 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
dc
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 22 |
| First Name: | Darryl | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Free Evangelical (Germany), International Evangelical Church (Finland), Pentecostal |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10th, 2006 11:04 pm |
|
Hi All,
Have any of you, when looking for the position of the Catholic Church on the matter of being born again, read the article "Are Catholics Born Again?" at http://www.catholic.com/library/are_catholics_born_again.asp?
If you have, as you noted the comment, "The term 'born again' may not appear in the Bible", did it bother you that the term not only does appear in the Bible but is found in 1 Peter 1:3 and 23?
I've wondered whether this author can be taken seriously, you see. The article was provided with a nihil obstat and an imprimatur so the writer seems to be toeing the official line. How could he not know what the first Pope said on the subject?
More especially though, the main point of the article is that it is through baptism that we are born again, not through, eg. responding to an invitation at an evangelistic meeting. If "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13) might I not also know the experience of rebirth by calling on him to me merciful to me, a sinner, just as the dying thief did and was with Jesus that day in paradise?
Hope it's okay to ask this on my first day here.
dc
____________________
"Oh, you gotta mulch. You've got to." - Cosmo Kramer
|
|
|
RonRule
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 18 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10th, 2006 11:48 pm |
|
Hi dc,
First of all, welcome to the forum!
I don't post here much, but since no one has responded yet, I thought I'd make a couple brief comments in reference to your questions.
1. The article states:
"The term 'born again' may not appear in the Bible"
I think if you will read the rest of the paragraph, what the writer is trying to get across, is that this might not be the best translation of the greek phrase/term.
However, I checked the greek at BlueLetterBible.org and it seems that the Peter references you mentioned do use different greek than the phrase mentioned in the article.
So I'd recommend calling or emailing Catholic Answers and see if you can find out why these passages were not addressed. I wouldn't assume deceptive intent however (there is a lot of Bible to cover in short articles such as that).
2. You ask:
If "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13) might I not also know the experience of rebirth by calling on him to me merciful to me, a sinner, just as the dying thief did and was with Jesus that day in paradise?
If you are unable to be baptised, your faith and love for God, coupled with the desire for baptism will suffice. This is called Baptism of Desire.
If the thief had survived his crucifixion, and culpably resisted Christian baptism, he would not have seen heaven.
Hope this helps!
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1790 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 12:36 am |
|
Hello, DC. Of course it’s “OK to ask this” or any other question pertaining to Catholicism anytime you want. This is the purpose of the forum, and we are happy to hear from you.
You are asking whether the words “born again” appear elsewhere in the bible than John 3. I’m not a Greek scholar, so I can’t check the original. What I do have is a ton of different translations at my disposal; over two dozen, to be exact, many of them Protestant and about a third of them in languages other than English.
In checking your references of 1 Peter 1:23, I find that about two thirds of the translations, including the ancient Latin Vulgate (4th century) accept the “born again” concept. More specifically, the Vulgate has renati, “reborn,” which for me is close enough. The remainder, however, prefer something like “re-engendered” or “regenerated.” I do not see much of a pattern here between the versions, beyond the fact that those that cater to Evangelicals all say “born again.” But I do not see much practical difference between the different renderings, except that they uniformly indicate that the underlying Greek word is not the same as that used in John 3.
In 1 Peter 1:3, however, the story is quite different. It is clear that the word means “re-engendered” or “regenerated,” because the Vulgate has regeneravit. The great majority of the versions have something similar. Again, the only ones that consistently translate “born again” or “born anew” are Protestant versions with a leaning toward Evangelicalism. I must assume, then, that this is an ideological interpretation of the original.
Regardless, the article you cite is correct insofar as its statement that the Greek word used in John 3:3 and 3:7 is not used elsewhere in the sense of “again,” since its primary meaning is “over, above,” and it is evidently not the word used in either 1 Peter 1:3 or 1:23.
