Since all Catholics are born again thru the waters of baptism (most of them as infants)...?

Question

Don't you find it odd that the term "born again" is often exclusively used to describe non-Catholic Christians?

J.E.S. - So "asking" is not considered a work? Where did you read that the only condition of salvation is to "ask" ? Also, have you ever read "Baptism now saves you" in 1 Pet. 3:21?

Unsilenced Lamb - Though your ignorance could be better masked in silence, I must agree with you on the last half of your answer. Those in protestant churches are indeed considered Christians, which is a teaching of the Catholic Church. Cordelia does indeed need to read her Bible. And I think it is obvious to all of us that she is a fake. Thanks for answering, God bless.

TG - Ever read the Didache? Look into it.

When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus (outside the Church, no salvation), it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

"Every man who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ and of his Church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity" (CCC 1260).

On the other hand, the Church has long made it clear that if a person rejects the Church with full knowledge and consent, he puts his soul in danger:

"They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it" (cf. LG 14).

Therefore, Jacob, according to Church teaching, I must respectfully disagree with you.

Answer 1

It is because they are adding to Scriptures soteriological views that are not implicit nor explicit in Scriptures. All Catholics are born again according to the biblical definition and not the man-made definition created by heretics like John Calvin, know and Zwingli. The whole idea of some is that there is only "believers Baptism" without considering that this view is against the whole Gospel taught by our Lord. Salvation is for everyone who comes to Him. The Gospel does not exclude anyone and especially not children who Christ said not to hinder from coming to Him and also those who do not have the mental ability to intellectually ascend to belief. These people can be born again through Baptism just like anyone else and are just as deserving of His grace. In conclusion, it is from ignorance of the Gospel that some are believed excluded from the sanctifying grace of Baptism where one is truly born again and are filled with the Holy Spirit beginning their journey towards final salvation.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

TG- there is not one example in all of Scripture where anyone is immersed so do not appeal to Scriptures to support your prejudice, its not there, in spite of the symbolism you like so much. Immersion is fine but the only first century teaching we have on Baptism is in the non-scriptural work the "Didache" which specifies living water by pouring or immersion, three times in the Trinitarian formula.

In the Greek, Baptizmo means to wash not to immerse and that is the purpose to wash and cleanse us of our sins. The amount of water does not matter. If it did everyone would have to be Baptized in the ocean.

bigvol66...,

The Catholic Church does use immersion as the preferred method of Baptism. I have never known of sprinkling to be used but pouring is used often.

Answer 2

TG posted:
Baptism involves total immersion in water (the very definition of baptism). Sprinkling and pouring are not acceptable forms of baptism. Every example of baptism in the Bible is done with "much water" and going down "into the water". It is described as a "burial". When is the last time you buried someone with a handful or sprinkling amount of dirt??

I reply:
Did you ever check Ezekiel 36:25-27 which states:
" I will SPRINKLEclean water on you and MAKE YOU CLEAN from all your idols and everything else that has defiled you. I WILL GIVE YOU A NEW HEART and a new mind. I will take away your stubborn heart of stone and give you an obedient heart. I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT IN YOU and will see to it that you follow my laws and keep all the commands I have given you."

This prophecy sure sounds like baptism to me. And this baptism would be performed by SPRINKLING.


You also posted:
Also, baptism is NOT for infants. There is no Biblical support for infant baptism. That is a man-made concept and a false teaching.

I reply:
Check out Col 2:11-12 which says:
"In union with Christ you were circumcised, not with the circumcision that is made by human beings, but with the circumcision made by Christ, which consists of being freed from the power of this sinful self. For when you were baptized, you were buried with Christ, and in baptism you were also raised with Christ through your faith in the active power of God, who raised him from death."

poeple were circumcized at the age of 8 days old and baptism replaces circumcision as being greater than the original baptism by hands.

God Bless
Robin

Answer 3

Fundamentalists have the concept that "born back" (regeneration) and "saved" (sanctification) are the comparable, and a "decision for Christ" isn't something an infant could make. of their approach, neither is achieved by potential of baptism, and yet by using fact Scripture says we are to baptize, they are between a rock (with a view to communicate) and a annoying place in the event that they don't baptize ... so it has exchange right into a ceremonial "outward sign of an inward exchange" or "following the Lord in baptism" that if truth be told admits them to church club as quickly as they have been "saved". luckily, people who're baptized with water interior the call of the father, Son and Holy Spirit DO obtain sacramental graces whether or not they nicely known it or not -- and the Church accepts such baptisms as valid. They do a matching factor while it includes the very sparkling words of Christ appropriate to His physique and Blood; can not probably be a sacrament (they actually, quite do in comparison to that notice), or taken actually, yet Jesus counseled His followers to "try this"; so back, this is stated, besides the actuality that not sacramentally -- decreased to passing around grape juice and crackers. regrettably, there is not any "receiving" in touch in this symbolic meal even while partaken with sincerity and love for the Savior; at maximum, it unites a particular physique of believers in fellowship. not a foul factor, particularly, yet additionally not Scriptural.

