What does it mean to be "born again"?

[BreadOfLife]

Buh bye...

Ahhh, yes - the standard response of those who have run OUT of ammunition.

If you ever want to discuss Scripture and whether or not it is the inerrant Word of Almigjhty God - let me know . . .
Because YOU have apparently chosen to disobey it . . .

1 Pet. 3:15
" . . but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

 

[Armour of God]

Ahhh, yes - the standard response of those who have run OUT of ammunition.

If you ever want to discuss Scripture and whether or not it is the inerrant Word of Almigjhty God - let me know . . .
Because YOU have apparently chosen to disobey it . . .

1 Pet. 3:15
" . . but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

Yet some people like @JimKnox don't even bother to argue with gentleness and respect but instead resort to hatred and slander. I know they are in the wrong when they resort to that. Refusing to answer questions is also a sign of dishonesty

 

[Marymog]

You start with a fraudulent source (Barnabas) and end with a heretical Catholic (Augustine) and expected me to take you serious?
Be gone little one.
Pfffftt

Hello Jim!

To be fair....... @BreadOfLife started with the earliest historical Christian writings we have (Barnabas) and ended it with a 5th century historical Christian writing (Augustine) we have on the matter. He covered 400+ years of Christian teachings to back up his faith, practice and Church. What BOL articulated has been taught by Christianity for 2000 years.

I scrolled back to read what you provided to back up your beliefs. I can't find anything noteworthy except your opinions and your interpretation of Scripture. Unless I missed something......

With that said; Why should anyone take your opinions and interpretations of Scripture on this matter serious?

Also, I am curious: Who decided that Augustine was a heretic?

Barnabas letters were revered by early Christians and read alongside Scripture in Church. How is Barnabas "fraudulent"? The Christians that lived during the times of the Apostles accepted Barnabas letters, but you reject them. Why?

Curious Mary

 

[JimKnox]

Hello Jim!

To be fair....... @BreadOfLife started with the earliest historical Christian writings we have (Barnabas) and ended it with a 5th century historical Christian writing (Augustine) we have on the matter. He covered 400+ years of Christian teachings to back up his faith, practice and Church. What BOL articulated has been taught by Christianity for 2000 years.

I scrolled back to read what you provided to back up your beliefs. I can't find anything noteworthy except your opinions and your interpretation of Scripture. Unless I missed something......

With that said; Why should anyone take your opinions and interpretations of Scripture on this matter serious?

Also, I am curious: Who decided that Augustine was a heretic?

Barnabas letters were revered by early Christians and read alongside Scripture in Church. How is Barnabas "fraudulent"? The Christians that lived during the times of the Apostles accepted Barnabas letters, but you reject them. Why?

Curious Mary

Why do you object to my opinion by defending the opinion of BoL?
We call that hy po critical.

 

[Marymog]

Why do you object to my opinion by defending the opinion of BoL?
We call that hy po critical.

Hello Jim!

I don't need to defend @BreadOfLife statements (what you call opinions). Our own Christian history defends his statements. You should read paragraph one of my post again. To summarize that paragraph: @BreadOfLife did not give his opinion. He cited historical Christian writings and teachings that validates his statements. What you wrote was your opinion since you provided nothing to back it up.

So, once again, here are the 2 questions you dodged:

Why should anyone take your opinions and interpretations of Scripture on this matter serious?

Who decided that Augustine was a heretic?

You alleged that Augustine was a heretic. When someone makes an allegation, one would assume they have facts to back it up. If you have no facts to back up what you are alleging, then your allegation is opinion. When a person does not produce any facts to back up an allegation it is called a false allegation and it is difficult to take that person serious that makes false allegations.

Mary

PS: You need to look up the definition of the word hypocritical. Your use of that word as an allegation against me, or an attempt to be-little me, does not fit the reality of our conversation.

 

[JimKnox]

Hello Jim!

I don't need to defend @BreadOfLife statements (what you call opinions). Our own Christian history defends his statements. You should read paragraph one of my post again. To summarize that paragraph: @BreadOfLife did not give his opinion. He cited historical Christian writings and teachings that validates his statements. What you wrote was your opinion since you provided nothing to back it up.

So, once again, here are the 2 questions you dodged:

Why should anyone take your opinions and interpretations of Scripture on this matter serious?

Who decided that Augustine was a heretic?

You alleged that Augustine was a heretic. When someone makes an allegation, one would assume they have facts to back it up. If you have no facts to back up what you are alleging, then your allegation is opinion. When a person does not produce any facts to back up an allegation it is called a false allegation and it is difficult to take that person serious that makes false allegations.

Mary

PS: You need to look up the definition of the word hypocritical. Your use of that word as an allegation against me, or an attempt to be-little me, does not fit the reality of our conversation.

Augustine taught baptismal regeneration and pedobaptism. Both are heresy.
Teach heresy = makes you heretical.
Claim8ng my statement is only opinion while defending the same in another = hy po critical.

