Can a orthodox or catholic be a born again Christian?

[buttercup]

John 3 says it all. You must be born again. Jesus repeats that 2 or 3 times, and states it emphatically. Most Catholics I know (and I was raised Catholic, so I have a Catholic mom + relatives) don't understand salvation and some even seem opposed to the idea of being born again. Which boggles my mind, as Jesus clearly stated it is absolutely necessary.

Huh? Like toes and feet "Salvation" is just a fact of life; one is not ASSURED of course (at the risk of committing the sin of presumption) until Judgement is passed after death. Can't fool God even if we can fool ourselves.

Greg

Your first sentence "is just a fact of life" almost sounds like you believe everyone gets saved...that is not biblical. I'm sorry but I disagree with your beliefs. No religious ceremony is going to save someone. Especially an infant being baptized, who has zero idea what is going on. Being born again is not a church ceremony, where many people at that age (confirmation) are just going through the motions because their parents dragged them to church. It's infinitely more than that.

I did a video having to do with this topic, maybe I'll share it here if anyone wants to see it.

Can't fool God, Ma'am. It's not the action but the movement of the Holy Spirit. A look at the theology of the Church explains it better than I can. That's why I don't do Apologomenas on talk boards. But if you were interested you would have examined the Church's teaching on it and not gone on hearsay and generlisations. I challenge you to check it out with the Holy Spirit to guide you. That usually does it. Oh: and I do refer to Aquinas on this.

Article 1. Whether Baptism is the mere washing?

Objection 1. It seems that Baptism is not the mere washing. For the washing of the body is something transitory: but Baptism is something permanent. Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is it "the regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the enlightenment," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv).

Objection 2. Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii) that "Baptism is water sanctified by God's word for the blotting out of sins." But the washing itself is not water, but a certain use of water.

Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Now, the element is the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the washing.

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 34:30): "He that washeth himself [baptizatur] after touching the dead, if he touch him again, what does his washing avail?" It seems, therefore, that Baptism is the washing or bathing.

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be considered: namely, that which is "sacrament only"; that which is "reality and sacrament"; and that which is "reality only." That which is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign, namely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived by the sense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence some have thought that the water itself is the sacrament: which seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from Hugh of St. Victor. For in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it is "a material element": and in defining Baptism he says it is "water."

But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect a certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed where the sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed in water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue, not permanent but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is the subject of true sanctification. Consequently the sacrament is not completed in the very water, but in applying the water to man, i.e. in the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words."

The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this sacrament—namely, the reality signified and not signifying.

Reply to Objection 1. That which is both sacrament and reality—i.e. the character—and that which is reality only—i.e. the inward justification—remain: the character remains and is indelible, as stated above (III:63:5); the justification remains, but can be lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is done outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is inward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the character—namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned, safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament—namely, "regeneration" which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and "enlightenment," which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habakkuk 2 (Hebrews 10:38; cf. Habakkuk 2:4): "But (My) just man liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the "Sacrament of Faith." Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is "the principle that forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments"; and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is the universal end of all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom"; and again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration."

Reply to Objection 2. As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St. Victor on this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying that "Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the material principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal predication."

Reply to Objection 3. When the words are added, the element becomes a sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element is applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by those very words which are added to the element, when we say: "I baptize thee," etc.

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The sacrament of Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 66)

To my understanding Baptism is not to do so much with the action of Man but with the Grace of God. One must remember that, without Faith, no sacrament comes to fulfillment. It is a fact that, with regard to myself, there was no single "road to Damascus" experience. I have always accepted the reality of Christ, first as a child, and later , well, still as a child. salvation through Christ has just always been a fact to me. As a consequence later in life I became more aware of the Movement of the Spirit in my life. Again no blinding flash but just a deep realisation that Jesus IS Lord and Savior and that the Holy Spirit IS; both leading to the Father. Now ask me to explain the Trinity and I cannot; three folds in one blanket is as good as any but as it is a Mystery I simply stand in awe and accept in faith.

Now you were suggesting that a quick dip and oiling were somewhat superficial?? lol

Greg

I re-read your post, and then I deleted my reply to you from a little earlier. I'm going to reply again, now that I read your post again.

That's good, if it is taught that faith is necessary to go along with the ceremony. then the question must be asked, is it your belief that the ceremony is necessary? What exactly is that faith in?

ETA: I grew up going to Catholic church, I went through all of it... first communion, confirmation, etc. And as far as I can remember, no one ever taught me that faith must accompany those sacraments. Also, no one ever told me to read the bible, and no one even talked to me about my need for salvation at all. It just wasn't talked about, in my experience.

The reason I bring this up is because while what you're saying sounds good... I think there are probably tons of people who went through those sacraments without a true faith and an understanding of one's spiritual condition and without having a true change of mind/heart. And there are probably many people who counted on those sacraments as what "saved" them, which is a false belief.

 

[ESay]

You do realize that Jesus is a Jew, right?

Christians are effectively a sect of Judaism.

And what in common is between them? Hardly too much. Christianity might be a branch of Judaism if it hadn't chosen illogical idea of Jesus' divinity in the first place.

 

[LittleNipper]

Does anyone know the difference between a Catholic and a Baptist?

Catholics pray to intercessors...not always the lord. This is blasphemy.

Ridiculous! Catholics ask those that were what you call saved, to pray for them.... they are not asking the saints to save them or treating them like they are gods....

It is like all the prayers Republicans send out for those mothers and fathers who lost their child in a school shooting.... they "send their prayers", through asking Christians to pray for them.... are you saying THAT is BLASPHEMY?

Or do you believe the saints are DEAD after death and can't pray for anyone... like your fellow Christians would send out prayers for you?

And what makes you believe they can hear your prayers from heaven? Where in the Bible does it say that departed saints hear and pray for those who so beseech them. I mean, I can imagine that a saint who dies may ask GOD for help for those he left behind. However, that is a far cry from imagining that Christians who have died have a permanent connection with everyone on Earth. I believe such a notion is a TRADITION invented by man.

 

[LittleNipper]

Sounds like a bunch of Jew speak to me.

You do realize that Jesus is a Jew, right?

Christians are effectively a sect of Judaism.

You effectively have no idea what you are talking about.

How so?

How is this any different than Buddhism and Hinduism?

Buddhism is effectively a sect of Hinduism.

Those people are going to hell.
Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism.

Buddhists are atheists...Hindus are Henotheistic.

Buddha was born a Hindu. However, Hinduism and Buddhism, as Christianity and Judaism DRASTICALLY diverge on many core concepts.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

Jesus was/is the expected Messiah. He didn't reform Judaism, He fulfilled it.

 

[LittleNipper]

How so?

How is this any different than Buddhism and Hinduism?

Buddhism is effectively a sect of Hinduism.

Those people are going to hell.
Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism.

Buddhists are atheists...Hindus are Henotheistic.

Buddha was born a Hindu. However, Hinduism and Buddhism, as Christianity and Judaism DRASTICALLY diverge on many core concepts.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

No...he was not a reformer of Hinduism. He was a single man on his search to end his suffering. He wanted to end the cycle of samsara. He was interested in any capacity in 'reforming' Hinduism.
Buddhism is simply his way, his truths as he found them. Buddha was a teacher, and a truth seeker.

Did he ever teach there was no God?

Buddha taught the four noble truths. He taught the eight noble precepts. He also taught that his system worked for him. However, if his system does not work for you and you do not find truths in it...then reject it.
He also taught that no man should have faith or believe in anything that was told to him. He should seek his own truths and seek his own way.
It's all in the dhammapada.

How so?

How is this any different than Buddhism and Hinduism?

Buddhism is effectively a sect of Hinduism.

Those people are going to hell.
Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism.

Buddhists are atheists...Hindus are Henotheistic.

Buddha was born a Hindu. However, Hinduism and Buddhism, as Christianity and Judaism DRASTICALLY diverge on many core concepts.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

No...he was not a reformer of Hinduism. He was a single man on his search to end his suffering. He wanted to end the cycle of samsara. He was interested in any capacity in 'reforming' Hinduism.
Buddhism is simply his way, his truths as he found them. Buddha was a teacher, and a truth seeker.

Did he ever teach there was no God?

Buddha taught the four noble truths. He taught the eight noble precepts. He also taught that his system worked for him. However, if his system does not work for you and you do not find truths in it...then reject it.
He also taught that no man should have faith or believe in anything that was told to him. He should seek his own truths and seek his own way.
It's all in the dhammapada.

How so?

How is this any different than Buddhism and Hinduism?

Buddhism is effectively a sect of Hinduism.

Those people are going to hell.
Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism.

Buddhists are atheists...Hindus are Henotheistic.

Buddha was born a Hindu. However, Hinduism and Buddhism, as Christianity and Judaism DRASTICALLY diverge on many core concepts.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

No...he was not a reformer of Hinduism. He was a single man on his search to end his suffering. He wanted to end the cycle of samsara. He was interested in any capacity in 'reforming' Hinduism.
Buddhism is simply his way, his truths as he found them. Buddha was a teacher, and a truth seeker.

Did he ever teach there was no God?

Buddha taught the four noble truths. He taught the eight noble precepts. He also taught that his system worked for him. However, if his system does not work for you and you do not find truths in it...then reject it.
He also taught that no man should have faith or believe in anything that was told to him. He should seek his own truths and seek his own way.
It's all in the dhammapada.

How so?

How is this any different than Buddhism and Hinduism?

Buddhism is effectively a sect of Hinduism.

Those people are going to hell.
Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism.

Buddhists are atheists...Hindus are Henotheistic.

Buddha was born a Hindu. However, Hinduism and Buddhism, as Christianity and Judaism DRASTICALLY diverge on many core concepts.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

No...he was not a reformer of Hinduism. He was a single man on his search to end his suffering. He wanted to end the cycle of samsara. He was interested in any capacity in 'reforming' Hinduism.
Buddhism is simply his way, his truths as he found them. Buddha was a teacher, and a truth seeker.

Did he ever teach there was no God?

Buddha taught the four noble truths. He taught the eight noble precepts. He also taught that his system worked for him. However, if his system does not work for you and you do not find truths in it...then reject it.
He also taught that no man should have faith or believe in anything that was told to him. He should seek his own truths and seek his own way.
It's all in the dhammapada.

Romans 3:10-12
10As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one. 11There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.…

 

[ding]

Does anyone know the difference between a Catholic and a Baptist?

Catholics pray to intercessors...not always the lord. This is blasphemy.

Ridiculous! Catholics ask those that were what you call saved, to pray for them.... they are not asking the saints to save them or treating them like they are gods....

It is like all the prayers Republicans send out for those mothers and fathers who lost their child in a school shooting.... they "send their prayers", through asking Christians to pray for you.... are you saying THAT is BLASPHEMY?

Or do you believe the saints are DEAD after death and can't pray for anyone... like your fellow Christians would send out prayers for you?

They are praying to idols. This is blasphemous. You cannot pray to God and man.

Sorry, you got it all wrong.... they are asking saints, like Mary, to PRAY to God FOR THEM.... as you would ask a fellow Christian to pray for you....

