what if we are born again?

[artjack]

if one of us feels we are born again, do we need to get baptised again for example and go through the sacrements again? or is the first time enough?

 

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

First time is enough.

Catholics can have conversion experiences throughout their lives, but it does not means their baptism was invalid, even if they never lived up to their baptism beforehand.

It might be a nice idea to get one's baptismal vows renewed though. And of course one should go to confession.

 

[artjack]

if one of us feels we are born again, do we need to get baptised again for example and go through the sacrements again? or is the first time enough?

I dont want to convert though, I am happy enough being catholic, I am pretty open to others like I have listened to billy graham on tv, talking to an old wise cannon for blessing etc, billy graham said not to change anyway but I had an experience & a low point in my life where I felt I got proof of God and became born again, thank you.

 

[Febe]

As Christians, we´re supposed to be re-born in Spirit... But we´re not supposed to re-baptized...

Let´s pray about the Holy Spirit! It´s Pentecoast!

 

[artjack]

As Christians, we´re supposed to be re-born in Spirit... But we´re not supposed to re-baptized...

Let´s pray about the Holy Spirit! It´s Pentecoast!

ok, I know what being born again means, thats what I mean. thank you.

why are we not supposed to be re baptised? is it forbidden?

 

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

I prefer the term "reawakening", it avoids unnecessary confusion.

 

[Febe]

ok, I know what being born again means, thats what I mean. thank you.

why are we not supposed to be re baptised? is it forbidden?

Yes! Baptizm is a once-in-life happening...

I prefer the term "reawakening", it avoids unnecessary confusion.

Ah...Well... But Jesus talked about being born again by Spirit and water...

And in early Church, "baptizm" in Holy Spirit used to follow the baptizm in water... and it´s Pentecoast! So let´s pray about this in church!

 

[NewMan99]

Hello artjack,


I am very glad you decided to ask these questions. I recently wrote an article on the topic of "born again" and baptism.


For your benefit I am copying it below. I hope it helps shed some light for you:

BORN AGAIN – THE BIBLICAL WAY​

Are you “born again”??? That is one of the most commonly asked questions whenever an Evangelical meets a Catholic. A typical response from a Catholic will be their eyes glazing over; a few stammering mumbled words, and a quick change of the subject. The question does not make much sense to a Catholic…the phrase itself is not really in the Catholic lexicon.


The problem here is that Evangelicals and Catholics are defining the phrase "born again" two entirely different ways.


To an Evangelical the phrase means "to have a conversion experience" in which someone commits their very being to Christ. And in making that interior conversion they oftentimes, in keeping with the traditions of Evangelical churches, will say the "Sinners Prayer" in which they publicly confess their repentance from sin and their acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior.


A Catholic will wholeheartedly agree that in order to be saved a person MUST have an interior conversion to Christ. A person MUST also repent of their sins and make Christ their Lord and Savior. So Catholics and Evangelicals can agree on that aspect of salvation.


But...to Catholics the phrase "born again" means something other than having a conversion experience.


In fact, if you read much history you will quickly discover that it was only in the last couple of centuries that ANYONE ever connected a conversion experience to the phrase "born again." It is the observation of this writer that Evangelicals hijacked that term and redefined it.


Ever since the Apostolic era the phrase "born again" was always applied to the concept of baptismal regeneration. That is the unanimous witness of the Early Church (For evidence to back this up please see this link: born again). But since most Evangelicals do not believe that we are regenerated through baptism, they sought a new meaning to the biblical phrase. And hence they began, less than two centuries ago, to apply the term to a conversion experience.


So this begs the obvious question: What is a Christian? Well...a Christian is someone who is joined by grace to Christ. All Christians can agree on that. So now the next question becomes: How does one enter into the New Covenant and so be joined by grace to Christ?


And here we can look to Scripture to give us the answer. All Christians (both Catholic and non-Catholic alike) believe that the Old Covenant foreshadowed the New Covenant. We agree that the Old points to something that is Reality in the New. For example...the rite of circumcision was how one entered into the Old Covenant. Nobody disagrees with that. When a person (usually when they were eight days old unless the individual was a Gentile convert to Judaism) was circumcised they were then joined into the covenantal family of God.


So, if circumcision foreshadows something in the New Covenant…what was it?


According to St. Paul, in Col 2:11-12, circumcision was replaced with Baptism in the New Covenant:


11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.