 

[Marymog]

Augustine taught baptismal regeneration and pedobaptism. Both are heresy.
Teach heresy = makes you heretical.
Claim8ng my statement is only opinion while defending the same in another = hy po critical.

Hello Jim,

I asked you WHO decided that Augustine is a heretic. You didn't name any names and gave me YOUR opinion that he is a heretic and why YOU believe he is a heretic. That means that YOU decided that Augustine is a heretic because he taught baptismal regeneration and infant baptism.

In Scripture it says that entire families and households were baptized. It also says that infants were being brought to Jesus. It sounds like you don't believe that infants were part of those families or households and Jesus would not have baptized those infants when they were brought to him. Scripture says that baptism now saves you. To be saved by baptism is a regeneration of you and your soul.

The earliest historical writings of our Christian fathers teach baptismal regeneration and infant baptism. The teaching opposite of that didn't take hold in Christianity until over 1,500 years later during the Protestant Revolution. That revolution, of which you are a part of, has destroyed and divided Christianity. Christians being divided is what Jesus prayed against, not for. With that said a teaching that came 1,500 years AFTER what Scripture and The Church taught/practiced would be the heretical teaching.

With those 2 Scriptural and historical facts out of the way clearly what you are teaching is heretical.

Let me help you out with the definition of hypocritical: characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel

At no time and in no way did I ever contradict what I claimed or believed. Your allegation is completely and utterly false OR you truly don't know the definition of the word. I suspect it's the latter, but you are too proud to take back your misguided allegation.

Me supporting @BreadOfLife "opinion" (which was actually a statement backed up with facts) and me asking you to back up your opinion with facts (of which you failed to do) does not in any way meet the definition or allegation of me being hypocritical.

Thank you for your time.

Mary

 

[JimKnox]

Hello Jim,

I asked you WHO decided that Augustine is a heretic. You didn't name any names and gave me YOUR opinion that he is a heretic and why YOU believe he is a heretic. That means that YOU decided that Augustine is a heretic because he taught baptismal regeneration and infant baptism.

In Scripture it says that entire families and households were baptized. It also says that infants were being brought to Jesus. It sounds like you don't believe that infants were part of those families or households and Jesus would not have baptized those infants when they were brought to him. Scripture says that baptism now saves you. To be saved by baptism is a regeneration of you and your soul.

The earliest historical writings of our Christian fathers teach baptismal regeneration and infant baptism. The teaching opposite of that didn't take hold in Christianity until over 1,500 years later during the Protestant Revolution. That revolution, of which you are a part of, has destroyed and divided Christianity. Christians being divided is what Jesus prayed against, not for. With that said a teaching that came 1,500 years AFTER what Scripture and The Church taught/practiced would be the heretical teaching.

With those 2 Scriptural and historical facts out of the way clearly what you are teaching is heretical.

Let me help you out with the definition of hypocritical: characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel

At no time and in no way did I ever contradict what I claimed or believed. Your allegation is completely and utterly false OR you truly don't know the definition of the word. I suspect it's the latter, but you are too proud to take back your misguided allegation.

Me supporting @BreadOfLife "opinion" (which was actually a statement backed up with facts) and me asking you to back up your opinion with facts (of which you failed to do) does not in any way meet the definition or allegation of me being hypocritical.

Thank you for your time.

Mary

I noticed you only provided opinion and no Scripture but tried to chew me out for same.
Therefore: hypocritical.
No infant can profess faith in Christ before baptism therefore pedobaptism is heresy.
Just because some people in the early centuries taught it was OK does not in any way justify it's practice. If that were not so then the Arian heresy would be "just another opinion". The same is true of baptismal regeneration. Mormons practice baptismal regeneration; does that make it right just because it is a common practice? God forbid!
No. CHRIST did not baptized infants. That is claim is bordering on blasphemy.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I noticed you only provided opinion and no Scripture but tried to chew me out for same.
Therefore: hypocritical.
No infant can profess faith in Christ before baptism therefore pedobaptism is heresy.
Just because some people in the early centuries taught it was OK does not in any way justify it's practice. If that were not so then the Arian heresy would be "just another opinion". The same is true of baptismal regeneration. Mormons practice baptismal regeneration; does that make it right just because it is a common practice? God forbid!
No. CHRIST did not baptized infants. That is claim is bordering on blasphemy.

That’s funny – because in the OT, infants were circumcised and entered the Family of God. Did they profess faith or allegiance to God? Did they have a choice in the matter? NO. Their parents spoke FOR them and raised them in the Jewish faith. That is our DUTY as parents.

The SAME is true with Christianity. We baptize our infants and raise them in the Christian faith. When they are older – they can make up their OWN minds. That’s why we have the Sacrament of Confirmation. Paul uses the terms, “circumcision of the heart” and the “circumcision of Christ” (Romans 2:29, Col. 2:12-17) to describe the reality of circumcision being a spiritually inward act, not merely an outward sign. The OT type that was circumcision is now NT fulfillment that is Baptism.

