Born Again, and again, and again, and again,

[Anna_Scott]

Here’s another illustration that can help our evangelical friends:
Reading thru a magazine once I came upon an interesting collection of photos. The first picture is of a tiny infant wearing a pair of oversized adult bluejeans. One could hardly see the baby. The next photos showed every year for the next fifteen years. At the age of fifteen the child has grown into his bluejeans.
That’s Baptism.
You grow into who you are.
Baptism is not my announcment that I have enough faith to recieve it.
It is finally recieving by faith what was freely given to me in Baptism.
Is Baptism a symbolic witness or God’s seal upon the believer?
Is it my commitment or God’s committment?
In the Old Testament, circumcision was the mark on one’s body that gave testimony to the Covenant God has made.
The sign IN the body represents a change in the heart.
Baptism is the ‘brand’ or the ‘seal’. Salvation is conveyed to us by the operation of the Spirit through Baptism.
It is God’s declaration, not ours.
A helpless infant is the recipiant of God’s Grace.
A Grace that awaits our response.

JustaServant,

I’m quickly becoming a fan of your posts. :clapping:

It is indeed God’s Grace and God decides how His Graces are imparted. Even for an Evangelical who holds to a Bible alone theology; the ways in which God imparts Grace are very obvious. It’s just not obvious if you have been indoctrinated in such a way that causes a dismissal of key passages of Scripture.

For example:
Acts 2:
38And Peter said to them, "Repent and **be baptized **every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

John 6:
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.

John 5:
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

There is a clear connection between Baptism and the forgiveness of sins; and a clear connection between consuming the Body and Blood of Christ and being raised to eternal life.

The Evangelical will equate Sacraments with human works, when in reality—God does the work in the Sacraments.

Creating a formula, such as the “sinner’s prayer,” which promises immediate and eternal salvation, cannot be found in Scripture. It is a human formula–a human work.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Quarles47]

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West share Baptism as expressed through Apostolic Teaching. Some Protestants have views that are close and then there are those that deny Baptism has anything to do with being born again…The OHCAC accepts Baptism in the Trinity by those outside the Church proper and do not require re-baptism…on the other hand those that believe that the born again experience excludes Baptism leave the question open…as to how many times can you be born again?

I’ve found JESUS, I’ve accepted HIM as my SAVOR, I know that I said this at the last revival but that wasn’t real, this TIME IT"S REAL!!! :yeah_me:

:whackadoo::takeoff::jrbirdman::choocho::bluelite:

I always get run off from those revivals whenever I insist that the “saved” prove to me that it’s real this time and they will sit “quietly” in their seats at the next revival.

 

[mflorence]

I’ve found JESUS, I’ve accepted HIM as my SAVOR, I know that I said this at the last revival but that wasn’t real, this TIME IT"S REAL!!! :yeah_me:

:whackadoo::takeoff::jrbirdman::choocho::bluelite:

I always get run off from those revivals whenever I insist that the “saved” prove to me that it’s real this time and they will sit “quietly” in their seats at the next revival.

Perhaps the revivals that you are mocking serve as a reaffirmation and reclamation of the joy these people feel each time they gather to do so. Kind of like going to church every Sunday. If someone has a once is enough program to offer, then why have sacraments every week? Perhaps to recharge. Perhaps that’s needed. In the case of the people you are deriding, maybe it’s possible that they are unable to sit quietly because they are on to something. So, when you go to Mass, do you become overwhelmed with joy to the point where you can’t contain it? They seem to do so at their services. Is solemnity better? Do you suppose that God is solemn? Or do you think God is full of joy? I’m not offering an answer. I am asking what you think.

I am also interested to know if you think that God sees their form of worship as something to laugh about. Do you suppose He values the expression of one heart better than the heart felt expression of another? It’s an honest question. Perhaps the whole approach is formulaic, and dependent on the right sequence of the right events aligning in just the right way, without regard to what is one’s heart. Do you suppose that could be the case? Specifically, would He rather see hollow husks of His creations mechanically performing the motions of a particular ritual of worship every Sunday, or would He like some connection with you? Would He like to see some joy in you? He’s seeing it in them. Again, and honest question.

 

[hn160]

Except that rite conducted down by the river requires heaping amounts of hair pomade.

That’s a joke, son.

You are so right, a lot of Dapper Dan.

 

[CopticChristian]

Perhaps the revivals that you are **mocking **serve as a reaffirmation and reclamation of the joy these people feel each time they gather to do so. Kind of like going to church every Sunday. If someone has a once is enough program to offer, then why have **sacraments **every week? Perhaps to recharge. Perhaps that’s needed. In the case of the people you are deriding, maybe it’s possible that they are unable to sit quietly because they are on to something. So, when you go to Mass, do you become **overwhelmed with joy **to the point where you can’t contain it? They seem to do so at their services. Is solemnity better? Do you suppose that God is solemn? Or do you think God is full of joy? I’m not offering an answer. I am asking what you think.

