History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

[Cis.jd]

I agree with you that "Born again" is not a protestant term. In fact, it isn't meant to be just a theological term at all, it is meant to be an experience: a 2nd birth--a birth of the Spirit. It is not, in any way shape or form, symbolic. It is a real experience, according to Scripture, that is necessary to see the kingdom of God.

Yeah, i guess i used the wrong word/term. An "experience" or life event is correct.

 

[Karola]

I have found in my studies that historic writings of the Early Church Fathers does show it.(as I will show later in this post) Not only in the Latin/Roman Rite, but in all of the other Rites within the Catholic Church.



Yes, in the Evangelical formula teaching of being "born again" as I listed 1-6 on my OP, that would be correct.



As a former cradle Catholic, I am surprised you don't know this. Anyway, as far as the teachings of the Catholic Church from Sacred Scripture, we look at the following passages:

"Born Again in Water Baptism:

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 – Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 – after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus’ teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

John 4:1 – here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus’ baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.

Acts 10:47 – Peter says “can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people..?” The Bible always links water and baptism.


Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The “washing away” refers to water baptism.

Titus 3:5-6 – Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water.

Heb. 10:22 – the author is also writing about water baptism in this verse. “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” Our bodies are washed with pure water in water baptism.

2 Kings 5:14 – Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, and his flesh was restored like that of a child. This foreshadows the regenerative function of baptism, by water and the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 44:3 – the Lord pours out His water and His Spirit. Water and the Spirit are linked to baptism. The Bible never separates them.

Ezek. 36:25-27 – the Lord promises He will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us from sin and give us a new heart and spirit. Paul refers to this verse in Heb. 10:22. The teaching of Ezekiel foreshadows the salvific nature of Christian baptism instituted by Jesus and taught in John 3:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And from Sacred Tradition /Early Church Fathers. (ECF) (please pay close attention to the dates of these writings, its very important)

"1. “Born Again” Means Water Baptism:

For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: ‘Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well…And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow…And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165).

“Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,–as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2:16 (A.D. 181).

” ‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

“When, however, the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'” Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203).

“But give me now your best attention, I pray you, for I wish to go back to the fountain of life, and to view the fountain that gushes with healing. The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the layer he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism.” Hippolytus of Rome, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 8 (A.D. 217). (source--Scripturecatholic.com)

I could give many more examples of the ECF's, but I think this should suffice.



Again, as a former cradle Catholic, and with all respect, I am surprised you asked this.



Hope this post helps.

Also, if you don't mind, could I ask why you left the Catholic Church? If it is to personal of a question, I understand.


Have a Blessed Day


p.s. sorry for the long post.

A person is powerfully convicted of their sin by the Holy
Spirit. They sink to their knees, tears streaming down their cheeks and ask God to forgive them of their sins. They ask Christ into their life as their Lord and Saviour. How will God respond? Will he say to the person:

I will forgive you, but not yet, only when you have been baptised in water.


Doesn’t sound right to me

 

[Cis.jd]

Catholics believe one cannot be born again (John 3) unless they are Catholic and physically partake of sacraments. Putting the church in possession of the sovereignty to declare one born again.

This is not accurate. The catholic beliefs on being born again isn't under declaration of the church, most of it comes from scripture and how it describes it. Born Again wasn't only described during Jesus' chat with Nicodemus. You can probably do a google on the verses where the Catholic view of being born again comes from.

To prove your point will you provide what in the time of Irenaeus was apostolic tradition and show me his quotes on what he stated was the tradition handed down.

Well, let me ask you before the OP. Was there an actual canon of the NT during Irenaeus' time? If not, how did he follow practices, views, and all that?

 

[redleghunter]

This is not accurate. The catholic beliefs on being born again isn't under declaration of the church, most of it comes from scripture and how it describes it. Born Again wasn't only described during Jesus' chat with Nicodemus. You can probably do a google on the verses where the Catholic view of being born again comes from.


Well, let me ask you before the OP. Was there an actual canon of the NT during Irenaeus' time? If not, how did he follow practices, views, and all that?

Irenaeus argued from 25 of 27 NT books.

Edit: a useful resource on how the early church fathers deemed the NT books were authoritative without needing a canon.

Early Christian NT References

You can look up the early father and see their use of NT books.

 

[Cis.jd]

Irenaeus argued from 25 of 27 NT books.

Edit: a useful resource on how the early church fathers deemed the NT books were authoritative without needing a canon.