The strange thing about the episode with Nicodemus is that he was a Jerusalem Jew, a member of the Sanhedrin, and undoubtedly spoke both Aramaic (the local dialect of the Jews after the exile) and Hebrew just like Jesus. So why would a Greek double entendre be used here at all, considering that there could be no such play on words in either Aramaic or Hebrew. Considering Nicodemus’ question in John 3:4 and Jesus’ subsequent reply, it should be clear that the choice of words in Greek was not intended to convey any double meaning from the conversation. If the apostle John chose it with the double meaning in mind, he was adding his own commentary to the dialog. This is not unacceptable; similar things happen often throughout the bible. My point is simply that it was not part of the original conversation: Jesus did indeed say “born again.”
As I said, in both places 1 Peter evidently uses a different word from that used in John 3:3 and 3:7, and different versions represent them quite differently depending on the ideological slant they want to portray. So I don’t see this as anything conclusive concerning “born again” from a linguistic point of view.
Doctrinally, I believe the Catholic Answers article is quite proper in pointing out that one is born again through water baptism, and not through any ritual alternative such as recital of the Sinner’s Prayer. The problem that Baptists and many Evangelicals have regarding baptism is that they do not accept it as “doing” something. It is just a ritual “confirmation” of the conversion that has already taken place and has already saved the person being baptized.
The Catholic position is not the same as the Protestant dialectic here. We do not say, as we are accused of saying, “You have to be baptized, because baptism and nothing else saves you.” Nor do we say with the Evangelicals, “You have to experience a conversion of heart, because conversion of heart and nothing else is what saves you.” Instead we say, with Peter in Acts 2:37: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” Both/and, not either/or.
Elsewhere, as the article shows, the effectiveness of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the rebirth as adopted sons of God, death to sin and resurrection to new life, membership in the Church and the re-creation as a holy member of the body of Christ are all quite scriptural. If Christian baptism “does nothing,” how is it different from the baptism of John?
So are Catholics born again? Through baptism, yes. We are also called to faith, repentance and conversion of heart so that we will not negate our baptism and the new life that comes of it.
David
|
|
|
dc
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 22 |
| First Name: | Darryl | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Free Evangelical (Germany), International Evangelical Church (Finland), Pentecostal |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 12:55 am |
|
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the welcome and for your reply. It did help, yes. I had heard about the baptism of desire - it didn't come to mind when I was considering this.
It'd be interesting to study what rôle Paul understands baptism to have in salvation. It is absent from the context of the verse I quoted. He wanted to see Jews and Gentiles saved, yet himself baptised very few.
Thanks again!
dc
____________________
"Oh, you gotta mulch. You've got to." - Cosmo Kramer
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 01:05 am |
|
dc wrote: It'd be interesting to study what rôle Paul understands baptism to have in salvation. It is absent from the context of the verse I quoted. He wanted to see Jews and Gentiles saved, yet himself baptised very few.
There were many activities that Paul practiced that were never written. He told the churches he wrote to to keep what he taught both orally and in writing. He wrote only in response to problems.
Do you have any evidence in scripture or in the writings of the early Fathers to support your statement that Paul baptized very few?
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
dc
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 22 |
| First Name: | Darryl | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Free Evangelical (Germany), International Evangelical Church (Finland), Pentecostal |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 01:08 am |
|
Hi David,
Thank you, too, for a great answer.
I'm certainly no Greek scholar either but can find my way around analytical lexicons and dictionaries. The two different renderings of the same word in 1 Peter appear because one form is an active and the other a passive participle. Perhaps I have been too focussed on what seemed a glaring omission to me, particularly considering the place Peter occupies in the Catholic scheme of things.
I appreciate your help.
dc
____________________
"Oh, you gotta mulch. You've got to." - Cosmo Kramer
|
|
|
RonRule
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 18 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 01:16 am |
|
cajunrick wroteDo you have any evidence in scripture or in the writings of the early Fathers to support your statement that Paul baptized very few?