I am also interested to know if you think that God sees their **form of worship **as something to laugh about. Do you suppose He values the expression of one heart better than the heart felt expression of another? It’s an honest question. Perhaps the whole approach is formulaic, and dependent on the right sequence of the right events aligning in just the right way, without regard to what is one’s heart. Do you suppose that could be the case? Specifically, **would He rather see **hollow husks of His creations mechanically performing the motions of a particular ritual of worship every Sunday, or would He like some connection with you? Would He like to see some joy in you? He’s seeing it in them. Again, and honest question.

Flo,

You appear to be angry as you suggest derision and mocking. Your notion of the meaning of Sacraments and worship leave many questions open. From this side of heaven you believe that worship is worship and yet we know that the offerings of Cain and Abel were differently seen. This is also true when we read “burnt offerings I do not want” or when Jesus told the Samaritan woman we worship what we know and you worship what you do not know.

From this side of heaven you define worship and yet from the other side of heaven are you the one to turn to that defines what is and what is not worship. Is sitting in a stadium with loud music, shouts, hands clapping and people yelling a rock concert, a baseball game or is it worship. Is worship something that is defined by you or is it determined by Tradition that has been and will be continued in perpetuity.

What God wants from you is you…sad, angry, happy, joy filled…just a flesh filled bunch of emotions asking “daddy can you help me”…he want’s His son’s and daughters to come home.

 

[highrigger1]

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West share Baptism as expressed through Apostolic Teaching. Some Protestants have views that are close and then there are those that deny Baptism has anything to do with being born again…The OHCAC accepts Baptism in the Trinity by those outside the Church proper and do not require re-baptism…on the other hand those that believe that the born again experience excludes Baptism leave the question open…as to how many times can you be born again?

Born Again, and Again, and …
How many times can one man find Jesus?

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/12/bishop_eddie_long_can_born_again_christians_be_born_yet_again_.html

Thoughts? Comments?

coptic,

I have always thought born again was once but perhaps someone can fall from the faith and be reborn again. I dont know. For sure one baptism should be enough. I dont think scripture teaches rebaptism.

In my church baptism is an outward sign of entry into Gods Kingomd. We do not necessarily associate mens baptism with being born again. It takes the Holy Spirit for this.
Some might be baptised before they are saved and others afterward. Both are depicted in the NT.

Peace, JohnR

 

[CopticChristian]

coptic,

I have always thought born again was once but perhaps someone can fall from the faith and be reborn again. I dont know. For sure one baptism should be enough. I dont think scripture teaches rebaptism.

In my church baptism is an outward sign of entry into Gods Kingomd. We do not necessarily associate mens baptism with being born again. It takes the Holy Spirit for this.
Some might be baptised before they are saved and others afterward. Both are depicted in the NT.

Peace, JohnR

Jon,

The Methodist pietist movement is the progenitor of the notion of personal experience and the so called “born again” experience as contrasted with the teaching of the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic East/West and some Protestants that Baptismal regeneration is the one time born again experience. The experience is not necessarily experience in cognition as in infants however it is an experience nevertheless.

I often refer to the notion that we vaccinate our children without their permission or understanding against diseases that will kill them and do the same as it regards infant Baptism.

Pax

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Jon,

The Methodist pietist movement is the progenitor of the notion of personal experience and the so called “born again” experience as contrasted with the teaching of the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic East/West and some Protestants that Baptismal regeneration is the one time born again experience. The experience is not necessarily experience in cognition as in infants however it is an experience nevertheless.

I often refer to then notion that we vaccinate our children without their permission or understanding against diseases that will kill them and do the same as it regards infant Baptism.

Pax

Amen

 

[Anna_Scott]

Perhaps the revivals that you are mocking serve as a reaffirmation and reclamation of the joy these people feel each time they gather to do so. Kind of like going to church every Sunday. If someone has a once is enough program to offer, then why have sacraments every week? Perhaps to recharge. Perhaps that’s needed. In the case of the people you are deriding, maybe it’s possible that they are unable to sit quietly because they are on to something. So, when you go to Mass, do you become overwhelmed with joy to the point where you can’t contain it? They seem to do so at their services. Is solemnity better? Do you suppose that God is solemn? Or do you think God is full of joy? I’m not offering an answer. I am asking what you think.

