Non-catholics Have Feelings Too

[Archangel Raphael]

[quote name='Katholikos' date='May 27 2004, 04:14 PM'] AR,

I just posted this on another thread.  The "born again" experience that Protestants believe results from "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" was unheard of during the first 16 centuries of Christianity.  It is not biblical.  And it was not taught by Jesus and His Apostles.

Every properly baptized Christian (and I don't mean by immersion) has been "born again," i.e. is "baptized of water and the Spirit" (John 3:3-5). 

Born again is a mistranslation of the Greek word [i]anothen[/i].  Born [i]"anothen"[/i] means "born from above" or "born anew."  Newer translations have corrected this error.

"Instant salvation" is taught by many Protestant churches; it is unbiblical and untrue.  One is not "saved" in the sense that he's assured from the moment he "accepts Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior" that he's going to heaven, as many (but not all) Protestant denominations claim. 

I read your exchanges with Anna on another thread (how to keep our kids catholic, or how to Protestant-proof our kids).  Please answer her question.

JMJ Likos [/quote]
You then go ahead and tell that to many who have asked Jesus with all their heart to come into their lives, and you can tell them in their faces that they are going to hell cause they must be baptized. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but alot of people can quote a bunch of law, but some can't do it.

And I agree with Mulls, personally, I believe you must have both. You must believe, then be baptized. Jesus even said it in order too, he always said to believe and then be baptized. Even Paul told the guard of the jail after he had saw the prisoners escape. He said believe in the Lord Jesus. And then as you read on, he then baptized him and his family. So in my opinion, baptism is just putting a seal on it, but yes, it is very important to have. But I thank Jason for showing me that too.

And also if it's such a huge heresy, what is everyone doing about it?

Edited May 27, 2004 by Archangel Raphael

[Livin_the_MASS]

[b][color=blue]Infant Baptism[/color][/b]

[quote][b]Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "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). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "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."[/b][/quote]


[quote][b]More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "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).[/b][/quote]


[quote][b]Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).[/b][/quote]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp"]LINK[/url]

[Archangel Raphael]

I got no beef with infants being baptized. I think that's all good, and is an act of faith that the baby will grow up and one day, with his or her own will, accept Christ as his or her Savior. That's all good. I just don't believe that if I had a two year old son who still can't even grasp the concept of what sin really is, and then (God forbid) was killed in a car accident that my child would be in hell cause I may have not baptized them. Nor do I believe the aborted babies are in hell either.

[Anna]

The Catholic Church doesn't teach that they go to hell, either. But it does believe that the unbaptized may go to a place in paradise known as "limbo," due to the fact that their souls were not washed of original sin in the waters of baptism, there is something "like a veil" which prevents them from beholding the beatific vision in the fullness of Its glory...

Pax Christi. <><

[IcePrincessKRS]

Shouldn't you be in bed, Mama?

[Archangel Raphael]

[quote name='Anna' date='May 28 2004, 01:49 AM'] The Catholic Church doesn't teach that they go to hell, either. But it does believe that the unbaptized may go to a place in paradise known as "limbo," due to the fact that their souls were not washed of original sin in the waters of baptism, there is something "like a veil" which prevents them from beholding the beatific vision in the fullness of Its glory...

Pax Christi. <>< [/quote]
Ah, as always your right. Pardon me, forgive me of my ignorance, I'm only just a little heathen trying to understand your 'true' paths. Dont worry, you won't suffer my ignorance anymore here.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

whoa there Archangel Raphael... take a step back and calm yourself. Anna was simply explaining what we, as Catholics, believe. She wasn't being catty or mean and there's no cause for you to be either.


Let's all play nice now shall we?

[IcePrincessKRS]

*shiver* Ninja power.... whooooooa......

[Dusty Fro]

That's sad that it's happening again.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Archangel Raphael' date='May 27 2004, 06:44 PM'] I got no beef with infants being baptized. I think that's all good, and is an act of faith that the baby will grow up and one day, with his or her own will, accept Christ as his or her Savior. That's all good. I just don't believe that if I had a two year old son who still can't even grasp the concept of what sin really is, and then (God forbid) was killed in a car accident that my child would be in hell cause I may have not baptized them. Nor do I believe the aborted babies are in hell either. [/quote]
Archangel Raphael,
Babies are not sent to hell. As Anna was trying to explain, innocent babies, who still suffer from the penalty of Original Sin, are in a state of happiness and do not suffer, but they lack the fullness of happiness that one washed of Original Sin would.

There is the effects of Original Sin, which is the effects of Adam & Eve's Sin on all mankind. This is the Sin that all humanity shares in even if we did not Sin WITH the intent of our Will. This is why we must baptise even Babies and small children and ourselves before we grow in knoledge of faith.

There are then ADDITIONALLY, Sins done with our own Free Will. These are the sins done with our more mature and knowldegable and self-directed will. We have to worry about Both.

Baptism washes us of the effects of Original Sin and Free-Will Sin and we are born again as children of God. Being innocent of Free-Will Sin does not make us innocent of the Original Sin that all mankind shares and limits our Communion with God.

If we did not have Original Sin, we would all be living in Eden right now and would not be thrown out untill we eat the Apple. By the obvious fact that we don't live in Eden, we aren't born in place where we commune and walk with God, we can know the circumstances of the Truth that we are suffering a seperation from God through Original Sin. As we mature and control our Will, we can remedy that Seperation by seeking repentance or we can increase the Seperation by further Sinning. When we do Good or Sin, we help ourselves and others in the world around us.

But what about the young who don't have the control of their will yet? Who don't understand? God gives them to us, their parents and Faithful Christians to seek God's Grace that defeats the Seperation for them. God provides that sure Grace that defeats that Seperation in the physical signs of the Sacrament of Baptism.

[Dave]

[quote name='mulls' date='May 27 2004, 06:00 PM'] 3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.


--here Jesus talks about being born again, which obviously is not the first birth, right?


"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"


--Nicodemus is like what'chu talkin bout Willis? i already been born!


5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.


--alright, here's the verse in question...Jesus refers to the natural birth (water....like when a woman's water breaks) and the spiritual birth


6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[2] gives birth to spirit.


--as in verse 5, Jesus refers to the natural birth, than to the spiritual birth.


looks as if Jesus had to distinguish between the 2 births for Nicodemus, who was alive in the flesh, like we all are, but needed to be reborn in the Spirit. [/quote]
In John 3:5, Jesus is not speaking of two events, but one. He says one must be "born of water and Spirit" with no mention of an intervening time. Jesus would've had to say "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being FIRST born of water and then being born again of spirit." He is speaking of the event of water baptism, the effects of which were depicted for us in Jesus' own baptism (John 1:33). As for "born again," the term anothen is used there, the same as was used in John 3:3, 5: He went down into the water, the Holy Spirit descended on Him, the voice of the Father was heard saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." It's the one event where one is born of water and Spirit at the same time. That is baptism. It's significant that immediately after this teaching to Nicodemus, he goes out baptizing with his disciples (John 3:22, 4:2), even if it is prior to the commission. This is significant that this is the only time in all the gospels in which Jesus is mentioned in baptizing with his disciples, immediately after telling Nicodemus that we must be born of water and Spirit.

Here water is not placed in opposition to the Spirit. Remember, earlier, Jesus was baptized with water AND Spirit. There is no context anywhere in the gospels or any epistle that makes any allusion to amniotic fluid water. Where is there anywhere else in the gospel any mention of amniotic fluid as water being an interpretation? Nowhere.