What do you call yourself?

[believers]

Born Again Catholic

Take note that Jesus puts Baptism First instead of Last.

But that is for another thread.

When a person fails to follow it up with all he commanded, then the person is no longer walking in the Spirit.

According to Catholic.com, a person is born again via water baptism. That means, for most Roman Catholics, they were “born-again” as an infant during water baptism. You were supposedly born-again at your water baptism.

Now, let’s see what the Word of God actually says…

Jhn 3:1
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

Jhn 3:2
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Jhn 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

*no mention of infants getting baptized here

Jhn 3:4
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is OLD? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

*notice how Nicodemus said when he is OLD.

Jhn 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a **man **be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jhn 3:7
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

So let’s review, when a person is born into this world, They are born of water. In other words, flesh. But, to be saved we must also be born of the spirit (by the Word of God).

1Pe 1:22
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently:

1Pe 1:23
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

 

[mercygate]

According to Catholic.com, a person is born again via water baptism. That means, for most Roman Catholics, they were “born-again” as an infant during water baptism. You were supposedly born-again at your water baptism.

Now, let’s see what the Word of God actually says…

Jhn 3:1
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

Jhn 3:2
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Jhn 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

*no mention of infants getting baptized here

Jhn 3:4
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is OLD? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

*notice how Nicodemus said when he is OLD.

Jhn 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a **man **be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jhn 3:7
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

So let’s review, when a person is born into this world, They are born of water. In other words, flesh. But, to be saved we must also be born of the spirit (by the Word of God).

1Pe 1:22
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently:

1Pe 1:23
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Catholics understand that they are born again by the action of God through the Sacrament of Baptism, because that is the objective effect of the Sacrament. Nevertheless, we also experience (often more than once) the profound interior conversion and commitment to Christ that occurs on the conscious level, each time with deeper consequences for living out the life of grace. When a Catholic says he is “born again” he means it in both the objective and in the subjective sense. It is my understanding that many Protestants limit the term to the subjective experience only.

 

[ibkc]

That’s all real well and good, believers, but since not all Christians follow the concept of sola scriptura, it’s kind of meaningless. Water baptism for the remission of sins was practiced from the earliest times, as writings such as the Didache attest (see chapter 7). I can also sling back some scripture that proves that baptism is a sacrament for the remission of sins:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38)

“Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16)

“Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 3:21

The idea that Jesus would deny this sacrament to infants and small children is laughable:

“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16)

 

[Evlogitos]

believers:

Jhn 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

*no mention of infants getting baptized here

The Greek here is anthropos, which means more precisely “human being.” As such, the scope of this verse encompasses all humanity of every age. There is no specific reference to infants, but the logical thrust of the verse does not require such.

Jhn 3:4
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is OLD? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

*notice how Nicodemus said when he is OLD.

The Greek here is geron, which means “elder” or “elderly.” Nicodemus is here doing something of a reductio ad absurdum for purposes of inquiry, going purposefully as far along the scale as he can to push Jesus for a solid answer. If you were to read this verse literally as spelling out the prerequisites for baptism, you’d have to go beyond “believer’s baptism” to “senior citizens’ baptism.”

Jhn 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Every Christian from John up 'til the Reformation was in absolute agreement that “born of water and the spirit” was a reference to baptism, which is a physical immersion of water that renews us as children of God, though the action of the Holy Spirit.

Jhn 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jhn 3:7
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Exactly. When we are born into the flesh, we are flesh (which numerous times is used in Scripture as a euphemism for the corruption of the world). So we must be born of the Spirit, via baptism, in order to attain unto spiritual things. This is why Christ says we shouldn’t be surprised that we have to be born again.

So let’s review, when a person is born into this world, They are born of water. In other words, flesh. But, to be saved we must also be born of the spirit (by the Word of God).

It is a huge and eisegetical leap to assume that “water” = “flesh.” It makes absolutely no sense for Christ to be saying “You must be born into this world, and then be born of the spirit.” Does this mean that if we grew a baby in a test tube (no longer “born of water” in the strict sense you’re giving), he couldn’t become a Christian?

Notice the structure of the dialogue.

Christ says “(1) A man must be born again (2) or he will not see the Kingdom.” This is His thesis.

Nicodemus replies, “How can a man be born again?”

Christ replies in more detail. He says “(1) A man must be born of water and of the Spirit (2) or he will not see the Kingdom.”

As you can see, Christ is implicitly stating that one must be born again of water and the Spirit. Thus, water is a part of being born again. He is simply restating His thesis.

It is inaccurate to say, then, that “water” refers in any way to one’s physical or original birth. Water, says Christ, is part and parcel of being born again.

