An Amateur or Self-Proclaimed Roman Catholic Apologist's Dilemma with the Terms "Born Again" and "Born from Above"
It can be noticed at how some amateur or self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologists even go as far as to appeal to the Greek (whenever it's convenient) to say that, "There's no born again in the Bible. The Greek actually says born from above." This is pretty confusing and not to mention hypocritical considering that they can't even tell the difference between Peter (Petros, small rock) and Petra (the huge Rock in Matthew 16:18.
It's agreeable between Roman Catholics and Protestants that the Greek says "to be born from above" yet as language evolves the term born again has been acceptable. This would be the dilemma of any amateur or self-proclaimed Roman Catholic faith defender (assuming they try to refute the term born again with the Greek) because Roman Catholic translations of the Bible also use the word "born again".
These self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologists are way more ill-equipped compared to the formally trained ones. If they notice in the Roman Catholic Bibles - the term born again is used in the Douay Rheims, Good News Bible (which is commonly used), Jerusalem Bible and New Living Translation which are all Roman Catholic Bibles. The New American Bible Revised Version uses "born from above" instead of born again.
This is the dilemma they have to face. Why do so many Roman Catholic Bibles use the term born again and not born from above? This is a dilemma that they need to answer one way or another. Why don't they decide to write a letter of protest or a friendly letter correcting the Roman Catholic scholars who translated those versions? Are they going to act like they know better than the Roman Catholic scholars? This should be a very interesting thing if they should have a confrontation from well-learned Roman Catholic apologists who may address their lack of etiquette and say they have a long way before they are certified to be apologists for their faith.
Here's another dilemma that they should answer. They say that nowhere in the Bible is it taught that you must become a born again Christian. Yet, they couldn't even answer it properly where in the Bible is it taught that you must be a Catholic. Even Roman Catholic Bibles don't tell you to become a Roman Catholic. Acts 11:26 in the Roman Catholic translation says that the disciples were first called Christians and not Catholics. More importantly - the term catholic in Acts 9:31 in the Greek is used as an adjective to describe the universal church. Catholic is simply a synonym for the world universal. Ephesians 4:11 even in Catholic translations don't include the word priest but pastor. They read baptism was usually by immersion yet they insist it's not biblical. They see it yet they don't want to believe it because their hearts are hardened.
Besides, how many times do they have to be told that born again is not a denomination or being part of one? It's true some can say they are born again but they are not truly born again or born from above. Some can claim to be Christians but evidence suggests otherwise. To be born again or born from above is to repent of your sins and receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. True good works are a product of having been born again and not the cause of it.
See also:
It's agreeable between Roman Catholics and Protestants that the Greek says "to be born from above" yet as language evolves the term born again has been acceptable. This would be the dilemma of any amateur or self-proclaimed Roman Catholic faith defender (assuming they try to refute the term born again with the Greek) because Roman Catholic translations of the Bible also use the word "born again".
These self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologists are way more ill-equipped compared to the formally trained ones. If they notice in the Roman Catholic Bibles - the term born again is used in the Douay Rheims, Good News Bible (which is commonly used), Jerusalem Bible and New Living Translation which are all Roman Catholic Bibles. The New American Bible Revised Version uses "born from above" instead of born again.
This is the dilemma they have to face. Why do so many Roman Catholic Bibles use the term born again and not born from above? This is a dilemma that they need to answer one way or another. Why don't they decide to write a letter of protest or a friendly letter correcting the Roman Catholic scholars who translated those versions? Are they going to act like they know better than the Roman Catholic scholars? This should be a very interesting thing if they should have a confrontation from well-learned Roman Catholic apologists who may address their lack of etiquette and say they have a long way before they are certified to be apologists for their faith.
Here's another dilemma that they should answer. They say that nowhere in the Bible is it taught that you must become a born again Christian. Yet, they couldn't even answer it properly where in the Bible is it taught that you must be a Catholic. Even Roman Catholic Bibles don't tell you to become a Roman Catholic. Acts 11:26 in the Roman Catholic translation says that the disciples were first called Christians and not Catholics. More importantly - the term catholic in Acts 9:31 in the Greek is used as an adjective to describe the universal church. Catholic is simply a synonym for the world universal. Ephesians 4:11 even in Catholic translations don't include the word priest but pastor. They read baptism was usually by immersion yet they insist it's not biblical. They see it yet they don't want to believe it because their hearts are hardened.
Besides, how many times do they have to be told that born again is not a denomination or being part of one? It's true some can say they are born again but they are not truly born again or born from above. Some can claim to be Christians but evidence suggests otherwise. To be born again or born from above is to repent of your sins and receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. True good works are a product of having been born again and not the cause of it.
See also: