Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Born Again?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Again,
This thread is about what Jesus actually said and intended which has taken many men thousands of hours of research to discover which I related through hundreds of hours of research on my own which you dismiss and misrepresent.

Quit reading your imagination and read what is actually being discussed. We have linear conversations on this forum...something you have yet to have. We are not an audience for your benefit of stroking your ego. We are here to intelligently discuss the scriptures that we hold most dear. If you can't do that then stop.

Hi John. I disagree with your interpretation, even if you put hundreds of hours into developing it. It's nothing personal. I believe I've given a reasonable defense for my position and since it sounds like you're saying you'd rather I not continue that defense I'm happy to leave it at that.

Maybe we can find another topic to discuss sometime.
 
Hi John. I disagree with your interpretation, even if you put hundreds of hours into developing it. It's nothing personal. I believe I've given a reasonable defense for my position and since it sounds like you're saying you'd rather I not continue that defense I'm happy to leave it at that.

Maybe we can find another topic to discuss sometime.
But you have no idea what we have said.
So I doubt it.
 
Sure. I think he was genuinely confused.



I think it was more like a reprimand. Nico had a lot of responsibility. He was a teacher. That was a big deal in those days. Jesus knew that he had succumed to the usual religious dogma of the time. Jesus was talking about the Kingdom of Heaven and Nico was still thinking about the Kingdom of the Jews. One is spiritual and the other had become physical (which is why he asked, "can a man enter into the womb a second time"?) He was a spiritual leader who was missing the bigger picture. There is much mischief in a leader who is himself confused and Jesus was trying to correct that confusion, but it came with a price. Nico had to drop all his religious learning, his position of respect among the people, and his political clout; he had to forsake it all in order to be able to see the Kingdom that Jesus was talking about. He had to be born again.



I agree that Jesus spoke in parable to hide the truth, but that does not mean he wanted people to be blind to the truth. It's a test of sincerity. Insincere people would only hear a crazy man, or a pleasant story. Sincere people would hear a deeper truth behind the story. Nico's reply asking if a man should enter the womb again showed that he was confused about what being born again meant.



Being called and being chosen is an area of much confusion in Christianity today. This is where the big picture comes in handy. In Matthew 22: 14 Jesus says many are called but few are chosen. In Matthew 7:21 he says, "Many will call me Lord, but only those who obey my father will enter the Kingdom". In 1 Timothy 4:2 Paul says that God wants everyone to be saved. God offers his salvation to everyone, but only some people will choose to obey. This is like saying, "You've been selected to participate in the Price is Right!" but you can only be considered for selection if you submit an application first. In other words, God chooses those who choose him and since God is able to exist outside of time/space/matter he knows who will choose him and who will not from a perspective which is not limited by past, present, and future as we are. It is not that God chooses irrespective of our free will but rather he knows what choices we will make before we do.



Heh, dry reading about water. I see what you did there.
Hi JD,

You're replying to my posts, but I just posted what JohnDB said so you could read the important parts of what he had stated regarding the O.P. What you're replying to belongs to JohnDB ... not me.

I apologize if I made a confusion.....
 
Hi John. I disagree with your interpretation, even if you put hundreds of hours into developing it. It's nothing personal. I believe I've given a reasonable defense for my position and since it sounds like you're saying you'd rather I not continue that defense I'm happy to leave it at that.

Maybe we can find another topic to discuss sometime.
Here's the problem JD,
If I may....

It's not John's interpretation.
It's the interpretation of biblical scholars that know what they're talking about.

Jesus spoke 2,000 years ago....He was in a different time, a different culture, a different language that meant different things.

This term of being saved has come to mean something that was not intended to Jesus. The reason you've given your explanation of what He meant by it is because it's the way you've learned it.

If you want to continue believing it in that way, you're free to do so,,,but we're arguing against something that is known in biblical circles.

Could we say that yes, we must be born from above, in the sense that we have a spirit and it has to be in tune with "the above"...that would be God's spirit. When Jesus said it to Nico (as you call him!) Jesus did NOT mean it in the way that we use that term today. Can you accept that?

This is all that's being said.
 
Could we say that yes, we must be born from above, in the sense that we have a spirit and it has to be in tune with "the above"...that would be God's spirit. When Jesus said it to Nico (as you call him!) Jesus did NOT mean it in the way that we use that term today. Can you accept that
Why would the term "born again" be any different now than it was at the time when Christ taught Nicodemus? The New Birth was already embedded in the New Covenant revealed in the Old Testament. But the New Covenant only went into effect on the day that Christ died on the cross. And it is only from the day of Pentecost that every believer receives the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

However, what Jesus told Nicodemus is a UNIVERSAL SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLE. No one can either enter or see the Kingdom of God without the New Birth.

"Born again" is synonymous with born from above, born of the Spirit, and born of God. Which means that it is a supernatural spiritual re-birth in which the dead spirit of a sinner is "quickened" or brought to life by the Holy Spirit, and the sinner is regenerated to become a saint and a child of God. This occurs after a person repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ.

As to "born of water", this is NOT a reference to water baptism or baptismal regeneration, but it is a metaphor for the Word of God (more precisely the Gospel) which generates faith, and thereby effects the New Birth.
 
Why would the term "born again" be any different now than it was at the time when Christ taught Nicodemus? The New Birth was already embedded in the New Covenant revealed in the Old Testament. But the New Covenant only went into effect on the day that Christ died on the cross. And it is only from the day of Pentecost that every believer receives the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

However, what Jesus told Nicodemus is a UNIVERSAL SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLE. No one can either enter or see the Kingdom of God without the New Birth.

"Born again" is synonymous with born from above, born of the Spirit, and born of God. Which means that it is a supernatural spiritual re-birth in which the dead spirit of a sinner is "quickened" or brought to life by the Holy Spirit, and the sinner is regenerated to become a saint and a child of God. This occurs after a person repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ.

As to "born of water", this is NOT a reference to water baptism or baptismal regeneration, but it is a metaphor for the Word of God (more precisely the Gospel) which generates faith, and thereby effects the New Birth.
The proofs I provided much earlier in this thread show from the Syriac manuscripts (written in Aramaic and not Latin or Greek) the precise words Jesus said.

Which is why many Bibles have a note on this section describing that instead of "Born Again" it literally is supposed to be "Born From Above" which is exactly what the Greek and Latin show as well.
But Tyndale mistranslated this section. And subsequently all English translation of the section followed suit.

This, coupled with the multitude evidence of context, themes, and anthropology this section of scripture has a new light to it and we can really understand what Jesus was saying. That the commonly held opinion of what happened in this scripture is wrong. (Not in contradiction with scripture as a whole but wrong in that this section of scripture upholds the viewpoint)

Jesus said "born from above" and meant that and nothing else.
 
Hey Walpole,
Where you been?
I've missed you.

It's a busy time of the year for me and I don't have as much leisure time right now. My visits here will continue to be sporadic.

What are you doing?
Testing us??

Easy test.
Water
Spirit
Baptism

I just got here. If someone already answered...
I'M NOT CHEATING!!!

Exactly. Ergo...Being born again = being baptized

But how do you feel about infant baptism?
Was good ole' Augustine right in your opinion?
I don't care for good ole' Augustine.
Have we discussed this?

My "feeling" about infant baptism is that it is part of the regula fide. We see this from the very beginning with St. Peter's first sermon, expanding on the prophesy of Joel in Acts 2.

St. Augustine defended infant baptism. I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to about St. Augustine and whether he was right.

Yes, we have discussed this and I need to go back and see where we left off. I think the ball may be in my court. I'll check...
 
It's a busy time of the year for me and I don't have as much leisure time right now. My visits here will continue to be sporadic.



Exactly. Ergo...Being born again = being baptized



My "feeling" about infant baptism is that it is part of the regula fide. We see this from the very beginning with St. Peter's first sermon, expanding on the prophesy of Joel in Acts 2.

St. Augustine defended infant baptism. I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to about St. Augustine and whether he was right.

Yes, we have discussed this and I need to go back and see where we left off. I think the ball may be in my court. I'll check...
St. Augustine made infant baptism NECESSARY!
He's the one that expounded on Original Sin and the church accepted his beliefs and theories.

Since Adam's sin is imputed to the newborn, (and is not just affected by it) it becomes necessary to baptize a baby to have original sin removed since it was believed that baptism removed all sin up to the point persons were baptized. Some even waited till they were very old to be baptized so all their sins could be forgiven.