As Marymog already explained – we read in the Bible that ENTIRE families were baptized based on the faith of the Head of the household. Families lived communally in that time – so parents, children, grandparents ALL lived together. So

When Peter baptized Cornelius the Centurion, he baptized his ENTIRE household including children and servants (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14). We see the SAME thing in Acts 16:23-24 with the household of the Philippian jailer and 1 Cor. 1:16 with Stephanas’ household. The plain fact is that “households” include children of all ages, including infants. In Acts 2 - Peter tells the crowd about Baptism and says:

Acts 2:38
The promise is for you and your CHILDREN and for all who are far off—for ALL whom the Lord our God will call.”

- It doesn't say, "For you and your children who are able to repent."

- It doesn't say, ""This promise is for SOME, as long as you repent."

It says, "This promise is for you and your CHILDREN and for all who are far off—for ALL whom the Lord our God will call.”
It's not up to YOU - it's up to GOD.

The Early Church Fathers stated emphatically that this was an APOSTOLIC teaching . . .
Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Origen
"The Church received from the apostles thee tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an INFANT child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the INFANT be sanctified from childhood. (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even INFANTS, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond"
(On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

Therefore – WITTHOLDING Baptism from children is the heresy . . .

 

[Armour of God]

I have to say I'm with the Catholic Church on this one. I think being born again does involve baptism. Water and spirit is much better explained by the RCC. The early church believed in baptism as well.

And now I think that infant baptism is correct as well. It's scriptural. It's taught by the early church. And later on the sacrament of confirmation confirms our faith in Christ.

Thank you to @BreadOfLife for confirming this

 

[Marymog]

I noticed you only provided opinion and no Scripture but tried to chew me out for same.
Therefore: hypocritical.
No infant can profess faith in Christ before baptism therefore pedobaptism is heresy.
Just because some people in the early centuries taught it was OK does not in any way justify it's practice. If that were not so then the Arian heresy would be "just another opinion". The same is true of baptismal regeneration. Mormons practice baptismal regeneration; does that make it right just because it is a common practice? God forbid!
No. CHRIST did not baptized infants. That is claim is bordering on blasphemy.

Not true Jim. Read paragraph two again. It contains what happened in Scripture and some of the words I used are lifted from Scripture.

You don't know what the word hypocritical means. But your pride won't let you admit that.

Scripture says baptize all and that entire families/households were baptized. Infants are in families and are considered part of all.

It wasn't "some people in the early centuries". They were the witnesses of The Church and lived the early church. The Church rejected the Arian heresy and practiced infant baptism. You accept the decision of The Church that the Arian's were heretical but reject The Church teaching on baptism. YOU are saying The Church got one decision wrong but got the other decision right.......that makes no sense. You accept the teachings men that lived 1,500 years after Christ but reject the teachings of Ireneaus who, according to Christian history, learned Scripture from Polycarp who was a student of an Apostle. You have yet to provide any evidence that the early church rejected infant baptism.

I never made the claim that Jesus baptized infants, so you made a false allegation against me. The fact is that Scripture never says do not baptize infants and Scripture indicates that they did baptize infants. A few short years after Scripture was written historical Christian writings say they were baptizing infants.

Scripturally, historically and logically you and your ilk are wrong.

Mary

 

[JimKnox]

Hello Jim,

I asked you WHO decided that Augustine is a heretic. You didn't name any names and gave me YOUR opinion that he is a heretic and why YOU believe he is a heretic. That means that YOU decided that Augustine is a heretic because he taught baptismal regeneration and infant baptism.

In Scripture it says that entire families and households were baptized. It also says that infants were being brought to Jesus. It sounds like you don't believe that infants were part of those families or households and Jesus would not have baptized those infants when they were brought to him. Scripture says that baptism now saves you. To be saved by baptism is a regeneration of you and your soul.

The earliest historical writings of our Christian fathers teach baptismal regeneration and infant baptism. The teaching opposite of that didn't take hold in Christianity until over 1,500 years later during the Protestant Revolution. That revolution, of which you are a part of, has destroyed and divided Christianity. Christians being divided is what Jesus prayed against, not for. With that said a teaching that came 1,500 years AFTER what Scripture and The Church taught/practiced would be the heretical teaching.

With those 2 Scriptural and historical facts out of the way clearly what you are teaching is heretical.

Let me help you out with the definition of hypocritical: characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel

At no time and in no way did I ever contradict what I claimed or believed. Your allegation is completely and utterly false OR you truly don't know the definition of the word. I suspect it's the latter, but you are too proud to take back your misguided allegation.

Me supporting @BreadOfLife "opinion" (which was actually a statement backed up with facts) and me asking you to back up your opinion with facts (of which you failed to do) does not in any way meet the definition or allegation of me being hypocritical.

Thank you for your time.

Mary

Yes. You DID claim Jesus baptized infants.
Your antichrist RCC sect is wrong.

 

[Armour of God]

WoW...
What dispicable slander some people resort to
God have mercy on these poor souls