I assume that dc would point you here:
1 Corinthians 1:17 (New International Version) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
|
|
|
dc
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 22 |
| First Name: | Darryl | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Free Evangelical (Germany), International Evangelical Church (Finland), Pentecostal |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 01:21 am |
|
Hi cajunrick,
Thanks for your response too! I was thinking about Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 1:14ff, where he writes,
"I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."
dc
____________________
"Oh, you gotta mulch. You've got to." - Cosmo Kramer
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1790 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 01:51 am |
|
So then the same root is used in both verses of 1 Peter 1? This would explain the differences among the versions, and why they follow the patterns they do.
I do a lot of translation in my work (Spanish — I’m on the Mexican border), so I’m quite aware that it is an inexact science. Yet it is impossible to do a good job without a command of grammar and rhetoric, because this, even more than the vocabulary, determines the meaning, tone and importance of what is said.
Nowhere is this attention to detail more evident than in opposing arguments over such scholarly topics as the text of the bible. We have to watch very carefully that we don’t unconsciously accept our opponent’s premise in our rejection of his errors based on that premise. We need to keep in mind that mere opposition to error is never enough to explain the truth. One must go beyond the obvious and point out the nuances and completions of thought that make the difference between debate and mutual understanding.
This is why I saw fit to mention the doctrinal angle as well. Without it, the message is incomplete and perhaps deceiving.
One last word. You mention the importance of Peter. Again, yes and no. My impression of Peter as a man is: very human, utterly sincere, knows his limitations and humbly accepts correction from others. However, what is important to us is not the individual so much as the office he occupied. By that office, Peter and his successors have become the sign and means of Christian unity. This is why, even with all the fractured shards of Christianity we see lying around, the Catholic Church still represents over 60 percent of all Christians.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 02:14 am |
|
dc wrote: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."
Thank you for the reference. It did not come to mind. But does it mean that Paul did not teach them to baptize? Doesn't Jesus tell us we have to be baptized of water and the spirit? How can Paul contradict Jesus? If water baptism is a meaningless symbol, why did Jesus command it?
Catholics United for the Faith have a Faith Fact on the requirements for a valid baptism. You'll find it here.
Catholic Answers has several tracts on the sacraments, including baptism. You'll find them here. In particular, you'll find the tract on the Necessity of Baptism here.
I think the most telling fact is that for about 1800 years, there was no question of the necessity of water baptism. The Catholics and Orthodox have never questioned it, and neither have the Lutherans, Methodists, and most other major Protestant denominations. Of the two-plus billion Christians in the world, only a few hundred thousand deny the necessity of baptism.
At least the Church tells us salvation will not be denied to them because of their ignorance, since salvation is available to all those who "seek God with a sincere heart" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847).
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
dc
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 22 |
| First Name: | Darryl | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Free Evangelical (Germany), International Evangelical Church (Finland), Pentecostal |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 05:15 am |
|
Thanks again David,
I do a lot of translation in my work (Spanish — I’m on the Mexican border), so I’m quite aware that it is an inexact science. Yet it is impossible to do a good job without a command of grammar and rhetoric, because this, even more than the vocabulary, determines the meaning, tone and importance of what is said.
That's interesting, so do I (do a lot of translation in my work). In fact it's all I do; I'm a translator (of German). What you say is absolutely right. This science involves far more than vocabulary - syntax plays an enormous rôle. Then the rules of hermeneutics have to be abided by.
You make some excellent points.
____________________
"Oh, you gotta mulch. You've got to." - Cosmo Kramer
|
|
|
dc
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 22 |
| First Name: | Darryl | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Free Evangelical (Germany), International Evangelical Church (Finland), Pentecostal |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 05:42 am |
|
cajunrick,
No, it doesn't mean that Paul didn't teach people to baptise. And Paul's point here isn't that baptism in unimportant - he is writing against division among the Christians at Corinth. I was thinking out loud when saying what I said, perhaps.