It became a problem for the early church that may not have been expected....what to do about sin AFTER baptism?
Confession of course --- it became individual.

I'm not sure what the early fathers thought of confession.
Here's an interesting link I found:

https://sophiainstituteforteachers..../six-early-church-fathers-on-confession/print
 
St. Augustine made infant baptism NECESSARY!

Jesus made baptism necessary when he said we must be born again. He made no exclusions. Hence, infants too are baptized. It has been the regula fidei since the beginning of Christianity, as evidenced by the Scriptures which testify to whole households being baptized (Acts 16:15). Additionally, St. Peter at his first sermon after Pentecost where he expounds on the words of the prophet Joel and the coming of grace through Jesus Christ, explicitly states that baptism is for "you and for your children." (cf. Acts 2:38-39)

He's the one that expounded on Original Sin and the church accepted his beliefs and theories.

He expounded on original sin, as he did many theological topics. What he taught the Church already believed and professed. Original sin was not something he invented.

Since Adam's sin is imputed to the newborn, (and is not just affected by it) it becomes necessary to baptize a baby to have original sin removed since it was believed that baptism removed all sin up to the point persons were baptized.

The idea of imputation is a Protestant idea, not a Catholic one. Original sin is not an imputation. Rather, it is a deprivation; that is, a lack of grace due to the fall of Adam. Hence, baptism gives man this grace to restore him to the "newness of life" (Romans 6:4). As Jesus said, we must be born again.

And yes, as the Creed states, we believe in one baptism for the remission of sin.

Some even waited till they were very old to be baptized so all their sins could be forgiven.

Yes, that is true, even in the case of St. Augustine himself. This was due to the influence of Novatianism. The belief was baptism should be delayed not just for infants, but for everyone and most especially single peephole, as they were more prone to temptations and sin. This of course is an error.

It became a problem for the early church that may not have been expected....what to do about sin AFTER baptism?
Confession of course --- it became individual.

Sin was always a problem in the early Church as it is today. The remedy then is the same as it is today: Confession.


I'm not sure what the early fathers thought of confession.
Here's an interesting link I found:

https://sophiainstituteforteachers..../six-early-church-fathers-on-confession/print

The Fathers wrote quite extensively about confession. A few such examples are...

The Didache (4:14; 14:1)
St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1:22)
Tertullian (On Repentance 10:1,6)
Origin (Homily on Leviticus 2:4)
St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Lapsi 15:1-3)
St. Athanasius (On the Gospel of Luke 19)
St. Basil (Rules Briefly Treated 288)
St. Ambrose (Penance 2:2:12)
St. Jerome (Commentary on Matthew 3:16:19)
St. Augustine (Psalms 101:2:3; Echiridian 17:65)
St. John Chrystostom (Homilies on John 86:4)
 
Jesus made baptism necessary when he said we must be born again. He made no exclusions. Hence, infants too are baptized. It has been the regula fidei since the beginning of Christianity, as evidenced by the Scriptures which testify to whole households being baptized (Acts 16:15). Additionally, St. Peter at his first sermon after Pentecost where he expounds on the words of the prophet Joel and the coming of grace through Jesus Christ, explicitly states that baptism is for "you and for your children." (cf. Acts 2:38-39)
We could argue about infants being baptised. Did you know that the church has considered only adult baptism but feels it would be rejected and there's enough going on anyway. I'm not sure Jesus meant for infants to be baptised. In the Great Commision of Mathew 28, He tells the Apostles to teach all nations...an infant can't be taught. Acts 2:39 says the promise is also to the children...the promise of the Holy Spirit...when they could understand?

Augustine made baptism necessary because the church accepted his theology, which was not iron-clad in the centuries before him.
You could read CCC no. 405 and 406.

405 seems to say that O.S. is NOT imputed to each individual.
But the CCC gives me many problems because, quite frankly, I don't find it to be very clear in its teachings - and trust me, I know this for sure.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546)
.

The underlined in paragraph 405 does suggest that O.S. is not imputed....in other paragraphs it seems that it is. Because of Augustine, the church now teaches that it is.

He expounded on original sin, as he did many theological topics. What he taught the Church already believed and professed. Original sin was not something he invented.
Agreed that he didn't invent it...but it's BECAUSE of him that infants are now baptised.