Early Christian NT References

You can look up the early father and see their use of NT books.

Yes, i am aware of this but where (or from whom) did he (and the early church fathers) get the info that they were authoritative? Remember, there is no where in scripture that states what books are canon.

 

[Mountainmike]

But that of course is the problem , and the reason such as you make the bible mean 10000 opposing doctrines.
You cannot proof text using a single verse and still retain true doctrine.

Clearly they were told to baptise, so your comment is deliberate misrepresentation.

The question posed by the thread is whether the born again movement had any origin in the history of the early church.

And the answer is from studying the early church portrayed by the earliest fathers who were taught by apostles is resounding crashing NO. The born again movement has nothing in common.

(IE study of actual history as opposed to falasy proof texting Protestant fashion, as you do above, making scripture mean what you want it to, ignoring the verses that disagree with you- "like go and baptise! " - so it clearly does not mean what you think in this case)

The reality is - There is NOTHING in common with the true liturgical sacramental early church that believed in church authority, and passed true doctrine by tradition passed by apostolic succession, also needed for Valid sacrament, and without which you would not even have a creed and New Testament.

The born again movement is way off the railways, a pure manmade tradition of recent times, born of inadequate study of early Catholic church and indeed inadequate study of scripture, the belief that by proof text you can make the bible say what you want as you do here: which is the fundamental reason Protestant congregations fracture with monotonous regularity and I regret the years I wasted in it.

The sheer arrogance of those unappoiinted few who think they are right , and claim the heavyweight theologians of two millennia and millions of well studied people besides were all wrong - also the lack of faith they have that allows them to believe that Jesus would allow his entire flock to be herded off the rails ( or was too impotent to prevent it) , when he promises that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church to whom he gave Peter the keys, and the apostles succession in authority.

Trying to prove black is white by proof texting, in contradiction of true history leads nowhere.

End of conversation

1 Corinthians 1: NASB
17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, i am aware of this but where (or from whom) did he (and the early church fathers) get the info that they were authoritative? Remember, there is no where in scripture that states what books are canon.

From the apostles

 

[redleghunter]

But that of course is the problem , and the reason such as you make the bible mean 10000 opposing doctrines.
You cannot proof text using a single verse and still retain true doctrine.

Clearly they were told to baptise, so your comment is deliberate misrepresentation.

The question posed by the thread is whether the born again movement had any origin in the history of the early church.

And the answer is from studying the early church portrayed by the earliest fathers is resounding crashing NO
( as opposed to falasy proof texting Protestant fashion, making scripture mean what you want it to)

The reality is - There is nothing in common with the true liturgical sacramental early church that believed in church authority, and passed true doctrine by tradition passed by apostolic succession, also needed for Valid sacrament, and without which you would not even have a New Testament.

The born again movement is way off the railways, a pure manmade tradition of recent times, born of inadequate study of early Catholic church and indeed inadequate study of scripture, and the belief that you can make the bible say what you want as you do here: and I regret the time I wasted in it.

The sheer arrogance of those few who think they are right , and claim the heavyweight theologians of two millennia and millions of well studied people besides were all wrong, and the lack of faith they have , that allows them to believe that Jesus would allow his entire flock to be herded off the rails, when he promises that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church to whom he gave Peter the keys.

Trying to prove black is white by proof texting leads nowhere.

End of conversation

I truly wish you would back up your assertions and Ad Hominem comments with some evidence. Something like a argument.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No you are mistaken. Communing and serving the church is critical to the Christian walk. One coal away from the fire and warmth of the rest burns out. We are to share each other's burdens, be partners in the ministries of the church and support our leadership.

We are not to deny the fellowship of other believers.

not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:25)

I can give you other NT examples if you like from Acts and the epistles.

Does critical here mean necessary or extremely important? There is a difference and I can't imagine any Evangelical or adherrent to the modern born again theology believing Church communion is just as necessary as faith in Christ.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Bishop, Presbyter, Elder are all the same office in the NT.

There were no priests in the NT church. That was a later development.

So in the time of even Ignatius, the term bishop was the same as elder or presbyter. We have the same offices in our Evangelical church government.

Ignatius seems to imply a difference between the functions of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon that does not accord with your understanding of the clergy.

Trallians 3:3 In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a church.