Thanks for the links to the various tracts.
____________________
"Oh, you gotta mulch. You've got to." - Cosmo Kramer
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 01:08 pm |
|
dc wrote: Hi All,
>>>Hi<<<
Have any of you, when looking for the position of the Catholic Church on the matter of being born again, read the article "Are Catholics Born Again?" at http://www.catholic.com/library/are_catholics_born_again.asp?
If you have, as you noted the comment, "The term 'born again' may not appear in the Bible", did it bother you that the term not only does appear in the Bible but is found in 1 Peter 1:3 and 23?
>>>>The author of the article may not be aware that the Catholic Church has defined that the Bible says born again. >>>Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5)
(See the Council of Trent, Session VI,
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm
What the author should have said is that the term has two meanings. Many words in the Bible have dual or even triple meanings and senses. That is Catholic Teaching:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#115
Anyway, it is true that the word anothen means both "again" and "from above".
>>>>the term "born again" may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated "born again" (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the Bible—John 3:3 and 3:7—and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated "again," but in the New Testament, it most often means "from above." In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated "again" are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering. <<<
The BLB:
anothen {an'-o-then}
TDNT ReferenceRoot Word TDNT - 1:378,63 from 507 Part of Speech adv Outline of Biblical Usage 1) from above, from a higher place
a) of things which come from heaven or God
2) from the first, from the beginning, from the very first
3) anew, over again
In other words, the term gennatha anothen may be translated either "born again" or "born from above".<<<<<
I've wondered whether this author can be taken seriously, you see. The article was provided with a nihil obstat and an imprimatur so the writer seems to be toeing the official line. How could he not know what the first Pope said on the subject?
>>>>If we discount that one slip. The rest seems to be correct.<<<
More especially though, the main point of the article is that it is through baptism that we are born again, not through, eg. responding to an invitation at an evangelistic meeting. If "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13) might I not also know the experience of rebirth by calling on him to me merciful to me, a sinner, just as the dying thief did and was with Jesus that day in paradise?
>>>We consider our feelings fallible. We are fallen men after all. Sometimes we feel and experience of rebirth after having had too much to drink, or partaking in drugs or any other stimulating substance on the market.
But God comes to us in a breeze. Sometimes we are not aware of His Presence, but we must step in faith. We must believe in our hearts that which we can't see with our eyes or feel with our senses.<<<
Hope it's okay to ask this on my first day here.
dc >>>I don't see why not?
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
dc
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 22 |
| First Name: | Darryl | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Free Evangelical (Germany), International Evangelical Church (Finland), Pentecostal |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 06:09 pm |
|
>>>>If we discount that one slip. The rest seems to be correct.<<<
The writer of the piece ends it with this: "If the Evangelical has not been properly water baptized, he has not been born again 'the Bible way,' regardless of what he may think."
It's difficult for me to respond graciously to this sort of thing. I was brought up in the Baptist denomination, was saved at a Billy Graham Crusade and was baptised some time later. I knew beyond doubt that I belonged to Jesus from the moment I put my trust in Him. In fact, the Spirit Himself bore witness with my spirit that I was a child of God.
My daughter just came to me with something the Lord had revealed to her relating to a difficulty she has been having. She accepted Him as her Saviour at a young age, was baptised in a Pentecostal church a little later and has been growing in grace and in the knowledge of her Lord and Saviour ever since. It is lovely to see. Delightful, the experiences she is having in Him.
Really, the sort of thing the person at Catholic Answers writes here is the height of pious claptrap. But I should grow in grace myself, as you see. I make mistakes too.
____________________
"Oh, you gotta mulch. You've got to." - Cosmo Kramer
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 217 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 08:42 pm |
|
dc wrote: I knew beyond doubt that I belonged to Jesus from the moment I put my trust in Him. In fact, the Spirit Himself bore witness with my spirit that I was a child of God.