Answer 4

The Bible is clear on this issue! In John Ch.3 Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus that he has already been born once (born of water = physical birth) now he must be born again, spiritual birth. Baptism is nothing to do with salvation. The Bible clearly states in 1 John 5:1 "Whosoever believeth that Jesus in the Christ is born of God [born again]......"
We note from the great commission in Matthew Ch.28 that the Bible order is to baptize believers only "Go" "Preach" "Baptize" "Teach"
Baptizing an infant is an exercise in futility as they have no idea what is going on and there is nothing in Scripture to support infant baptism. In all cases the Word of God is the final authority.

Answer 5

Baptism involves total immersion in water (the very definition of baptism). Sprinkling and pouring are not acceptable forms of baptism. Every example of baptism in the Bible is done with "much water" and going down "into the water". It is described as a "burial". When is the last time you buried someone with a handful or sprinkling amount of dirt??

Also, baptism is NOT for infants. There is no Biblical support for infant baptism. That is a man-made concept and a false teaching.

Jesus teaches that those who are baptized, (full immersion and following his examples, Hearing the word, believing, repentance and confession) are born again. Those who cannot follow these steps and were baptized via man's ways (sprinkling, pouring) have not been born again.

See source for more info.

Answer 6

Hey, I resemble that ...

<---------------------

Edited: Ah, but I did make an "adult decision". In a Baptist church. With full immersion, thank you very much. Imagine my joy to find that, when I came home to the Catholic Church, my baptism was considered an entirely valid sacrament; I just received it a tad later in life than most born-again Catholics.

Answer 7

There is no salvation outside of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Answer 8

Well said, Friend Raven. For me, "born again" always equates to a kind of idiosyncrasy in the non-Catholic realm.

FYI, folks...
We Catholics make our adult choice. It's called Confirmation.

Answer 9

I fail to see how Catholics can consider themselves to be born again based on their ritual of sprinkling as baptizing. The word "baptize" has it's etymological root in a Latin word that means "to IMMERSE", not sprinkle! Since I've never known a Catholic baptism to involve immersion, I don't see how they make the claim. Besides, ritual baptism isn't for infants anyway! It's IMPOSSIBLE for an infant to realize their NEED for baptism for redemption of their sins! Jesus wasn't baptized as an infant, was He? Of course not! Granted, He didn't NEED to be baptized, being blameless and such, but he did it as an EXAMPLE to show us the coming change in the covenant of salvation that would take place after His death. No longer would we need to kill a bull or lamb for sacrificial redemption; we'd only need to follow Acts 2:38 (among other Scriptures) in order to get on the road to salvation.

Answer 10

Very.

The name 'Born Again' comes from an unauthentic translation of the Bible: Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God, unless he is born of water and Spirit. (Jn: 3-5)
Here is the original Greek manuscript of this Gospel, John never uses the word 'born again'.



("palin" is again; born "gennethe"). All Catholic translations are using the correct word written in Greek, "anothen" which means "from above" or "born above" when they translated. The name 'born again' itself is an artificial creation of some Protestant ministers, and was never spoken by Jesus.

Born again people believe that when they confess "I am born again", they automatically become born again! Just say "I accept Jesus as Lord and Savior" we become worthy to go to heaven! It is like an instant coffee, an easy way and shortcut to go to heaven.

This foolish concepts of 'Born Again' groups are coming from the teachings of Martin Luther who said, 'faith alone is the way to salvation (without works) the Bible alone is the basis of faith' (not the preaching and preaching and practices of the Apostles as the Catholic Church considers Holy Traditions).



Some preachers of this religion even believe that 'The Church alone will not save' and 'Baptism is not essential for salvation'. If these were the case, why did Jesus institute Baptism and the Church?


Work must follow our faith as St. James "Faith without work is dead". Jesus Himself says to us: "Not anyone who calls me Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do what my Father in Heaven wants them to do" (Mat. 7:21) At the time of Judgment, Christ will come in His glory and He will separate the wicked from the righteous and everyone will be rewarded according to their works. "I was hungry you; gave me food." "I was thirsty; you gave me drink" that is the way Jesus will judge us.



But 'Born Again' trusts in the theory of Luther 'faith alone is the basis of salvation'. At the time of Judgment, when 'Born Again' makes a statement; "I accepted You as my Lord and Savior" will they be taken to heaven? Will Martin Luther come to rescue them by quoting his theory? The way of Martin Luther and the way of salvation that is written in the Bible are entirely different!