Ignatius draws a symbolic connection between the Father and the Bishop while making a different sort of symbolic connection between the presbyters and Apostles. This would indicate at least some difference in their function, that they were not merely terms used to describe the same office or position in the Church even in Ignatius' time. This isn't the only time distinctions are mentioned:

To Polycarp (6) Pay attention to the bishop, if you would have God pay attention to you. I offer myself up for those who obey the bishop, priests and deacons. May it be my lot to be with them in God. Toil and train together, run and suffer together, rest and rise at the same time, as God’s stewards, assistants and servants.

It seems to me here Ignatius is casting the role of the Bishop as Steward, Presbyter Assistants and Deacons as servants. Even if as you argue they were more or less interchangeable terms those differences were emerging in the time of Ignatius hence I don't think you can rope Ignatius into being someone akin to a modern Evangelical. I wouldn't even rope him in for being a modern Orthodox Christian though the character of his epistles is more in line with Orthodoxy's understanding of these matters than any others.

Still I don't think any of this goes to address the OP's original point. Historically what does one do about the absence of a Born again movement throughout much of and I would say all of Church history till the current day?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

But where in Scripture does it say to be a Born again Christian all one needs to do is.....
1. Accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior.
2. Believe and pray to him/ asking him into our hearts. (the sinners prayer)
3. Repent of our sins.
4. Join a church or religious community, if we wanted, but not necessary.
5. Have a full immersion baptisim.
and
6. Welcoming and receiving the Holy Spirit.
Or in any other early Christian writings........ say.... prior to the Protestant Reformation?
Have a Blessed day

Where does you get that these are separate steps in order to be be (as in become) a Born again Christian in evangelicalism?

And which also applies if by "be" you are trying to ask where in Scripture does it say to live a Born again Christian then all one needs to do are just these 6 steps.

Just what is your source for this totality (as a history buff) as being the norm in evangelicalism, unless it is another Catholic strawman, drawn from Cath propaganda that describes evangelicals as not believing a faith which effects obedience, and as merely being white-washed sinners?

Now if you want to be shown where in Scripture that all one needs to do in order to become a Born again Christian is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, which is confessed with the mouth and then in baptism, which is taught in evangelicalism, then I will show you.

Likewise, having done the above, that in evangelicalism it means living a life characterized by following Christ.

If believing in the Lord Jesus Christ simply means your 6 things, then why did the largest Prot denom spend over 4000 words describing the SBC faith?

Including (emphasis mine),

IV. Salvation

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.

B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.

C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life....

VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper....

VIII. The Lord's Day
The first day of the week is the Lord's Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should include exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private. Activities on the Lord's Day should be commensurate with the Christian's conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ...

XI. Evangelism and Missions
It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations. The new birth of man's spirit by God's Holy Spirit means the birth of love for others...

XIII. Stewardship
God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual; all that we have and are we owe to Him. Christians have a spiritual debtorship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in their possessions. They are therefore under obligation to serve Him with their time, talents, and material possessions; and should recognize all these as entrusted to them to use for the glory of God and for helping others

XV. The Christian and the Social Order
All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society....

Now such descriptions and obligations does not sound like just your 6 acts does it?

However, just where in Scripture does it say to become a Born again Christian then all one needs to do is be baptized, even without personal repentant faith, which is the requirement for baptism?

And that having been baptized, and died as a RC, then such are to be honored as members of the RCC even though they are known prohomosexual, proabortion liberal public figures? Or do you dare to excommunicate Ted Kennedy Catholics when Rome manifestly considers them members in life and in death, and conveys strong confidence of their final salvation?

 

[Hillsage]

Remember, there is no where in scripture that states what books are canon.

You are correct. And yet Jesus even quoted a book in the NT, which was never added to the cannon???? Interesting to say the least. I'm personally of the opinion that those who were 'deciding' which Books were theologically acceptable, might not have decided with as much leading of the Spirit as they thought, and we think.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Being a history buff, ....After digging and reading into early Christianity, I found that history was silent on the existence of the "born again" movement.

And after digging and reading into the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation, we do not find Catholic distinctives therein Therefore as history buffs of that source then based on your logic, we must reject Rome.

But we also do not find therein history on the existence of the counter reformation either, since that was in response to something, that of moral declension in the RCC of a degree as well as to a movement in response to this and doctrinal corruption, neither of which was unseen in the NT church.