The idea of imputation is a Protestant idea, not a Catholic one. Original sin is not an imputation. Rather, it is a deprivation; that is, a lack of grace due to the fall of Adam. Hence, baptism gives man this grace to restore him to the "newness of life" (Romans 6:4). As Jesus said, we must be born again.

And yes, as the Creed states, we believe in one baptism for the remission of sin.
Impute is an english word...no matter which denomination uses it. It's for what you state above,,,,but this only happens because of the elimination of O.S.
Protestants believe we are affected by O.S., but are not personally responsible for it. (the affect is concupiscience)
Paragraph 405 sounds to me like the CC agrees.

The Fathers wrote quite extensively about confession. A few such examples are...

The Didache (4:14; 14:1)
St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1:22)
Tertullian (On Repentance 10:1,6)
Origin (Homily on Leviticus 2:4)
St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Lapsi 15:1-3)
St. Athanasius (On the Gospel of Luke 19)
St. Basil (Rules Briefly Treated 288)
St. Ambrose (Penance 2:2:12)
St. Jerome (Commentary on Matthew 3:16:19)
St. Augustine (Psalms 101:2:3; Echiridian 17:65)
St. John Chrystostom (Homilies on John 86:4)
Those that came after Augustine will, of course, be more in agreement with infant baptism. Those that came before thought differently about O.S.

If you just read the first on your list, you'll see what I mean.
Iraneaus had different ideas about O.S.; he was much softer in describing the condition of fallen man.

Augustine gave rise to Calvinism.
 
We could argue about infants being baptised. Did you know that the church has considered only adult baptism but feels it would be rejected and there's enough going on anyway.

The Church never excluded children from baptism. As I posted earlier, Scripture attests to entire households being baptized (cf. Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16) as well as St. Peter explicitly stating baptism is “for you and for your children.” (Acts 2:38-39)

Recall also the words of our Blessed Lord Himself…

“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)

I am not sure why you would seek to put an age restriction on who can enter the kingdom of God. Would you force your children to live outside of your house until they are old enough to profess membership in your household? I would hope not. So too Christian parents do not exclude their children from the household of God.



I'm not sure Jesus meant for infants to be baptised. In the Great Commision of Mathew 28, He tells the Apostles to teach all nations...an infant can't be taught. Acts 2:39 says the promise is also to the children...the promise of the Holy Spirit...when they could understand?

All nations nations means the entirety, the whole, no exceptions. By your logic, the mentally handicapped should not be baptized either, as they may be incapable of being taught.

Again, you are putting restrictions on who can enter the kingdom of God. (Mt. 23:13)


Augustine made baptism necessary because the church accepted his theology, which was not iron-clad in the centuries before him.

St. Augustine didn’t make baptism necessary, Jesus did.

—-> “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:5)

—-> “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)




You could read CCC no. 405 and 406.

405 seems to say that O.S. is NOT imputed to each individual.
But the CCC gives me many problems because, quite frankly, I don't find it to be very clear in its teachings - and trust me, I know this for sure.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546)
.

The underlined in paragraph 405 does suggest that O.S. is not imputed....in other paragraphs it seems that it is.

Correct. Imputation is not an orthodox Christian concept. It is a Protestant one.


Because of Augustine, the church now teaches that it is.

If the Church now teaches that sin is imputed, please post the source for your claim.



Agreed that he didn't invent it...but it's BECAUSE of him that infants are now baptised.

This is demonstrably erroneous because the Church baptized infants centuries before St. Augustine was even born! You have the Scriptures testifying to it in the first century, and we have the testimony of history in subsequent centuries prior to St. Augustine's. For example...

2nd Century
For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4)


3rd Century
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, 21:16)

In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” (Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3)

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.” (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9)


“Moreover, belief in the divine Scriptures declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell.” (St. Cyprian, Epistle 58 to Fidus on the the baptism of infants)



Impute is an english word...no matter which denomination uses it. It's for what you state above,,,,but this only happens because of the elimination of O.S.
Protestants believe we are affected by O.S., but are not personally responsible for it. (the affect is concupiscience)
Paragraph 405 sounds to me like the CC agrees.

Again, original sin is a deprivation, not an imputation. Paragraph 405 explains it perfectly.



Those that came after Augustine will, of course, be more in agreement with infant baptism. Those that came before thought differently about O.S.