With respect to what you meant above I think that you have used an expression of speech that is not literally accurate, and I expect you would admit yourself that only God has that certainty of knowledge.
Similarly I think that the writer of the tract was using an idiom of speech when he wrote "If the Evangelical has not been properly water baptized, he has not been born again 'the Bible way,' regardless of what he may think."
It is unfortunate that it's phrasing caused you offence but does the offence discount the validity of his argument. The Bible points to the necessity of being "Born again" and to the necessity of baptism, regardless of the "chicken and egg" argument anyone who legitimatly claims that one is valid in denial of the other, is on very shaky ground indeed.
n.b. that is "in denial of" not "in absence of".
Regards Dave
|
|
|
BettyBoopToo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Camas/Washougal, Washington USA |
| Posts: | 538 |
| First Name: | Betty | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Fist Baptist/Calvary Babtist/Secular Confusion/ Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 10:41 pm |
|
Hello DC, Its nice to meet you
I don't have much to add, Except I had this article that I thought you may want to check out.
http://catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Documents/bornagain.doc
The article is in a story format with lots of scripture quotations, I like this geltlemans writings (He's an Baptist convert to the Catholic Church). Just thought I'd share it.
God Bless
Betty
____________________
Patience
"Whenever anything disagreeable or displeasing happens to you, remember Christ crucified and be silent."
St. John of the Cross
|
|
|
dc
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 22 |
| First Name: | Darryl | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Free Evangelical (Germany), International Evangelical Church (Finland), Pentecostal |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 10:46 pm |
|
Hi Betty,
Nice to meet you too. Thank you for the link!
dc
____________________
"Oh, you gotta mulch. You've got to." - Cosmo Kramer
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1790 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 11:31 pm |
|
dc wrote:It's difficult for me to respond graciously to this sort of thing.
DC, I wanted to speak to this and to your other comments elsewhere in the forum. I have to agree that several people have not understood what you are doing or why you are here. Charity is a necessary part of this forum. It is necessary on all sides, but especially on the part of the host. The reason I am here is precisely because I saw charity being practiced here when it was not much in evidence elsewhere.
From your post in the Fellowship Hall:
I haven't come to browbeat. I'd like to learn.
This is why the forum exists. It is the responsibility of Catholics on this forum to respect rules even more than others.
I have been challenging something said by someone at Catholic Answers. Should I not have?
I told you at the outset that your question was quite proper and that if you had others, I looked forward to them as well, because it is how one learns and grows. I stand by that because everyone needs a starting point. I took you at your word when you asked your question and did not contradict you but pointed to the fact that both poles are but partial answers. The true solution is acceptance of both, holding them, as it were, in tension and seeing that the poles do not contradict but complement. I agree with you that the tract you asked about is not one of Catholic Answers’ best efforts. The other day I made similar answer to someone else regarding a common mistake in apologetics: the Catholic side of the debate merely reacted to what was said by the Protestant side and did not clearly enunciate our faith, let alone the reasons for it.
I wish there wasn't such a great gulf fixed between Catholics and evangelical Christians.
I do, too. This is why I have been meeting with people like you on the CHN Forum for a number of years. I’m a convert, and I did not become Catholic in order to denigrate non-Catholics; this is one of the things that keep us apart and perpetuates the scandal of disunity. The gulf doesn’t have to exist. It shouldn’t exist. The authorities in the Catholic Church insist that we break down the barriers and bridge the gaps wherever possible, that Christianity should be one united force for good.
I wasn’t a participant in the chat session. I prefer to think and pray about my interaction, not just jump in and say whatever comes to mind. The devil likes to play his game in the waters of impulsiveness and lack of consideration. He is quite at home there.