1Pe 1:22
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently:

1Pe 1:23
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Exactly. We are born again via the Logos of God, Who is Christ. “As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” If it were not for Christ, our eternal Lord, baptism would be merely a dunking into the water.

 

[believers]

Catholics understand that they are born again by the action of God through the Sacrament of Baptism, because that the the objective effect of the Sacrament. Nevertheless, we also experience (often more than once) the profound interior conversion and commitment to Christ that occurs on the conscious level, each time with deeper consequences for living out the life of grace. When a Catholic says he is “born again” he means it in both the objective and in the subjective sense. It is my understanding that many Protestants limit the term to the subjective experience only.

When I say I’m born again, I confess that Jesus is Lord. The only begotten Son of God who paid for my sins on the cross with His own blood, and rose again on the third day. I am justified and saved by Grace through faith in His work on the cross. As a born again Christian I have died with Christ nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ living in me… and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. I love even my enemies. I give God all the praise, honor, and glory. I worship and pray to God fervently… raising my hands without doubt or wrath in praise and worship. I am quick to forgive and not easily offended. I tell others of the Gospel of Christ. I am born again.

I am the whosoever in these verses just to name a few

Act 2:21
And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Jhn 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Act 10:43
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Rom 10:13
For** whosoever** shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

1Jo 4:15
Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

1Jo 5:1
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

 

[Evlogitos]

Problem being that “belief” and “calling on the name of the Lord” are not mere intellectual assent, but rather obedience in faith to the commandments of God. “If ye love me, keep My commandments.” As such, being a “Bible-believing Christian” runs a lot deeper than merely saying the “sinner’s prayer” and relying on “faith alone” as your rule of life. I can see, to your credit, that you appear to have at least a foundational understanding of this principle (although you probably still, illogically, hold to “faith alone”).

I wouldn’t otherwise comment, but you seem to have raised inaccurate polemic against the holistic and Traditional view of Scripture and Christian life–that “born again” is a baptismal reference.

 

[believers]

Problem being that “belief” and “calling on the name of the Lord” are not mere intellectual assent, but rather obedience in faith to the commandments of God. “If ye love me, keep My commandments.” As such, being a “Bible-believing Christian” runs a lot deeper than merely saying the “sinner’s prayer” and relying on “faith alone” as your rule of life. I can see, to your credit, that you appear to have at least a foundational understanding of this principle (although you probably still, illogically, hold to “faith alone”).

I wouldn’t otherwise comment, but you seem to have raised inaccurate polemic against the holistic and Traditional view of Scripture and Christian life–that “born again” is a baptismal reference.

Being born again is a spiritual rebirth not an “intellectual assent”. The Word of God says I would know His disciples by their love… not by water baptism by the RCC.

Jhn 13:34
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Jhn 13:35
By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

 

[ibkc]

Being born again is a spiritual rebirth not an “intellectual assent”. The Word of God says I would know His disciples by their love… not by water baptism by the RCC.

The “RCC” is not the only church which considers water baptism a sacrament, and which allows children to receive that sacrament.

This is something that has been bothering me. Since some of you Protestants think baptism doesn’t do anything and is unnecessary, why do you place so much emphasis on re-baptising new members of your church?

 

[Evlogitos]

Being born again is a spiritual rebirth not an “intellectual assent”. The Word of God says I would know His disciples by their love… not by water baptism by the RCC.

Jhn 13:34
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Jhn 13:35
By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Well, duh. Baptism alone does not manifest God through us. We must continue to live faithfully after our baptism. He who believes and is baptized is saved.

You’re painting a false dichotomy between participation in the sacraments of God (which are extensions of His Love for us) and our growth in love for one another, which is aided by our participation in the sacramental life, since we cannot love others as God loves us unless we permit God to abide more strongly in us each day.

 

[NDfan]

That’s the question. What does Christian plain and simple mean?

Claire Christian to me is someone who believes and accepts Christ as their savior. As opposed to say a Jew who doesn’t, or a Muslim that has a different view of Jesus.

PEACE

 

[ALLFORHIM]

ALLFORHIM:

Mormons would vigorously dispute this assertion.

Hi, of course they would I have cousins who are mormons

So what, to you, constitutes the Biblical image of Christendom? Did the Biblical Christ ordain the sacraments of baptism, eucharist, holy orders, et al.? If so, in what manner? If not, what makes you think not?

Im not going to go into these because that is not what the thread is about but they can all be answered biblically:thumbsup:

I’m sure you believe that Christ is the Son of God. But what does this mean? Is Christ Himself God, or something else? If the man, Jesus, is God, was He God from birth (thus establishing Mary as the Mother of God), or did was His humanity infused with divinity at a later time (perhaps the baptism of John)? Is Jesus equally God and equally man? Does He have both a divine nature and a human nature? Does He have both a divine will and a human will? Questions to ponder, if you’re considering the Biblical Jesus!