If you just read the first on your list, you'll see what I mean.
Iraneaus had different ideas about O.S.; he was much softer in describing the condition of fallen man.

Again, this is demonstrably erroneous since history testifies to the practice of baptizing children preceding St. Augustine. Here is the doctor of grace himself...

“It was not I who devised the original sin, which the Catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you, who deny it, are undoubtedly an innovating heretic. In the judgment of God, all are in the devil's power, born in sin, unless they are regenerated in Christ.” - St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book II:25


Augustine gave rise to Calvinism.

Hardly. St. Augustine is the antithesis of Calvinism.
 
The Church never excluded children from baptism. As I posted earlier, Scripture attests to entire households being baptized (cf. Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16) as well as St. Peter explicitly stating baptism is “for you and for your children.” (Acts 2:38-39)

Recall also the words of our Blessed Lord Himself…

“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)

I am not sure why you would seek to put an age restriction on who can enter the kingdom of God. Would you force your children to live outside of your house until they are old enough to profess membership in your household? I would hope not. So too Christian parents do not exclude their children from the household of God.





All nations nations means the entirety, the whole, no exceptions. By your logic, the mentally handicapped should not be baptized either, as they may be incapable of being taught.

Again, you are putting restrictions on who can enter the kingdom of God. (Mt. 23:13)




St. Augustine didn’t make baptism necessary, Jesus did.

—-> “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:5)

—-> “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)






Correct. Imputation is not an orthodox Christian concept. It is a Protestant one.




If the Church now teaches that sin is imputed, please post the source for your claim.





This is demonstrably erroneous because the Church baptized infants centuries before St. Augustine was even born! You have the Scriptures testifying to it in the first century, and we have the testimony of history in subsequent centuries prior to St. Augustine's. For example...

2nd Century
For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4)


3rd Century
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, 21:16)

In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” (Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3)

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.” (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9)


“Moreover, belief in the divine Scriptures declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell.” (St. Cyprian, Epistle 58 to Fidus on the the baptism of infants)





Again, original sin is a deprivation, not an imputation. Paragraph 405 explains it perfectly.





Again, this is demonstrably erroneous since history testifies to the practice of baptizing children preceding St. Augustine. Here is the doctor of grace himself...

“It was not I who devised the original sin, which the Catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you, who deny it, are undoubtedly an innovating heretic. In the judgment of God, all are in the devil's power, born in sin, unless they are regenerated in Christ.” - St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book II:25




Hardly. St. Augustine is the antithesis of Calvinism.
I must ask: Are you an eastern orthodox Christian yourself? Interesting information. I didnt quite get what you mean by Augustine is the antithesis of calvinism, could you explain that?
 
I must ask: Are you an eastern orthodox Christian yourself? Interesting information. I didnt quite get what you mean by Augustine is the antithesis of calvinism, could you explain that?
I think that you are missing some Church History here... especially the English Church Reformation.
Try reading through this thread: LINK
It explains a lot of how politics and religion were synonymous and how Calvinism was politically and Theologically opposed to any form of Catholic (General) Church.

Of course the Calvinists were largely responsible for having created the English version of the Bible. But they were also all about separating themselves from the Catholic Church.
 
I must ask: Are you an eastern orthodox Christian yourself? Interesting information.

No, I am not an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

I didnt quite get what you mean by Augustine is the antithesis of calvinism, could you explain that?

Sure, briefly...

St. Augustine believed in the necessity and efficacy of baptism, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the authority of the bishop of Rome and the necessity to be in communion with him, the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation, divine revelation transmitted via Scripture and Tradition of the Church, Apostolic succession safeguarded and transmitted via Catholic episcopacy, the Catholic priesthood, the Eucharist as a sacrifice, grace, man's free will, etc.

These few examples are the antithesis of Calvinism.
 
No, I am not an Eastern Orthodox Christian.



Sure, briefly...

St. Augustine believed in the necessity and efficacy of baptism, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the authority of the bishop of Rome and the necessity to be in communion with him, the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation, divine revelation transmitted via Scripture and Tradition of the Church, Apostolic succession safeguarded and transmitted via Catholic episcopacy, the Catholic priesthood, the Eucharist as a sacrifice, grace, man's free will, etc.