Are you actually saying that when you ask fellow Christians to pray to God for you, that this is blasphemous?

pffft...whatever...lol...
They are speaking to demons unless they are speaking to the LORD. Foul demon magic.

Stop being silly.

 

[ding]

Not all Buddhist are atheists. I don’t even believe it is close.

True...but Buddhism does not require a God...Hinduism does.
However, you will find most Buddhists would not find a reason to worship a God. A God simply does not play into the schemata.

How do you define worship?

Commitment, devotion, and adoration of/for an omnipotent deity.

How do you do that?

 

[LittleNipper]

Why do Christians argue with each other so much? I guess this gives them something to do. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Evangelicals are all Christian, so what's the fuss? I've just been wondering for years what happened to the teachings of Jesus, which seem to have disappeared despite the fact that his name gets bandied about a lot.

In my experience IRL it isn't like that at all. Even when I was involved with an inter-denominational international missions organization, there was almost no arguing, in fact usually the atmosphere was joyful and cooperative. The arguing is usually between Catholics and Christians, and that is because when people are believing unbiblical doctrines, it is imperative to address that. It's important because in some cases it involves the fate of one's soul, and that is not something to be casually brushed aside.

Catholics ARE Christians. So are Eastern Orthodox. There's your problem. What is your denomination?

I knew you were going to say that. That wasn’t my claim, I just quickly phrased it that way in order to differentiate Catholics from non-Catholics. That said, Catholic or non-Catholic, regardless of what denomination one belongs to, one still has to be saved, or else you’re just going through the motions, and that is not much different than a non-Christian. And my earlier point was that Jesus made it super clear, you must be born again. That is what salvation is!

This "saved" thing is part of your denomination, your specific theology in whatever Christian group you belong to. From what I've seen of the "saved" in the last few years, the entire thing is bogus since the "born agains" neither uphold the teachings of Jesus or seek to carry them out. It's some evangelical stuff led by frankie graham or focus on the family or somebody. It's your sect. Nobody else has to join it. It's not up to you to define the Christian faith.

I think that the country and the world might benefit from public readings of the Sermon on the Mount.

Why do Christians argue with each other so much? I guess this gives them something to do. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Evangelicals are all Christian, so what's the fuss? I've just been wondering for years what happened to the teachings of Jesus, which seem to have disappeared despite the fact that his name gets bandied about a lot.

In my experience IRL it isn't like that at all. Even when I was involved with an inter-denominational international missions organization, there was almost no arguing, in fact usually the atmosphere was joyful and cooperative. The arguing is usually between Catholics and Christians, and that is because when people are believing unbiblical doctrines, it is imperative to address that. It's important because in some cases it involves the fate of one's soul, and that is not something to be casually brushed aside.

Catholics ARE Christians. So are Eastern Orthodox. There's your problem. What is your denomination?

I knew you were going to say that. That wasn’t my claim, I just quickly phrased it that way in order to differentiate Catholics from non-Catholics. That said, Catholic or non-Catholic, regardless of what denomination one belongs to, one still has to be saved, or else you’re just going through the motions, and that is not much different than a non-Christian. And my earlier point was that Jesus made it super clear, you must be born again. That is what salvation is!

This "saved" thing is part of your denomination, your specific theology in whatever Christian group you belong to. From what I've seen of the "saved" in the last few years, the entire thing is bogus since the "born agains" neither uphold the teachings of Jesus or seek to carry them out. It's some evangelical stuff led by frankie graham or focus on the family or somebody. It's your sect. Nobody else has to join it. It's not up to you to define the Christian faith.

I think that the country and the world might benefit from public readings of the Sermon on the Mount.

Why do Christians argue with each other so much? I guess this gives them something to do. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Evangelicals are all Christian, so what's the fuss? I've just been wondering for years what happened to the teachings of Jesus, which seem to have disappeared despite the fact that his name gets bandied about a lot.

In my experience IRL it isn't like that at all. Even when I was involved with an inter-denominational international missions organization, there was almost no arguing, in fact usually the atmosphere was joyful and cooperative. The arguing is usually between Catholics and Christians, and that is because when people are believing unbiblical doctrines, it is imperative to address that. It's important because in some cases it involves the fate of one's soul, and that is not something to be casually brushed aside.

Catholics ARE Christians. So are Eastern Orthodox. There's your problem. What is your denomination?

I knew you were going to say that. That wasn’t my claim, I just quickly phrased it that way in order to differentiate Catholics from non-Catholics. That said, Catholic or non-Catholic, regardless of what denomination one belongs to, one still has to be saved, or else you’re just going through the motions, and that is not much different than a non-Christian. And my earlier point was that Jesus made it super clear, you must be born again. That is what salvation is!

This "saved" thing is part of your denomination, your specific theology in whatever Christian group you belong to. From what I've seen of the "saved" in the last few years, the entire thing is bogus since the "born agains" neither uphold the teachings of Jesus or seek to carry them out. It's some evangelical stuff led by frankie graham or focus on the family or somebody. It's your sect. Nobody else has to join it. It's not up to you to define the Christian faith.

I think that the country and the world might benefit from public readings of the Sermon on the Mount.

John Chapter 3:1-21

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.7 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him. 18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out through God.”

 

[Natural Citizen]

It sounds like your heart is in the right place, but praying to saints (asking dead saints to pray for you) is completely unbiblical. Several years ago I wrote a blog post on this topic, I’ll look for it and post it a little later.

Actually, here it is: Praying to Saints - Truth or Tradition?

You shoulda made a new topic for that. That's one of your best presentations. But whuteva.

Wait, nm, I thought it was your salvation by works one. Sorry. Disregard. Ha.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Those people are going to hell.
Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism.

Buddhists are atheists...Hindus are Henotheistic.

Buddha was born a Hindu. However, Hinduism and Buddhism, as Christianity and Judaism DRASTICALLY diverge on many core concepts.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

No...he was not a reformer of Hinduism. He was a single man on his search to end his suffering. He wanted to end the cycle of samsara. He was interested in any capacity in 'reforming' Hinduism.
Buddhism is simply his way, his truths as he found them. Buddha was a teacher, and a truth seeker.

Did he ever teach there was no God?

Buddha taught the four noble truths. He taught the eight noble precepts. He also taught that his system worked for him. However, if his system does not work for you and you do not find truths in it...then reject it.
He also taught that no man should have faith or believe in anything that was told to him. He should seek his own truths and seek his own way.
It's all in the dhammapada.

Those people are going to hell.
Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism.

Buddhists are atheists...Hindus are Henotheistic.

Buddha was born a Hindu. However, Hinduism and Buddhism, as Christianity and Judaism DRASTICALLY diverge on many core concepts.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

No...he was not a reformer of Hinduism. He was a single man on his search to end his suffering. He wanted to end the cycle of samsara. He was interested in any capacity in 'reforming' Hinduism.
Buddhism is simply his way, his truths as he found them. Buddha was a teacher, and a truth seeker.

Did he ever teach there was no God?

Buddha taught the four noble truths. He taught the eight noble precepts. He also taught that his system worked for him. However, if his system does not work for you and you do not find truths in it...then reject it.
He also taught that no man should have faith or believe in anything that was told to him. He should seek his own truths and seek his own way.
It's all in the dhammapada.

Those people are going to hell.
Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism.

Buddhists are atheists...Hindus are Henotheistic.

Buddha was born a Hindu. However, Hinduism and Buddhism, as Christianity and Judaism DRASTICALLY diverge on many core concepts.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

No...he was not a reformer of Hinduism. He was a single man on his search to end his suffering. He wanted to end the cycle of samsara. He was interested in any capacity in 'reforming' Hinduism.
Buddhism is simply his way, his truths as he found them. Buddha was a teacher, and a truth seeker.

Did he ever teach there was no God?

Buddha taught the four noble truths. He taught the eight noble precepts. He also taught that his system worked for him. However, if his system does not work for you and you do not find truths in it...then reject it.
He also taught that no man should have faith or believe in anything that was told to him. He should seek his own truths and seek his own way.
It's all in the dhammapada.

Those people are going to hell.
Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism.

Buddhists are atheists...Hindus are Henotheistic.

Buddha was born a Hindu. However, Hinduism and Buddhism, as Christianity and Judaism DRASTICALLY diverge on many core concepts.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

No...he was not a reformer of Hinduism. He was a single man on his search to end his suffering. He wanted to end the cycle of samsara. He was interested in any capacity in 'reforming' Hinduism.
Buddhism is simply his way, his truths as he found them. Buddha was a teacher, and a truth seeker.

Did he ever teach there was no God?

Buddha taught the four noble truths. He taught the eight noble precepts. He also taught that his system worked for him. However, if his system does not work for you and you do not find truths in it...then reject it.
He also taught that no man should have faith or believe in anything that was told to him. He should seek his own truths and seek his own way.
It's all in the dhammapada.

Romans 3:10-12
10As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one. 11There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.…

Not all Buddhist are atheists. I don’t even believe it is close.

True...but Buddhism does not require a God...Hinduism does.
However, you will find most Buddhists would not find a reason to worship a God. A God simply does not play into the schemata.

How do you define worship?

Commitment, devotion, and adoration of/for an omnipotent deity.

How do you do that?

By worshipping the lord, his commandments, and not the world. The world is only temporary, a transient existence.

 

[Lysistrata]

Catholics ARE Christians. So are Eastern Orthodox. There's your problem. What is your denomination?

I knew you were going to say that. That wasn’t my claim, I just quickly phrased it that way in order to differentiate Catholics from non-Catholics. That said, Catholic or non-Catholic, regardless of what denomination one belongs to, one still has to be saved, or else you’re just going through the motions, and that is not much different than a non-Christian. And my earlier point was that Jesus made it super clear, you must be born again. That is what salvation is!

This "saved" thing is part of your denomination, your specific theology in whatever Christian group you belong to. From what I've seen of the "saved" in the last few years, the entire thing is bogus since the "born agains" neither uphold the teachings of Jesus or seek to carry them out. It's some evangelical stuff led by frankie graham or focus on the family or somebody. It's your sect. Nobody else has to join it. It's not up to you to define the Christian faith.

I think that the country and the world might benefit from public readings of the Sermon on the Mount.

I'm sorry, but that is blatantly incorrect and demonstrably untrue. It has nothing to do with my "denomination"...The core teachings of Christianity, regardless of denomination, include salvation. You'd have to throw out most of the bible to claim salvation is not necessary.

As for the second thing you said, about the Sermon on the Mount, I completely agree.

But you insist on referencing "salvation" in terms of your own denomination. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. do it in all kinds of ways. I think that what you are really saying is that everyone must follow the leaders of your denomination, which apparently is a denomination that believes in biblical inerrancy and infallibility. You have no idea of what occurs in the minds of people of other denominations.

No, I'm not saying people should follow my denomination (I don't even have a denomination) but what I am saying is that all churches or denominations should teach what is biblical and what is in line with the actual truth, the true intent of God. Otherwise, what is the point?

THAT is what is important, and unfortunately most churches today don't do that. And when I say that, I'm not only talking about salvation and the Catholic church, I'm talking about other issues too.

The Creator did not write the bible. No one who actually wrote what became the various books of the bible had any contact with the Creator. No one can know the "true intent" of the Creator.

I just read a piece about frankie graham, who went to Jerusalem and babbled about his "end times" thing, making it sound before the world like he represented the American People, which was absolutely appalling, disgusting, and a disgrace to the American People. Stick to your cult, denomination, and your whatever.

 

[buttercup]

It sounds like your heart is in the right place, but praying to saints (asking dead saints to pray for you) is completely unbiblical. Several years ago I wrote a blog post on this topic, I’ll look for it and post it a little later.

Actually, here it is: Praying to Saints - Truth or Tradition?

You shoulda made a new topic for that. That's one of your best presentations. But whuteva.

Wait, nm, I thought it was your salvation by works one. Sorry. Disregard. Ha.

Heheh, no worries and thanks. I wasn't sure if I should post that here or not, but if I do share it, it should probably go on a new thread, as you said. I have IRL stuff I gotta do today, so I can't do it now. And TBH, I don't know if I want to set myself up to be a target, since it will inevitably be controversial.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Heheh, no worries and thanks. I wasn't sure if I should post that here or not, but if I do share it, it should probably go on a new thread, as you said. I have IRL stuff I gotta do today, so I can't do it now. And TBH, I don't know if I want to set myself up to be a target, since it will inevitably be controversial.

You could always put it in the cdz. If it gets moved to a more hostile subby, abandon the thread.

It's a good topic and really a good video.

 

[ding]

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

No...he was not a reformer of Hinduism. He was a single man on his search to end his suffering. He wanted to end the cycle of samsara. He was interested in any capacity in 'reforming' Hinduism.
Buddhism is simply his way, his truths as he found them. Buddha was a teacher, and a truth seeker.

Did he ever teach there was no God?

Buddha taught the four noble truths. He taught the eight noble precepts. He also taught that his system worked for him. However, if his system does not work for you and you do not find truths in it...then reject it.
He also taught that no man should have faith or believe in anything that was told to him. He should seek his own truths and seek his own way.
It's all in the dhammapada.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

No...he was not a reformer of Hinduism. He was a single man on his search to end his suffering. He wanted to end the cycle of samsara. He was interested in any capacity in 'reforming' Hinduism.
Buddhism is simply his way, his truths as he found them. Buddha was a teacher, and a truth seeker.

Did he ever teach there was no God?

Buddha taught the four noble truths. He taught the eight noble precepts. He also taught that his system worked for him. However, if his system does not work for you and you do not find truths in it...then reject it.
He also taught that no man should have faith or believe in anything that was told to him. He should seek his own truths and seek his own way.
It's all in the dhammapada.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

No...he was not a reformer of Hinduism. He was a single man on his search to end his suffering. He wanted to end the cycle of samsara. He was interested in any capacity in 'reforming' Hinduism.
Buddhism is simply his way, his truths as he found them. Buddha was a teacher, and a truth seeker.

Did he ever teach there was no God?

Buddha taught the four noble truths. He taught the eight noble precepts. He also taught that his system worked for him. However, if his system does not work for you and you do not find truths in it...then reject it.
He also taught that no man should have faith or believe in anything that was told to him. He should seek his own truths and seek his own way.
It's all in the dhammapada.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

No...he was not a reformer of Hinduism. He was a single man on his search to end his suffering. He wanted to end the cycle of samsara. He was interested in any capacity in 'reforming' Hinduism.
Buddhism is simply his way, his truths as he found them. Buddha was a teacher, and a truth seeker.

Did he ever teach there was no God?

Buddha taught the four noble truths. He taught the eight noble precepts. He also taught that his system worked for him. However, if his system does not work for you and you do not find truths in it...then reject it.
He also taught that no man should have faith or believe in anything that was told to him. He should seek his own truths and seek his own way.
It's all in the dhammapada.

Romans 3:10-12
10As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one. 11There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.…

Not all Buddhist are atheists. I don’t even believe it is close.

True...but Buddhism does not require a God...Hinduism does.
However, you will find most Buddhists would not find a reason to worship a God. A God simply does not play into the schemata.

How do you define worship?

Commitment, devotion, and adoration of/for an omnipotent deity.

How do you do that?

By worshipping the lord, his commandments, and not the world. The world is only temporary, a transient existence.

We worship God by giving thanks and praise. If all one does is use words, that’s called lip service. We show our thankfulness through our actions. We give him praise through our actions. How? By treating every single thing we do as a sacred act. Otherwise we run the risk of him saying to us, I do not know you. This is also in the Bible.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

I knew you were going to say that. That wasn’t my claim, I just quickly phrased it that way in order to differentiate Catholics from non-Catholics. That said, Catholic or non-Catholic, regardless of what denomination one belongs to, one still has to be saved, or else you’re just going through the motions, and that is not much different than a non-Christian. And my earlier point was that Jesus made it super clear, you must be born again. That is what salvation is!

This "saved" thing is part of your denomination, your specific theology in whatever Christian group you belong to. From what I've seen of the "saved" in the last few years, the entire thing is bogus since the "born agains" neither uphold the teachings of Jesus or seek to carry them out. It's some evangelical stuff led by frankie graham or focus on the family or somebody. It's your sect. Nobody else has to join it. It's not up to you to define the Christian faith.

I think that the country and the world might benefit from public readings of the Sermon on the Mount.

I'm sorry, but that is blatantly incorrect and demonstrably untrue. It has nothing to do with my "denomination"...The core teachings of Christianity, regardless of denomination, include salvation. You'd have to throw out most of the bible to claim salvation is not necessary.

As for the second thing you said, about the Sermon on the Mount, I completely agree.

But you insist on referencing "salvation" in terms of your own denomination. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. do it in all kinds of ways. I think that what you are really saying is that everyone must follow the leaders of your denomination, which apparently is a denomination that believes in biblical inerrancy and infallibility. You have no idea of what occurs in the minds of people of other denominations.

No, I'm not saying people should follow my denomination (I don't even have a denomination) but what I am saying is that all churches or denominations should teach what is biblical and what is in line with the actual truth, the true intent of God. Otherwise, what is the point?

THAT is what is important, and unfortunately most churches today don't do that. And when I say that, I'm not only talking about salvation and the Catholic church, I'm talking about other issues too.

The Creator did not write the bible. No one who actually wrote what became the various books of the bible had any contact with the Creator. No one can know the "true intent" of the Creator.

I just read a piece about frankie graham, who went to Jerusalem and babbled about his "end times" thing, making it sound before the world like he represented the American People, which was absolutely appalling, disgusting, and a disgrace to the American People. Stick to your cult, denomination, and your whatever.

You know exactly zero about the apostles and the interactions they had other than the words they provided. So shut your blasphemous trap.

 

[gtopa1]

John 3 says it all. You must be born again. Jesus repeats that 2 or 3 times, and states it emphatically. Most Catholics I know (and I was raised Catholic, so I have a Catholic mom + relatives) don't understand salvation and some even seem opposed to the idea of being born again. Which boggles my mind, as Jesus clearly stated it is absolutely necessary.

Huh? Like toes and feet "Salvation" is just a fact of life; one is not ASSURED of course (at the risk of committing the sin of presumption) until Judgement is passed after death. Can't fool God even if we can fool ourselves.

Greg

Your first sentence "is just a fact of life" almost sounds like you believe everyone gets saved...that is not biblical. I'm sorry but I disagree with your beliefs. No religious ceremony is going to save someone. Especially an infant being baptized, who has zero idea what is going on. Being born again is not a church ceremony, where many people at that age (confirmation) are just going through the motions because their parents dragged them to church. It's infinitely more than that.

I did a video having to do with this topic, maybe I'll share it here if anyone wants to see it.

Can't fool God, Ma'am. It's not the action but the movement of the Holy Spirit. A look at the theology of the Church explains it better than I can. That's why I don't do Apologomenas on talk boards. But if you were interested you would have examined the Church's teaching on it and not gone on hearsay and generlisations. I challenge you to check it out with the Holy Spirit to guide you. That usually does it. Oh: and I do refer to Aquinas on this.

Article 1. Whether Baptism is the mere washing?

Objection 1. It seems that Baptism is not the mere washing. For the washing of the body is something transitory: but Baptism is something permanent. Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is it "the regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the enlightenment," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv).

Objection 2. Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii) that "Baptism is water sanctified by God's word for the blotting out of sins." But the washing itself is not water, but a certain use of water.

Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Now, the element is the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the washing.

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 34:30): "He that washeth himself [baptizatur] after touching the dead, if he touch him again, what does his washing avail?" It seems, therefore, that Baptism is the washing or bathing.

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be considered: namely, that which is "sacrament only"; that which is "reality and sacrament"; and that which is "reality only." That which is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign, namely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived by the sense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence some have thought that the water itself is the sacrament: which seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from Hugh of St. Victor. For in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it is "a material element": and in defining Baptism he says it is "water."

But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect a certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed where the sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed in water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue, not permanent but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is the subject of true sanctification. Consequently the sacrament is not completed in the very water, but in applying the water to man, i.e. in the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words."

The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this sacrament—namely, the reality signified and not signifying.

Reply to Objection 1. That which is both sacrament and reality—i.e. the character—and that which is reality only—i.e. the inward justification—remain: the character remains and is indelible, as stated above (III:63:5); the justification remains, but can be lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is done outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is inward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the character—namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned, safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament—namely, "regeneration" which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and "enlightenment," which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habakkuk 2 (Hebrews 10:38; cf. Habakkuk 2:4): "But (My) just man liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the "Sacrament of Faith." Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is "the principle that forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments"; and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is the universal end of all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom"; and again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration."

Reply to Objection 2. As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St. Victor on this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying that "Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the material principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal predication."

Reply to Objection 3. When the words are added, the element becomes a sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element is applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by those very words which are added to the element, when we say: "I baptize thee," etc.

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The sacrament of Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 66)

To my understanding Baptism is not to do so much with the action of Man but with the Grace of God. One must remember that, without Faith, no sacrament comes to fulfillment. It is a fact that, with regard to myself, there was no single "road to Damascus" experience. I have always accepted the reality of Christ, first as a child, and later , well, still as a child. salvation through Christ has just always been a fact to me. As a consequence later in life I became more aware of the Movement of the Spirit in my life. Again no blinding flash but just a deep realisation that Jesus IS Lord and Savior and that the Holy Spirit IS; both leading to the Father. Now ask me to explain the Trinity and I cannot; three folds in one blanket is as good as any but as it is a Mystery I simply stand in awe and accept in faith.

Now you were suggesting that a quick dip and oiling were somewhat superficial?? lol

Greg

I re-read your post, and then I deleted my reply to you from a little earlier. I'm going to reply again, now that I read your post again.

That's good, if it is taught that faith is necessary to go along with the ceremony. then the question must be asked, is it your belief that the ceremony is necessary? What exactly is that faith in?