However, uninspired history, which in part testifies to the progressive accretion of errors, testifies to the error of Arianism being combated early on, and in principal a reaction to error is Scriptural, being seen in both the beginning of the NT church itself and its reaction to false teachers.,

And in Scripture we see the "born again" message as a reaction to error, that of religion without regeneration in John 3. And having dispensed with your strawman, we see the evangelical gospel being preached in Acts, that,

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

At the hearing of which these contrite seeking souls believed, and were manifestly born again, and confessing the Lord, for,

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. (Acts 10:44-46)

These having been born again, Then answered Peter,

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:47)

And lest there be any doubt, Peter affirms this hear and believe message of regeneration in Acts 15,

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Acts 15:7-10)

And since only basic obedience was dealt with for such, then sophist could also present a strawman of being a born again Christian as simply meaning believing on the Lord Jesus, being baptized and abstaining "from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts 15:29)

Which should suffice to expose your sophistry.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Yes, i am aware of this but where (or from whom) did he (and the early church fathers) get the info that they were authoritative? Remember, there is no where in scripture that states what books are canon.

Tell me how an authoritative body of Scripture had quite manifestly been established by the time of Christ, from which both He and the NT church therefore appealed to in substantiating Truth claims. In RC theology, one cannot even discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her.

 

[Cis.jd]

From the apostles

Right, from the apostles. Hence the answer to your question "...time of Irenaeus was apostolic tradition ".

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Ignatius seems to imply a difference between the functions of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon that does not accord with your understanding of the clergy.

Trallians 3:3 In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a church.

Ignatius draws a symbolic connection between the Father and the Bishop while making a different sort of symbolic connection between the presbyters and Apostles. This would indicate at least some difference in their function, that they were not merely terms used to describe the same office or position in the Church even in Ignatius' time. This isn't the only time distinctions are mentioned:

To Polycarp (6) Pay attention to the bishop, if you would have God pay attention to you. I offer myself up for those who obey the bishop, priests and deacons. May it be my lot to be with them in God. Toil and train together, run and suffer together, rest and rise at the same time, as God’s stewards, assistants and servants.

It seems to me here Ignatius is casting the role of the Bishop as Steward, Presbyter Assistants and Deacons as servants. Even if as you argue they were more or less interchangeable terms those differences were emerging in the time of Ignatius hence I don't think you can rope Ignatius into being someone akin to a modern Evangelical. I wouldn't even rope him in for being a modern Orthodox Christian though the character of his epistles is more in line with Orthodoxy's understanding of these matters than any others.

One should need to see what words are in the original in your cases, but regardless, the Fact is that as
redleghunter said: ↑
Bishop, Presbyter, Elder are all the same office in the NT.
There were no [separate sacerdotal Catholic] priests in the NT church. That was a later development.

Titus 1:5-7: Bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1. This does not exclude that there could have been “archbishops/elders” in the New Testament church who were head pastors over others, but there is no titular distinctions in Scripture denoting such, and which distinctions are part of the hierarchical class distinctions which came later, and foster love of titles and position which the Lord warned about. (Mk. 10:42-44; Mt. 23:8-10).

Which is contrary to Catholic teaching (“Since the beginning, the ordained ministry has been conferred and exercised in three degrees: that of bishops, that of presbyters, and that of deacons” — CCC 1593), and the fourth century Roman Catholic scholar Jerome (347-420), confirms,

“The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptised, instead of leaving them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. And this is not my private opinion, it is that of Scripture. If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).

As for the Catholic priesthood,
the words “hiereus” and “archiereus" (translated "priest" and "high priest" as in Heb. 4:15; 10:11) are the Greek words which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for a separate sacerdotal (sacrificing) class of persons in the New Testament (over 280 times total*) and for pagan sacerdotal ministers and the general priesthood of all NT believers, which correspond to the Old Testament word for a separate class of sacerdotal ministers (Hebrew “kohen”). But which the Holy Spirit never uses for New Testament pastors ("poime¯n"), but instead He calls them presbuteros (senior/elder, referring to position or age) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer, referring to function) which denote those in the same office. (Titus 1:5-7: Acts 20:17,28; Phil. 1:1)

The English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest."

Orthodox historian scholar John Anthony McGuckin admits that "the word "priesthood" is itself a corruption of the Greek "presbyter." (John Anthony McGuckin, "The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture)

Russell Jonas Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of "priest"), informs,

"The Greek word for this office is...[hiereus], which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos [as for ko^he^n]. First century Christians [actually the Holy Spirit who inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)

The problem is that translating both "hiereus" and "presbuteros" as "priest" (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently calls them: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5) means that the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term “hiereus” for NT presbuteros (and never manifesting them as having the Catholic unique sacerdotal function) is lost.