And so we can see that Christians are circumcised in a special way: in the circumcision of Christ when we are buried with Him in baptism.
Therefore, circumcision foreshadowed baptism. And if that is the case then it follows that whereas one entered into the Old Covenant via circumcision one now enters into the New Covenant via baptism. And this fits perfectly with the passage cited above. For St. Paul is telling his readers that in baptism we are "buried WITH Christ" so that when God "raised" Him from the dead we too (meaning those who were first buried with Him in baptism) can rise AGAIN.


This theme is also seen quite clearly in Romans 6:4 in which St. Paul says:


"We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."


And here we can see that a person who is born physically alive but spiritually fallen and dead can be regenerated into new life. How? By being baptized INTO the death of Christ - by being mysteriously joined to Him in death - so that by the power of the Father through the working of the Holy Spirit - when Christ is raised from the dead we too will rise WITH Him into "newness of life."


Newness of life = born again. Get the connection?


Now this presents some great difficulties for Evangelicals who claim that we are born again ONLY by a conversion experience BEFORE we are baptized (a baptism only being seen as an after-the-fact symbolic-only act of obedience).


Why?


Simply stated, it is because if we are born again by our conversion experience before baptism, then it renders Paul's words as absurd.

One cannot be "born again" BEFORE one is buried into death can one? If we are born again (in a conversion experience) and then afterwards are baptized into the death of Christ (wow that second life sure was short) and then rise again in "newness of life" does that mean that we are born again - again??? Are we born a third time?


And so the term "born again" has ALWAYS meant to all Christians everywhere (until the modern era in which Evangelicals - primarily in America - hijacked the term) to refer to baptismal regeneration.

That was what Jesus was referring to when, in John 3:5, He spoke of the necessity of being born again of "water AND the spirit." That is also why Peter said that "baptism now saves" us (1 Peter 3:21).

Simply stated, we are saved ONLY by the grace we receive in the New Covenant and the New Covenant is entered into via baptism. * See Footnote below.


All that being said, we are NOT saying that if we are baptized that we are therefore automatically saved no matter what. No. For we also teach that those of us old enough to know and understand the Lord - and hence old enough to actually sin and rupture our relationship with God - we MUST also be conformed to Christ. We MUST be interiorly converted to Christ. We must repent of our sins and we must walk in His footsteps making Him our personal Lord and Savior.


And so both Catholics and Evangelicals agree that we must be converted and we must be born again...but how it is that we define the phrase itself is under dispute in this modern era.


So, are baptized Catholics “born again”? Yes. Are they saved merely by their baptism even if they have not converted their lives to Christ? No. Both are necessary to salvation.


Our Lord Jesus Christ, in Mark 16:16, said as much when He said this:


“He who believes and is baptized will be saved…”


Faith AND baptism are both necessary, no matter in what order they manifest themselves.

Amen.


* Footnote: This is ordinarily through Sacramental Baptism via the direct ministry of the Church, but, in extraordinary circumstances, one can also be baptized in a non-sacramental manner that is mysterious to us via "The baptism of desire" (the Good Thief would have desired baptism if he had been allowed) or "The baptism of blood" (some of the Christian martyrs went to their deaths without having been sacramentally baptized). In such cases Jesus Himself will baptize those whom the Church cannot even though sacramental baptism through the ministry of the Church is the norm and the expressed design of Christ.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[thereselittleflower]

if one of us feels we are born again, do we need to get baptised again for example and go through the sacrements again? or is the first time enough?

If you were baptixzed in the Trinitarian formula, you were born again then.

But you can experience profound conversion that Protestants tend to label being born again, but that isn't what it is. It is conversion back to God.

It was because of my confusion about this in highschool and accepting the Protestant interpretation of my conversion expeireince, that I thought I had been born again for the first time. . . I didn't understand what had actually happened. So I became protestant for over 30 years.


There is only one baptism for the remission of sins. It cannot be repeated.





Peace

 

[artjack]

Hello artjack,


I am very glad you decided to ask these questions. I recently wrote an article on the topic of "born again" and baptism.


For your benefit I am copying it below. I hope it helps shed some light for you:

BORN AGAIN – THE BIBLICAL WAY​

Are you “born again”??? That is one of the most commonly asked questions whenever an Evangelical meets a Catholic. A typical response from a Catholic will be their eyes glazing over; a few stammering mumbled words, and a quick change of the subject. The question does not make much sense to a Catholic…the phrase itself is not really in the Catholic lexicon.


The problem here is that Evangelicals and Catholics are defining the phrase "born again" two entirely different ways.