ETA: I grew up going to Catholic church, I went through all of it... first communion, confirmation, etc. And as far as I can remember, no one ever taught me that faith must accompany those sacraments. Also, no one ever told me to read the bible, and no one even talked to me about my need for salvation at all. It just wasn't talked about, in my experience.

The reason I bring this up is because while what you're saying sounds good... I think there are probably tons of people who went through those sacraments without a true faith and an understanding of one's spiritual condition and without having a true change of mind/heart. And there are probably many people who counted on those sacraments as what "saved" them, which is a false belief.

We were definitely taught that FAITH was the basis of all Catholicism. Were you taught by Religious (Nuns, Brothers, Priests) or Lay people? I do admit that I dug a bit deeper; I actually listened to sermons. lol

In the hundreds of millions of Catholics who are there I am sure there are millions who haven't ta clue nor the interest to dig a little into their religion. There is a saying about growing up "in the Faith". I was fortunate that it was just always there; always my default position. That is why I call it a "fact"; it was just a part of living.

Were there times when I doubted? Not really but I did occasionally backslide. I could be a naughty boy.

Greg

 

[ding]

You do realize that Jesus is a Jew, right?

Christians are effectively a sect of Judaism.

You effectively have no idea what you are talking about.

How so?

How is this any different than Buddhism and Hinduism?

Buddhism is effectively a sect of Hinduism.

Those people are going to hell.
Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism.

Buddhists are atheists...Hindus are Henotheistic.

Buddha was born a Hindu. However, Hinduism and Buddhism, as Christianity and Judaism DRASTICALLY diverge on many core concepts.

He was a reformer of Hinduism as Jesus was a reformer of Judaism.

Jesus was/is the expected Messiah. He didn't reform Judaism, He fulfilled it.

He tried to reform it. All you have to do is look at his ministry. He first ministered to the Jews.

 

[gtopa1]

Catholics ARE Christians. So are Eastern Orthodox. There's your problem. What is your denomination?

I knew you were going to say that. That wasn’t my claim, I just quickly phrased it that way in order to differentiate Catholics from non-Catholics. That said, Catholic or non-Catholic, regardless of what denomination one belongs to, one still has to be saved, or else you’re just going through the motions, and that is not much different than a non-Christian. And my earlier point was that Jesus made it super clear, you must be born again. That is what salvation is!

This "saved" thing is part of your denomination, your specific theology in whatever Christian group you belong to. From what I've seen of the "saved" in the last few years, the entire thing is bogus since the "born agains" neither uphold the teachings of Jesus or seek to carry them out. It's some evangelical stuff led by frankie graham or focus on the family or somebody. It's your sect. Nobody else has to join it. It's not up to you to define the Christian faith.

I think that the country and the world might benefit from public readings of the Sermon on the Mount.

I'm sorry, but that is blatantly incorrect and demonstrably untrue. It has nothing to do with my "denomination"...The core teachings of Christianity, regardless of denomination, include salvation. You'd have to throw out most of the bible to claim salvation is not necessary.

As for the second thing you said, about the Sermon on the Mount, I completely agree.

But you insist on referencing "salvation" in terms of your own denomination. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. do it in all kinds of ways. I think that what you are really saying is that everyone must follow the leaders of your denomination, which apparently is a denomination that believes in biblical inerrancy and infallibility. You have no idea of what occurs in the minds of people of other denominations.

No, I'm not saying people should follow my denomination (I don't even have a denomination) but what I am saying is that all churches or denominations should teach what is biblical and what is in line with the actual truth, the true intent of God. Otherwise, what is the point?

THAT is what is important, and unfortunately most churches today don't do that. And when I say that, I'm not only talking about salvation and the Catholic church, I'm talking about other issues too.

You do realise that the New Testament is just the House Papers of the CatholicChurch? They went through their various scripts and selected those they believed were the basis of their faith. The History of it is interesting.

Greg

 

[ding]

This "saved" thing is part of your denomination, your specific theology in whatever Christian group you belong to. From what I've seen of the "saved" in the last few years, the entire thing is bogus since the "born agains" neither uphold the teachings of Jesus or seek to carry them out. It's some evangelical stuff led by frankie graham or focus on the family or somebody. It's your sect. Nobody else has to join it. It's not up to you to define the Christian faith.

I think that the country and the world might benefit from public readings of the Sermon on the Mount.

I'm sorry, but that is blatantly incorrect and demonstrably untrue. It has nothing to do with my "denomination"...The core teachings of Christianity, regardless of denomination, include salvation. You'd have to throw out most of the bible to claim salvation is not necessary.

As for the second thing you said, about the Sermon on the Mount, I completely agree.

But you insist on referencing "salvation" in terms of your own denomination. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. do it in all kinds of ways. I think that what you are really saying is that everyone must follow the leaders of your denomination, which apparently is a denomination that believes in biblical inerrancy and infallibility. You have no idea of what occurs in the minds of people of other denominations.

No, I'm not saying people should follow my denomination (I don't even have a denomination) but what I am saying is that all churches or denominations should teach what is biblical and what is in line with the actual truth, the true intent of God. Otherwise, what is the point?

THAT is what is important, and unfortunately most churches today don't do that. And when I say that, I'm not only talking about salvation and the Catholic church, I'm talking about other issues too.

The Creator did not write the bible. No one who actually wrote what became the various books of the bible had any contact with the Creator. No one can know the "true intent" of the Creator.

I just read a piece about frankie graham, who went to Jerusalem and babbled about his "end times" thing, making it sound before the world like he represented the American People, which was absolutely appalling, disgusting, and a disgrace to the American People. Stick to your cult, denomination, and your whatever.