These few examples are the antithesis of Calvinism.
In other words you're telling me Augustine was a heretic? LOL :lol

I just dont get it, why is Augustine such a BIG influence? He didnt even know greek. I find it amazing that the same people who today speak about the greek talk up Augustine who knew it not.

I have to study the real presence of Christ in Eucharist, I come from a background where that sounds heretical, red flags go up. Its like telling me Jesus dies again and again and again
 
"Born again" is synonymous with born from above, born of the Spirit, and born of God. Which means that it is a supernatural spiritual re-birth in which the dead spirit of a sinner is "quickened" or brought to life by the Holy Spirit, and the sinner is regenerated to become a saint and a child of God. This occurs after a person repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ.


Very well put, sir.


I just don't see how anyone could argue against a person being "born of the Spirit".

Born again, born of God, born of the Spirit is very clear to me.




ME
 
In John 3:3 we read that we must be "Born again "

Of water and of Spirit.

Let's discuss people's beliefs about this passage and Nicodemus...

And after a bit I'll throw my two cents in...
(My wonderful wife has gotten my software going again and its wonderful)

I'll post corroborating evidence when I explain mine.
But I want to hear what ya'll think about the section of scripture.

Let's see, John 3:3;

This is our spiritual birth, our regeneration.
When we are born again, we receive a spiritual vision.
We show we are of Christ, not written with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (2 Corinthians 3:3;).

I don't see how it can mean anything else.
 
In John 3:3 we read that we must be "Born again "

Of water and of Spirit.

Let's discuss people's beliefs about this passage and Nicodemus...

And after a bit I'll throw my two cents in...
(My wonderful wife has gotten my software going again and its wonderful)

I'll post corroborating evidence when I explain mine.
But I want to hear what ya'll think about the section of scripture.

--Jesus used the word 'must' in that one must be born again (John 3:7) meaning that the onus is upon man to be born again, man therefore is not totally passive in being born again.

--Jesus speaks of one birth consisting of two elements
1) water
2) Spirit

The role of water in the new birth is water baptism as can be seen a few verses later in John 3:22-23

The role of Spirit in the new birth is the Spirit is the Author of the word that instructs men on how to be saved/born again. Those that are obedient to the word are said then to be born again..by the word (1 Peter 1:23), begat with the word (James 1:18).

The new birth is not something that takes place apart from the word, apart from obedience to the word of truth.
 
--Jesus used the word 'must' in that one must be born again (John 3:7) meaning that the onus is upon man to be born again, man therefore is not totally passive in being born again.

--Jesus speaks of one birth consisting of two elements
1) water
2) Spirit

The role of water in the new birth is water baptism as can be seen a few verses later in John 3:22-23

The role of Spirit in the new birth is the Spirit is the Author of the word that instructs men on how to be saved/born again. Those that are obedient to the word are said then to be born again..by the word (1 Peter 1:23), begat with the word (James 1:18).

The new birth is not something that takes place apart from the word, apart from obedience to the word of truth.
I have a fuller explanation throughout this thread.
If you take the time to actually read MY posts carefully you can see what I have said and stated and why I have said what I have said.

It has everything to do with the recurring themes of John's Gospel and proper translation of the Early Latin/Greek that John wrote in.
It also fits in the manner Jesus spoke in which He is always one step ahead of those He is speaking to.
Where "Born Again" marketing of the "Regeneration" theology isn't wrong...it isn't a theme in John...and belongs to Paul and others in the Old Testament.

I admit that I didn't do my normal, clear job in explaining...but if someone actually takes the time to read carefully what I wrote instead of skimming the truth becomes very clear.
 
I have a fuller explanation throughout this thread.
If you take the time to actually read MY posts carefully you can see what I have said and stated and why I have said what I have said.

It has everything to do with the recurring themes of John's Gospel and proper translation of the Early Latin/Greek that John wrote in.
It also fits in the manner Jesus spoke in which He is always one step ahead of those He is speaking to.
Where "Born Again" marketing of the "Regeneration" theology isn't wrong...it isn't a theme in John...and belongs to Paul and others in the Old Testament.

I admit that I didn't do my normal, clear job in explaining...but if someone actually takes the time to read carefully what I wrote instead of skimming the truth becomes very clear.

It was stated in the OP "But I want to hear what ya'll think about the section of scripture." (my emp)

I posted what I think about John 3.
 
Back
Top