To an Evangelical the phrase means "to have a conversion experience" in which someone commits their very being to Christ. And in making that interior conversion they oftentimes, in keeping with the traditions of Evangelical churches, will say the "Sinners Prayer" in which they publicly confess their repentance from sin and their acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior.


A Catholic will wholeheartedly agree that in order to be saved a person MUST have an interior conversion to Christ. A person MUST also repent of their sins and make Christ their Lord and Savior. So Catholics and Evangelicals can agree on that aspect of salvation.


But...to Catholics the phrase "born again" means something other than having a conversion experience.


In fact, if you read much history you will quickly discover that it was only in the last couple of centuries that ANYONE ever connected a conversion experience to the phrase "born again." It is the observation of this writer that Evangelicals hijacked that term and redefined it.


Ever since the Apostolic era the phrase "born again" was always applied to the concept of baptismal regeneration. That is the unanimous witness of the Early Church (For evidence to back this up please see this link: born again). But since most Evangelicals do not believe that we are regenerated through baptism, they sought a new meaning to the biblical phrase. And hence they began, less than two centuries ago, to apply the term to a conversion experience.


So this begs the obvious question: What is a Christian? Well...a Christian is someone who is joined by grace to Christ. All Christians can agree on that. So now the next question becomes: How does one enter into the New Covenant and so be joined by grace to Christ?


And here we can look to Scripture to give us the answer. All Christians (both Catholic and non-Catholic alike) believe that the Old Covenant foreshadowed the New Covenant. We agree that the Old points to something that is Reality in the New. For example...the rite of circumcision was how one entered into the Old Covenant. Nobody disagrees with that. When a person (usually when they were eight days old unless the individual was a Gentile convert to Judaism) was circumcised they were then joined into the covenantal family of God.


So, if circumcision foreshadows something in the New Covenant…what was it?


According to St. Paul, in Col 2:11-12, circumcision was replaced with Baptism in the New Covenant:


11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.


And so we can see that Christians are circumcised in a special way: in the circumcision of Christ when we are buried with Him in baptism.
Therefore, circumcision foreshadowed baptism. And if that is the case then it follows that whereas one entered into the Old Covenant via circumcision one now enters into the New Covenant via baptism. And this fits perfectly with the passage cited above. For St. Paul is telling his readers that in baptism we are "buried WITH Christ" so that when God "raised" Him from the dead we too (meaning those who were first buried with Him in baptism) can rise AGAIN.


This theme is also seen quite clearly in Romans 6:4 in which St. Paul says:


"We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."


And here we can see that a person who is born physically alive but spiritually fallen and dead can be regenerated into new life. How? By being baptized INTO the death of Christ - by being mysteriously joined to Him in death - so that by the power of the Father through the working of the Holy Spirit - when Christ is raised from the dead we too will rise WITH Him into "newness of life."


Newness of life = born again. Get the connection?


Now this presents some great difficulties for Evangelicals who claim that we are born again ONLY by a conversion experience BEFORE we are baptized (a baptism only being seen as an after-the-fact symbolic-only act of obedience).


Why?


Simply stated, it is because if we are born again by our conversion experience before baptism, then it renders Paul's words as absurd.

One cannot be "born again" BEFORE one is buried into death can one? If we are born again (in a conversion experience) and then afterwards are baptized into the death of Christ (wow that second life sure was short) and then rise again in "newness of life" does that mean that we are born again - again??? Are we born a third time?


And so the term "born again" has ALWAYS meant to all Christians everywhere (until the modern era in which Evangelicals - primarily in America - hijacked the term) to refer to baptismal regeneration.

That was what Jesus was referring to when, in John 3:5, He spoke of the necessity of being born again of "water AND the spirit." That is also why Peter said that "baptism now saves" us (1 Peter 3:21).

Simply stated, we are saved ONLY by the grace we receive in the New Covenant and the New Covenant is entered into via baptism. * See Footnote below.


All that being said, we are NOT saying that if we are baptized that we are therefore automatically saved no matter what. No. For we also teach that those of us old enough to know and understand the Lord - and hence old enough to actually sin and rupture our relationship with God - we MUST also be conformed to Christ. We MUST be interiorly converted to Christ. We must repent of our sins and we must walk in His footsteps making Him our personal Lord and Savior.


And so both Catholics and Evangelicals agree that we must be converted and we must be born again...but how it is that we define the phrase itself is under dispute in this modern era.


So, are baptized Catholics “born again”? Yes. Are they saved merely by their baptism even if they have not converted their lives to Christ? No. Both are necessary to salvation.


