You argue that praying as the Lord taught shows we are not trusting in the cross.

How crazy is that?

 

[Philthy]

Hi Bene-

bene7:

MAT 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’”

Yet one would think that by all those good works they were doing the will of His Father.

bene7:

Bene, when Christ says “you who practice lawlessness” - what, specifically, do you think he is referring to? And when you refer to “all those good works” what, exactly, are you referring to?

I don’t think that Christ is referring to their “good works”(your term) when he says “lawlessness” - do you? That would make your conclusion seem inappropriate. They were not observing his commands and therefore were not doing his will
.

bene7:
These would be canonized saints in the eyes of Rome. But yet, Christ says, “I never knew you.” Why? Because Jesus says in John 6:29, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
Blessings,
Bene
In Rome they dont canonize saints, they only canonize Saints. However, they don’t canonize anyone who practices lawlessness - you are just mistaken with this claim. Probably what you are confusing is that IN ADDITION to living a holy life, having a miracle attributed to a person is a part of the canonization process. Im not sure, but I don’t think that the miracle is something that occurs during the persons earthly life.

Thats a great verse - as Ive said before- Im not sure why it isnt a more staple part of the Protestant rhetoric. I didn’t mean that to sound derogatory. I even posted it in MariaG’s “opposite” thread where she wanted Catholics to post the verses they felt most supported Protestant theology…

Peace,

Phil

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

Actually Christ explains Himself in John 3:5-6. “That which is born of flesh is flesh (physical birth); and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” You who are born of the flesh must also be born of the Spirit: “born again.” None of it has anything to do with ritual, water baptism.

Blessings,
Bene

You’re right. He does clarify Nicodemus’ question with this response. However, you are trying to stretch that to mean something it does not. This is why “born from above” is actually a better understanding of the phrase “born again”. They are both the same phrase. Nicodemus understands Christ to be saying that Nicodemus must be “reborn” in the sense that he must be “physically” reborn. Christ emphasizes that being “born from above” or of the “spirit” is not the same as a “crawling back into your mother’s womb”. It is a spiritual rebirth. What Christ does not say is that being born of “water” is akin to physical birth, and “spirit” is akin to spiritual birth. This is a complete twisting of the obvious meaning of this passage. It also flies in the face of the fact that later in this chapter is the only documented time in Scripture that Christ baptized. You’re reading into the text.

 

[Redbandito]

Philthy:

Hi Bene-

bene7:

In Rome they dont canonize saints, they only canonize Saints. However, they don’t canonize anyone who practices lawlessness - you are just mistaken with this claim. Probably what you are confusing is that IN ADDITION to living a holy life, having a miracle attributed to a person is a part of the canonization process. Im not sure, but I don’t think that the miracle is something that occurs during the persons earthly life.

Thats a great verse - as Ive said before- Im not sure why it isnt a more staple part of the Protestant rhetoric. I didn’t mean that to sound derogatory. I even posted it in MariaG’s “opposite” thread where she wanted Catholics to post the verses they felt most supported Protestant theology…

Peace,

Phil

You’re right Phil. The miracles have to occur after death.

 

[wpr]

Edwin: I don’t know what the intent of your post might be but I hope it is not to further divide? I have studied religions for years and in my opinion an answer to your question of, “No need for sacrifice, no need for a priesthood to offer a sacrifice; from where does the Catholic priesthood come?” might be: the ancient Pagan religion Mithras. It was prevalent in Rome long before Christianity. It had a priesthood and a leader know as the “Holy Father or Pontificus Maximus”. This Holy Father would carry a staff and he had a rather prominent ring. I have noticed many similarities between the Catholic priesthood and this ancient religion.

Hello Roms5:1

Have you read any of the Patristic writings? How about basic history from AD 33 to AD 310 or thereabouts?

Your assesment of where the Catholic Priesthood came from is frankly not very sophisticated. I’m trying to be nice here, but I sincerely doubt you have done much serious study of the matter.

Edwin’s comment was not taken by me or any other Catholic on this thread as divisive. That there were issues with the Priesthood in the ages leading up to the Reformation is not an issue that Catholic’s deny or need to deny. We do not bury our heads in the sand.

However Catholics are not Pagans they are Christians because of their simple faith in Christ. This is the only reason any of us are saved.

I hope you were not trying to condescend with this comment. I’ll thank you for including us among the “saved”.

I would suggest you undertake a more serious study of Patristic writings from the early Church to around AD 500. You may be a bit shocked to find a few rather brilliant simpletons professing all kinds of things “Catholic”.

These same Catholic simpletons vigorously protected many issues of doctrine that you take for granted. They further serve as key witnesses to the Canon of the NT that you rightfully cherish as we do. They are indispensable to it’s formation!

This religious one ups man ship must stop at some point so we can come together don’t you agree? I believe that we are all part of the body of Christ and I believe that Satan in his best effort has given the world “religion” so that we would not be as one.

Again, as a Catholic, I respected Edwin’s comments and I did not find them offensive in the least bit. I saw no "religious “one-ups- man- ship”. Where do you see that?

Peace to you friend. P.S. my religious affiliation none. I worship Jesus along with the body at a Calvary Chapel.

As a Catholic Christian, I am happy you worship Jesus at the Calvary Chapel. By all means continue to do so.

I would like to ask a favor of you. If you are ever taught or told what the Catholc Church teaches by anyone not well versed in our faith, would you please come to this forum and inquire as to the real basis of our teaching? You would be doing yourself a favor by serving truth rather than inuendo.

 

[Philthy]

Redbandito:

You’re right. He does clarify Nicodemus’ question with this response. However, you are trying to stretch that to mean something it does not. This is why “born from above” is actually a better understanding of the phrase “born again”. They are both the same phrase. Nicodemus understands Christ to be saying that Nicodemus must be “reborn” in the sense that he must be “physically” reborn. Christ emphasizes that being “born from above” or of the “spirit” is not the same as a “crawling back into your mother’s womb”. It is a spiritual rebirth. What Christ does not say is that being born of “water” is akin to physical birth, and “spirit” is akin to spiritual birth. This is a complete twisting of the obvious meaning of this passage. It also flies in the face of the fact that later in this chapter is the only documented time in Scripture that Christ baptized. You’re reading into the text.

The Greek adverb anothen means both “from above” and “again”.
Christ meant “from above”, Nicodemus thought he meant “again”.
Christs statement that “what is born of flesh is flesh”- in response to Nicodemus’ querie- is meant to convey that what is born of flesh -NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES - remains flesh. But to be born “anothen” requires something different…to be born of water - the bath of rebirth and spirit.

Phil

 

[Redbandito]

Philthy:

The Greek adverb anothen means both “from above” and “again”.
Christ meant “from above”, Nicodemus thought he meant “again”.
Christs statement that “what is born of flesh is flesh”- in response to Nicodemus’ querie- is meant to convey that what is born of flesh -NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES - remains flesh. But to be born “anothen” requires something different…to be born of water - the bath of rebirth and spirit.

Phil

Exactly!