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distinctive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, which Catholicism attempts to justify via an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbuteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (Catholic Customs & Traditions)

Yet neither presbuteros or episkopos are described as having any unique sacrificial function. Rather than dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, and offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, neither of which NT pastors are ever described as doing in the life of the church (Acts onward, which writings show us how the NT church understood the gospels), instead the primary work of NT pastors (besides prayer) is preaching. (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; ;Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7) In contrast op the Catholic corruption of the Lord's supper, nowhere in the record of the NT church is the Lord's supper described as spiritual food, and the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself.


Thus the Catholic practice of using the same term for Old Testaments priests and for NT pastors — thereby making the latter into being a separate sacerdotal class of believers, distinctive from the only priesthood in the NT church (all believers) — is not Scriptural or justifiable. Instead of using the same term for Old Testaments priests and for NT pastors, the latter should be called elders or overseers or equivalents which correlate to the original meaning and keeps the distinction the Holy Spirit made evident.

Note also that etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, but etymologies are not definitions (examples: "cute" used to mean bow-legged; "bully" originally meant darling or sweetheart; "Nice" originally meant stupid or foolish; "counterfeit" used to mean a legitimate copy; "egregious" originally connoted eminent or admirable). It is an etymological fallacy to hold that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase means it is the same as its original or historical meaning. Since presbyteros incorrectly evolved into priest (and were assigned an imposed unique sacerdotal function) therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to distinctively use the same distinctive term used for OT priests for NT pastors, despite the Holy Spirit never doing so and the lack of the unique sacerdotal function Catholicism attributes to NT presbyteros.

In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,

No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" [in the OT sense] instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.

Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.

To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. (http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm)

Still I don't think any of this goes to address the OP's original point. Historically what does one do about the absence of a Born again movement throughout much of and I would say all of Church history till the current day?

It is revealing how Catholics can find prayer to created in Beings in Heaven despite there not being one single one among the over 200 prayers by believers the Holy Spirit inspired the recording of, but for which they extrapolate support for based upon principal, yet they cannot see the born again movement in Scripture based upon the principal of reaction to religion without regeneration.

For the latter was exactly what the issue was in John 3, a devout religionist being told he must be born again of the Spirit. And which we see in Scripture on response to believing the gospel (see my previous post above).

And thus, faced with institutionalized religion, then just as emphasis upon Trinitiarian religion came to be expressly emphasized in response to Arianism, so emphasis upon regeneration by faith come to be emphasized by the likes of George Whitefield, (1714 – 1770) thanks be to God.

 

[Hillsage]

From the apostles

Why do you say the cannon was decided by the apostles? My brief research seems to indicate that, when the 'Canon' was decided, may have even came as late as the 5th century, depending upon differing sources. But the Protestant Canon, which we know differs from the Catholic Canon, even received resistance from Martin Luther, because he had a big problem with the theology problems of the book of James being added to the Protestant bible.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Why do you say the cannon was decided by the apostles? My brief research seems to indicate that, when the 'Canon' was decided, may have even came as late as the 5th century, depending upon differing sources. But the Protestant Canon, which we know differs from the Catholic Canon, even received resistance from Martin Luther, because he had a big problem with the theology problems of the book of James being added to the Protestant bible.

In general, I would suggest more education on the issue other than what you seem to have from sources such as "Catholic Answers." See, by God's grace,
Supplement C: The Canon and the Apocrypha
and even more in depth,
Luther and the Canon of Scripture

 

[Cis.jd]

Why do you say the cannon was decided by the apostles? My brief research seems to indicate that, when the 'Canon' was decided, may have even came as late as the 5th century, depending upon differing sources. But the Protestant Canon, which we know differs from the Catholic Canon, even received resistance from Martin Luther, because he had a big problem with the theology problems of the book of James being added to the Protestant bible.

He's not saying the canon was decided. He's answering the question in regards to Irenaeus.

 

[redleghunter]

Does critical here mean necessary or extremely important? There is a difference and I can't imagine any Evangelical or adherrent to the modern born again theology believing Church communion is just as necessary as faith in Christ.

Critical to growth of both the Christian and fellowship of other church members.