Our Lord Jesus Christ, in Mark 16:16, said as much when He said this:


“He who believes and is baptized will be saved…”


Faith AND baptism are both necessary, no matter in what order they manifest themselves.

Amen.


* Footnote: This is ordinarily through Sacramental Baptism via the direct ministry of the Church, but, in extraordinary circumstances, one can also be baptized in a non-sacramental manner that is mysterious to us via "The baptism of desire" (the Good Thief would have desired baptism if he had been allowed) or "The baptism of blood" (some of the Christian martyrs went to their deaths without having been sacramentally baptized). In such cases Jesus Himself will baptize those whom the Church cannot even though sacramental baptism through the ministry of the Church is the norm and the expressed design of Christ.

God's Peace,

NewMan

thank you, thats great, are we in the catholic church angred or jelous at this difference in both?it sounds abit to me. and if so why? or do we ignore it? I mean I dont see the difference in good christian leaders,? I talked to a cannon and he gave blessings & listened to billy graham & he done the teaching of how easy it was to do, but it was myself & the spirit who done the rest. I never heard much teaching about this in the catholic church but it helped me in my life. I dont see myself anything other than belonging to catholic church. Its all gods teaching to me.

 

[Tonks]

It might be a nice idea to get one's baptismal vows renewed though.

We do.

It's called "Easter Vigil" and all should attend. Every year.

 

[Febe]

We do.

It's called "Easter Vigil" and all should attend. Every year.

Yes! Besides, every time that I cross myself with the holy water, I confirm that I belong to Jesus through baptism!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Everytime we partake in the Eucharist, we renew our baptismal vows.



Peace

 

[NewMan99]

thank you, thats great, are we in the catholic church angred or jelous at this difference in both?it sounds abit to me. and if so why? or do we ignore it? I mean I dont see the difference in good christian leaders,? I talked to a cannon and he gave blessings & listened to billy graham & he done the teaching of how easy it was to do, but it was myself & the spirit who done the rest. I never heard much teaching about this in the catholic church but it helped me in my life. I dont see myself anything other than belonging to catholic church. Its all gods teaching to me.

I don't think that we're either jealous (jealous of what? That we have the Truth?) or angry. Mainly we feel saddened that there is division in the Body of Christ.

Yes - there are good people in almost all churches - but it is not all "God's teaching." Why not? Because some of the things that some Protestants teach are contradictory to what other Protestants teach. They cannot all be right - hence it cannot all be God's teaching.

What can we do about it? Well...we can preserve and protect the language. We must never surrender the term "born again" to mean anything other than what the Bible and the Apostolic Deposit of Faith says that it is: that is to say the term refers exclusively to Baptismal Regeneration. When well-meaning Evangelicals - who are very devout Christians whom I love dearly as my brothers and sisters in Christ - when they speak of being "born again" we don't need to argue with them about it...but...that being said...we MUST NOT start using the term in the same way that they do. Rather, we should speak of being converted daily - of turning to Christ at all times. That is not being "born again" (if it is, then the Bible would call it that) - it is being converted...which is supposed to happen DAILY.

Language is important - we should not forget that being born again is something that happens at baptism - not something that happens when we are converted to Christ.


God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Protinus]

I dont want to convert though, I am happy enough being catholic, I am pretty open to others like I have listened to billy graham on tv, talking to an old wise cannon for blessing etc, billy graham said not to change anyway but I had an experience & a low point in my life where I felt I got proof of God and became born again, thank you.

It is still inspiring to listen to him.

 

[artjack]

It is still inspiring to listen to him.

yes I think so, the bible says if you find a wise man, to wear out his door step by visiting, listening & learning. he is a very wise man, & so is the old cannon I talked to. It is hard to understand unless you realise ones fear, sins & despare at the time.

 

[artjack]

I don't think that we're either jealous (jealous of what? That we have the Truth?) or angry. Mainly we feel saddened that there is division in the Body of Christ.

Yes - there are good people in almost all churches - but it is not all "God's teaching." Why not? Because some of the things that some Protestants teach are contradictory to what other Protestants teach. They cannot all be right - hence it cannot all be God's teaching.

What can we do about it? Well...we can preserve and protect the language. We must never surrender the term "born again" to mean anything other than what the Bible and the Apostolic Deposit of Faith says that it is: that is to say the term refers exclusively to Baptismal Regeneration. When well-meaning Evangelicals - who are very devout Christians whom I love dearly as my brothers and sisters in Christ - when they speak of being "born again" we don't need to argue with them about it...but...that being said...we MUST NOT start using the term in the same way that they do. Rather, we should speak of being converted daily - of turning to Christ at all times. That is not being "born again" (if it is, then the Bible would call it that) - it is being converted...which is supposed to happen DAILY.