Again the bible does answer all of these questions:thumbsup:

See, on the basis of your answers thus far, I’m going to take a guess that we legal types would probably classify you as a fairly run-of-the-mill Evangelical. Not saying there’s anything wrong with that! It’s just a little bit confusing to label yourself “Christian,” when different people take the label “Christian” to mean dramatically different things. We all think we’re Christians, just like you. What we want to know is what you mean by “Christian.”

Im not sure what run of the mill would mean to anyone but yes Im evangelical–which means I preach the gospel message of Christ.

Unfortunately the world has taken the word christian and pretty much made it null and void. There are so many people that go to church who are really just pew warmers but call themselves christian because they go to a church that teaches about Christ. Being a true christian is a serious matter. There is so much more involved then just calling yourself a chrisitian.
I use the name because in Acts disciples of Christ first called themselves christians at Antioch. Since I have laid down my life for Christ and follow him–I am a disciple of Christ as well–therefore calling myself a christian.

Here is the passage:

The Church in Antioch
19Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. 20Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.
22News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 23When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. 24He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.

25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

 

[HelenRose]

I simply say that I am a Catholic.
I leave it open for some one the ask me what that means. Then I have a chance to discuss the Church’s Teaching.

 

[Tabitha]

Believers,

Believing in Jesus also means believing in ALL His teachings. Believing in His teachings on Baptism and the Eucharist would be a good start.

Can you show me some early Chistian writings that the early Christians believed what you do about being “born again” and that John ch 6 is about “believing on Jesus” as you have in your signature? I want to see non-biblical writings because I want to see proof from early Christians that they interpreted these verses the way you do.

 

[Evlogitos]

Im not going to go into these because that is not what the thread is about but they can all be answered biblically

Of course they can be answered Biblically. Somehow, though I suspect my Biblical answers would differ radically from yours. Which is why I asked what you believed on those issues. Protestantism, as the preeminent example, has literally thousands of subdivisions which believe radically different and mutually contradictory things, yet all their answers are (so they claim) “Biblical.”

Im not sure what run of the mill would mean to anyone

In this context, it means that you probably believe in Scripture Alone and Faith Alone, confess a Chalcedonian Christology (believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God, and believe that Christ is fully God and fully man, with human and divine nature and will), and are anti-sacramental (believer’s baptism that is symbolic, do not confess that Communion is the actual Body and Blood of Christ), as a rough outline.

I use the name because in Acts disciples of Christ first called themselves christians at Antioch. Since I have laid down my life for Christ and follow him–I am a disciple of Christ as well–therefore calling myself a christian.

And it is a beautiful name, at that. The problem is that the term tells us nothing about what you believe, except that it’s in some way connected with Jesus of Nazareth. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Unitarian Universalists, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Copts, Baptists, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and so forth all call themselves Christians and say they are disciples of Christ… but they all believe dramatically different things about what it means to be one.

 

[believers]

Well, duh. Baptism alone does not manifest God through us. We must continue to live faithfully after our baptism. He who believes and is baptized is saved.

You’re painting a false dichotomy between participation in the sacraments of God (which are extensions of His Love for us) and our growth in love for one another, which is aided by our participation in the sacramental life, since we cannot love others as God loves us unless we permit God to abide more strongly in us each day.

Either you are born again or you are not. There is no in between. I really don’t have the slightest interest in debating about it because I already know that I am born of the spirit. My love for my enemies is proof of that. My forgiveness for all that have sinned against me is proof of that. My love for God is proof of that. My faith in the work of Jesus on the cross is proof of that. My knowing that I’m risen with Him is proof. I’m washed in the blood of the lamb and my testimony shall overcome.

Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Notice how the Word of God does not say by water baptism.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Of course they can be answered Biblically. Somehow, though I suspect my Biblical answers would differ radically from yours. Which is why I asked what you believed on those issues. Protestantism, as the preeminent example, has literally thousands of subdivisions which believe radically different and mutually contradictory things, yet all their answers are (so they claim) “Biblical.”

In this context, it means that you probably believe in Scripture Alone and Faith Alone, confess a Chalcedonian Christology (believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God, and believe that Christ is fully God and fully man, with human and divine nature and will), and are anti-sacramental (believer’s baptism that is symbolic, do not confess that Communion is the actual Body and Blood of Christ), as a rough outline.