Bottom line: If we Catholics are going to be representing our faith to others, I think we had better be living it. A person who talks theology and right and wrong had better be showing some of what he claims he has learned or his arguments are worthless.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 11:35 pm |
|
dc wrote: Really, the sort of thing the person at Catholic Answers writes here is the height of pious claptrap. But I should grow in grace myself, as you see. I make mistakes too.
Please avoid phrases like "pious claptrap" which comes dangerously close to "Catholic bashing".
Baptism with water is the method which Jesus gave the Church to begin the lifelong process of salvation. However, God is not limited by the limitations placed on the Church. God is free to offer salvation to all of humankind by whatever means God so chooses. But as we have demonstrated to you, the biblical injunction that we must be born again of water and the spirit, in Catholic teaching, refers to baptism with water as well as a spiritual conversion, both of which are necessary to receive salvation through the Catholic Church.
We know that the baptism of the spirit may precede the baptism with water (Acts 10:44-49), or baptism with water may precede baptism with the spirit (Acts 8:14-17). But we also know that the clear teaching of Jesus is that we are to be baptized both by water and the spirit (John 3:5). To deny the necessity of water baptism is to defy the clear teaching of our Savior.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
dc
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 22 |
| First Name: | Darryl | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Free Evangelical (Germany), International Evangelical Church (Finland), Pentecostal |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 11:42 pm |
|
Hi DrDave,
Good to meet you. Mildura, eh? Well, blow me down.
I think that you have used an expression of speech that is not literally accurate, and I expect you would admit yourself that only God has that certainty of knowledge.
Having written in the earlier chapters of Romans about justification by faith, what this is and the position the believer now occupies, Paul writes just before the verse I quoted from (ie. "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God" [8]), "... you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba, Father!'".
I'm not sure that I can admit that only God knows this, Dave. Were only He to know it, then the believer would be unable to cry out, "Abba, Father!" to Him. It was precisely because I had received adoption as a son, that God sent the Spirit of His Son into my heart, crying, "Abba, Father!" (cf. Galatians 4:5.6). And know Him as my Father I did!
Dave, the expression of speech you think not literally accurate is found in God's word. Not only that, but the experience of the person who has come to know Jesus as Saviour lines up with what is described in these verses - he finds God's Spirit bearing witness with his spirit that this is so.
I was saved when I put my faith in Jesus, I am being saved as I work out my salvation and I will be ultimately saved either at His second coming or when I die.
____________________
"Oh, you gotta mulch. You've got to." - Cosmo Kramer
|
|
|
dc
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 22 |
| First Name: | Darryl | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Free Evangelical (Germany), International Evangelical Church (Finland), Pentecostal |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12th, 2006 12:29 am |
|
Let me add that this (my answer to DrDave) is simply the way I see it. I don't want to appear to be using your website as a platform to espouse my views. Please feel perfectly free to correct me where necessary.
I'm not losing sight of the purpose of this forum.
dc
____________________
"Oh, you gotta mulch. You've got to." - Cosmo Kramer
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1790 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12th, 2006 01:01 am |
|
DC, I don’t see your viewpoint on the certainty of your salvation as entirely wrong. DrDave’s point is that Catholic doctrine allows only a moral certainty, not an absolute certainty, about one’s ultimate salvation. Job 4:17–19 gives the reason. Paul concurs: “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Corinthians 4:4).
But this does not mean that one can know nothing, or that his interior certainty is meaningless. Otherwise, why do we Catholics speak of moral certainty at all? Yes, it can be a very strong conviction and it can be 99.9 percent sure. It just can’t be 100 percent sure. But if you look around you, you see that nothing in this world is 100 percent sure. This doesn’t mean that all knowledge is delusive; we do know something, after all. It lacks the perfection of absolute assurance, but it is knowledge nonetheless, and should not be discarded without good reason.
Once again, I am inclined to a both/and resolution.
David
|
|
|
dc
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 22 |
| First Name: | Darryl | | Gender: | Male | |
| | |