Language is important - we should not forget that being born again is something that happens at baptism - not something that happens when we are converted to Christ.


God's Peace,

NewMan

I dont think corverion discribes what I went through, I did not convert my religion or feel converted, the old self in me had gone like in a death & I had a new spirit, I had a new feeling of life, I even got thrush in my throat & when I went to the doctor, he told me what it was & I asked him what is that & he said its what new born babies get! I was amazed, but I was still a catholic, He just helped me.Its nothing to be afraid off I think, I am much happier now. is this a problem as such? It helped me live & things fell into place for me.

 

[Adammi]

I dont think corverion discribes what I went through, I did not convert my religion or feel converted, the old self in me had gone like in a death & I had a new spirit, I had a new feeling of life, I even got thrush in my throat & when I went to the doctor, he told me what it was & I asked him what is that & he said its what new born babies get! I was amazed, but I was still a catholic, He just helped me.Its nothing to be afraid off I think, I am much happier now. is this a problem as such? It helped me live & things fell into place for me.

Yes, this all points back to language usage.
By conversion he doesn NOT mean converting to Catholicism or Baptistism or Pentecostalism or any other ism. Conversion has a much more important meaning.

We are all called to a personal conversion. What is meant by that is that every single day when we wake up we choose to stop following after the flesh and pick up our cross and follow Christ daily. Throughout this whole thread that is what people have meant by conversion. That's one of the problems with English, we use the same words to mean different things.

So basically what everyone is saying is this, when you were baptized you were born again. That's what being "born again" has always meant, synonomous with baptism. You were born again when you were baptized and that can never be repeated (1 lord, 1 faith, 1 baptism). However throughout the course of life we all allow sin to come into our life and we are in need of (here's that word again) conversion. So what you experienced was not being born again, though Prots do call it that, you experienced personal conversion.

Hope that helps.

 

[NewMan99]

Yes, this all points back to language usage.
By conversion he doesn NOT mean converting to Catholicism or Baptistism or Pentecostalism or any other ism. Conversion has a much more important meaning.

We are all called to a personal conversion. What is meant by that is that every single day when we wake up we choose to stop following after the flesh and pick up our cross and follow Christ daily. Throughout this whole thread that is what people have meant by conversion. That's one of the problems with English, we use the same words to mean different things.

So basically what everyone is saying is this, when you were baptized you were born again. That's what being "born again" has always meant, synonomous with baptism. You were born again when you were baptized and that can never be repeated (1 lord, 1 faith, 1 baptism). However throughout the course of life we all allow sin to come into our life and we are in need of (here's that word again) conversion. So what you experienced was not being born again, though Prots do call it that, you experienced personal conversion.

Hope that helps.

Yes - that's exactly right.

 

[NewMan99]

Hi Artjack,

I dont think corverion discribes what I went through, I did not convert my religion or feel converted, the old self in me had gone like in a death & I had a new spirit, I had a new feeling of life,....

And that is precisely what I mean by "conversion" - your life was changed. You changed from being centered on yourself and began to turn to God. THAT is conversion...and we must convert ourselves daily.

You are defining conversion to mean to change from one religion to another...and indeed sometimes that is the right definition. However, in this case, I do not mean to change religions, but rather to change one's relationship with God. We must convert daily (to God) - I am not suggesting that we must change religions daily.

I even got thrush in my throat & when I went to the doctor, he told me what it was & I asked him what is that & he said its what new born babies get! I was amazed, but I was still a catholic, He just helped me.Its nothing to be afraid off I think, I am much happier now. is this a problem as such? It helped me live & things fell into place for me.

No - that is not a problem. It is a wonderful thing to feel God's breath...I love getting "Holy Ghost Goosebumps." And yes - I too enjoy watching Billy Graham...I have much respect for him (even though I wish he'd become Catholic).

So there is *ordinarily* nothing wrong with Catholics watching men like Graham as long as one is already strong in one's Catholic faith. In that way you can gain the benefit of being uplifted by his words, but not be tempted to leave the Church. That being said, I would rather see an on-fire Evangelical Christian than a luke-warm Catholic...I am glad you enjoy Graham AND also stayed with the Church...

God's Peace,

NewMan