And it is a beautiful name, at that. The problem is that the term tells us nothing about what you believe, except that it’s in some way connected with Jesus of Nazareth. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Unitarian Universalists, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Copts, Baptists, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and so forth all call themselves Christians and say they are disciples of Christ… but they all believe dramatically different things about what it means to be one.

Your right about it not explaining what you actually believe You are correct about what I believe.

I Know ALOT of people who go to many different denoms within protestatism(SP?) they actually all believe the same exact gospel message Our differences are not as major as you think they are.

 

[ibkc]

Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Notice how the Word of God does not say by water baptism.

Oh really, it doesn’t? I posted these verses earlier and you ignored them:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

“Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16)

“Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21)

 

[believers]

Believers,

Believing in Jesus also means believing in ALL His teachings. Believing in His teachings on Baptism and the Eucharist would be a good start.

Can you show me some early Chistian writings that the early Christians believed what you do about being “born again” and that John ch 6 is about “believing on Jesus” as you have in your signature? I want to see non-biblical writings because I want to see proof from early Christians that they interpreted these verses the way you do.

I would but I think you really just want to debate. If that’s the case then I declare you the winner. As I said earlier, you better know you’re born again of the spirit. Where you spend eternity depends on it. If you believe that water baptism did that for you, then you are free to believe what the RCC teaches.

 

[believers]

Oh really, it doesn’t? I posted these verses earlier and you ignored them:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

“Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16)

“Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21)

You see… being born again is of the spirit. It is a spiritual birth. Repentance (turning away from your once sinful nature) and baptism of the Holy Spirit… That means be born again.

 

[Evlogitos]

Either you are born again or you are not. There is no in between.

If I were mean, I’d ask how you prove this from Scripture. But I’m not.

I really don’t have the slightest interest in debating about it because I already know that I am born of the spirit.

Ahh, subjectivism at its finest.

My love for my enemies is proof of that. My forgiveness for all that have sinned against me is proof of that. My love for God is proof of that. My faith in the work of Jesus on the cross is proof of that. My knowing that I’m risen with Him is proof. I’m washed in the blood of the lamb and my testimony shall overcome.

I’ll drop a note to my Mormon friends that they’re born again, too…

Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Notice how the Word of God does not say by water baptism.

It does, however, say “testimony” (Gk. martyrias, from whence we derive the term “martyr”). “Word of their testimony” (logon tes matyrias) is a summation of their external behaviour as Christians, which would naturally include their reception into the Church via baptism of water (as we know from historical documentation of the Early Church). As such, this verse does not say the saints overcame exclusively through baptism, but baptism is implicitly included as part of their overcoming.

Your right about it not explaining what you actually believe You are correct about what I believe.

Thought so. You see, I used to be right where you are now. I self-identified solely as “Christian” during my Evangelical childhood, until I sat down and realized it really wasn’t precise enough.

I Know ALOT of people who go to many different denoms within protestatism(SP?) they actually all believe the same exact gospel message Our differences are not as major as you think they are.

I used to be a very serious and studious Protestant, so I believe I am precisely aware of how major the differences are amongst Protestants.

Is baptism necessary for salvation, or not? Do we baptize with water, or by working ourselves up 'til we babble incoherently? (Lutherans vs. Pentecostals, with tongue slightly in cheek)

Is partaking of the real Body and Blood of Christ an essential part of the Christian life? (Anglicans vs. Baptists)

Does man freely choose to accept the grace of God for salvation, or is he forced to be saved by the irresistible power of God? (Arminians vs. Calvinists)

Is it acceptable to pray to the saints in heaven, or is this idolatrous? (Anglicans and some Lutherans vs. Evangelicals)

Is anything not mentioned in Scripture forbidden, or permitted? (Churches of Christ vs. most other denominations)

Is God a Trinity, or is God one divine being with three manifestations? (most denominations vs. Oneness Pentecostals)

These are just a few of the more prominent examples of how crucial portions of the “Gospel message” are vastly different from Protestant to Protestant. Ask ten Protestants to lay out all the details of the Gospel, and you’ll get eleven answers.

It is true, of course, that most Protestants today simply gloss over or ignore these deep and fundamental differences. In the Reformation era, Protestants realized the significance of these differences and killed and persecuted one another over them. Calvin burned Servetus for Unitarianism. Luther advocated the drowning of the Anabaptists. The Anglicans were basically nasty to everyone. The Anabaptists went around pillaging towns. etc.

Today Protestants just ignore their differences, but the differences do exist and they are mutually exclusive. Which, as a Protestant, led me to question if Scripture Alone is our rule of faith, and Scripture promises that we will be led by the Spirit of Truth “into all Truth,” how come divisions, disputes, and uncertainty increase year by year?