You know exactly zero about the apostles and the interactions they had other than the words they provided. So shut your blasphemous trap.

Now is that anyway for a Christian to behave?

 

[ding]

John 3 says it all. You must be born again. Jesus repeats that 2 or 3 times, and states it emphatically. Most Catholics I know (and I was raised Catholic, so I have a Catholic mom + relatives) don't understand salvation and some even seem opposed to the idea of being born again. Which boggles my mind, as Jesus clearly stated it is absolutely necessary.

Huh? Like toes and feet "Salvation" is just a fact of life; one is not ASSURED of course (at the risk of committing the sin of presumption) until Judgement is passed after death. Can't fool God even if we can fool ourselves.

Greg

Your first sentence "is just a fact of life" almost sounds like you believe everyone gets saved...that is not biblical. I'm sorry but I disagree with your beliefs. No religious ceremony is going to save someone. Especially an infant being baptized, who has zero idea what is going on. Being born again is not a church ceremony, where many people at that age (confirmation) are just going through the motions because their parents dragged them to church. It's infinitely more than that.

I did a video having to do with this topic, maybe I'll share it here if anyone wants to see it.

Can't fool God, Ma'am. It's not the action but the movement of the Holy Spirit. A look at the theology of the Church explains it better than I can. That's why I don't do Apologomenas on talk boards. But if you were interested you would have examined the Church's teaching on it and not gone on hearsay and generlisations. I challenge you to check it out with the Holy Spirit to guide you. That usually does it. Oh: and I do refer to Aquinas on this.

Article 1. Whether Baptism is the mere washing?

Objection 1. It seems that Baptism is not the mere washing. For the washing of the body is something transitory: but Baptism is something permanent. Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is it "the regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the enlightenment," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv).

Objection 2. Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii) that "Baptism is water sanctified by God's word for the blotting out of sins." But the washing itself is not water, but a certain use of water.

Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Now, the element is the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the washing.

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 34:30): "He that washeth himself [baptizatur] after touching the dead, if he touch him again, what does his washing avail?" It seems, therefore, that Baptism is the washing or bathing.

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be considered: namely, that which is "sacrament only"; that which is "reality and sacrament"; and that which is "reality only." That which is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign, namely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived by the sense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence some have thought that the water itself is the sacrament: which seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from Hugh of St. Victor. For in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it is "a material element": and in defining Baptism he says it is "water."

But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect a certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed where the sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed in water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue, not permanent but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is the subject of true sanctification. Consequently the sacrament is not completed in the very water, but in applying the water to man, i.e. in the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words."

The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this sacrament—namely, the reality signified and not signifying.

Reply to Objection 1. That which is both sacrament and reality—i.e. the character—and that which is reality only—i.e. the inward justification—remain: the character remains and is indelible, as stated above (III:63:5); the justification remains, but can be lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is done outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is inward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the character—namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned, safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament—namely, "regeneration" which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and "enlightenment," which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habakkuk 2 (Hebrews 10:38; cf. Habakkuk 2:4): "But (My) just man liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the "Sacrament of Faith." Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is "the principle that forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments"; and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is the universal end of all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom"; and again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration."

Reply to Objection 2. As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St. Victor on this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying that "Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the material principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal predication."

Reply to Objection 3. When the words are added, the element becomes a sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element is applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by those very words which are added to the element, when we say: "I baptize thee," etc.

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The sacrament of Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 66)

To my understanding Baptism is not to do so much with the action of Man but with the Grace of God. One must remember that, without Faith, no sacrament comes to fulfillment. It is a fact that, with regard to myself, there was no single "road to Damascus" experience. I have always accepted the reality of Christ, first as a child, and later , well, still as a child. salvation through Christ has just always been a fact to me. As a consequence later in life I became more aware of the Movement of the Spirit in my life. Again no blinding flash but just a deep realisation that Jesus IS Lord and Savior and that the Holy Spirit IS; both leading to the Father. Now ask me to explain the Trinity and I cannot; three folds in one blanket is as good as any but as it is a Mystery I simply stand in awe and accept in faith.

Now you were suggesting that a quick dip and oiling were somewhat superficial?? lol

Greg

I re-read your post, and then I deleted my reply to you from a little earlier. I'm going to reply again, now that I read your post again.

That's good, if it is taught that faith is necessary to go along with the ceremony. then the question must be asked, is it your belief that the ceremony is necessary? What exactly is that faith in?

ETA: I grew up going to Catholic church, I went through all of it... first communion, confirmation, etc. And as far as I can remember, no one ever taught me that faith must accompany those sacraments. Also, no one ever told me to read the bible, and no one even talked to me about my need for salvation at all. It just wasn't talked about, in my experience.

The reason I bring this up is because while what you're saying sounds good... I think there are probably tons of people who went through those sacraments without a true faith and an understanding of one's spiritual condition and without having a true change of mind/heart. And there are probably many people who counted on those sacraments as what "saved" them, which is a false belief.

We were definitely taught that FAITH was the basis of all Catholicism. Were you taught by Religious (Nuns, Brothers, Priests) or Lay people? I do admit that I dug a bit deeper; I actually listened to sermons. lol

In the hundreds of millions of Catholics who are there I am sure there are millions who haven't ta clue nor the interest to dig a little into their religion. There is a saying about growing up "in the Faith". I was fortunate that it was just always there; always my default position. That is why I call it a "fact"; it was just a part of living.

Were there times when I doubted? Not really but I did occasionally backslide. I could be a naughty boy.

Greg

I was taught that the Trinity was not a mystery to be solved but a relationship to be entered into.

Best advice I ever got.