I am also interested to know if you think that God sees their form of worship as something to laugh about. Do you suppose He values the expression of one heart better than the heart felt expression of another? It’s an honest question. Perhaps the whole approach is formulaic, and dependent on the right sequence of the right events aligning in just the right way, without regard to what is one’s heart. Do you suppose that could be the case? Specifically, would He rather see hollow husks of His creations mechanically performing the motions of a particular ritual of worship every Sunday, or would He like some connection with you? Would He like to see some joy in you? He’s seeing it in them. Again, and honest question.

mflorence,
Certainly no one wants to be mocked. I detect hurt in your post, which saddens me.

At the same time, aren’t you mocking the Liturgy and Sacraments with the assumption that this form of worship and Communion is formulaic, without regard to what is in one’s heart–that we are hollow husks of His creation, mechanically performing the motions of a particular ritual of worship every Sunday, without a connection with God?

Anna

 

[mflorence]

Flo,

You appear to be angry as you suggest derision and mocking.

 

[mflorence]

mflorence,
Certainly no one wants to be mocked. I detect hurt in your post, which saddens me.

At the same time, aren’t you mocking the Liturgy and Sacraments with the assumption that this form of worship and Communion is formulaic, without regard to what is in one’s heart–that we are hollow husks of His creation, mechanically performing the motions of a particular ritual of worship every Sunday, without a connection with God?

Anna

Nope - not mocking the anyone’s liturgy. I suggested that perhaps in the act of doing them over and over again, perhaps both forms of worship provide a regenerative purpose of some sort. Read what I said again. I am just saying that they look the same to me, and if I have a problem with making fun of one, I have a problem with making fun of either or both.

As far as the hollow husks go, that it my own subjective view of how I have seen many act in church. And some forms of worship seem more litigious and formulaic than others, yes indeed, but that is my subjective observation as well. Other forms of worship seem without structure to the extent that yours has a lot. That’s how I see it. But I have seen more joy among the unstructured people, but that is a product of my own experience in observing people and my own conclusions. From that, I form an opinion that I offer as opinion and do not offer as fact. My next question was to tell me which God would prefer. I haven’t offered an opinion, but I have asked the question.

 

[Roy5]

There is a tendency here on CAF to try to generalize abour Protestants. Not possible.

Protestants come in a wide variety of beliefs, liturgies and ethnical understandings. There are very liberal and very conservative Protestants on questions of doctrine,, very liturgical Protestants and very nonliturgical Protestants, very strict Protestants when it comes to say, drinking or gambling, and very permissive Protestants. 

 To many this is the weakness of Protestantism. To many Protestants, it means freedom from being told precisely what to believe, precisely how to worship, and precisely what lifestyle to follow. Herein is the liberty that most Protestants celebrate,

 

[AbideWithMe]

I’ve found JESUS, I’ve accepted HIM as my SAVOR, I know that I said this at the last revival but that wasn’t real, this TIME IT"S REAL!!! :yeah_me:

:whackadoo::takeoff::jrbirdman::choocho::bluelite:

I always get run off from those revivals whenever I insist that the “saved” prove to me that it’s real this time and they will sit “quietly” in their seats at the next revival.

This does seem like mocking to me.

I’m pretty reserved and quiet, and I doubt I’d be comfortable at that kind of meeting. I used to be embarrassed by that fact that some Christians—my co-religionists—got into that sort of thing. I was kind of ashamed of them.

Now, though, I not ashamed of them. I think mflorence asked a good question—does God mock them?

 

[ltwin]

What you are describing my friend is the ONGOING nature of salvation, not a one-time experience. No one is belittling the experience, but Catholics do not enshrine it as an event of the past, but merely another step in an ongoing transformation.
The reason many ‘born again’ people fall into sin is the expectations that arise over a past “event” do not materialize. So they rationalize they were never “saved” in the first place, or they need to (as I heard one Pentecosal preacher somewhat cynically refer) keep rededicating their rededications.
I got married once. My wife and I don’t keep getting ‘remarried’ every time we quarrel. Years of marriage iron out the rough spots. That’s what it means to be a Christian, as we grow all those rough spots get ironed out. We don’t need another ‘experience’. God put His mark on us at Baptism, now my behavior EXPRESSES that Baptism that happened to me as child.
I can’t go back and start over.
God simply doesn’t work that way.
For Catholics, we do not need an ‘experience’, what we need is to start living as the person God declared us to be at Baptism.
Personal responsibility.

What I’m “describing” is the potential for non-evangelical Christians to misinterpret evangelical religious experience. I agree that what I described is part of ongoing salvation, which was the point I was making–that many evangelicals do not believe that you can be born again multiple times. Those evangelicals that do believe that you can be born again “again and again and again” are mistaken.

 

[highrigger1]

Jon,

The Methodist pietist movement is the progenitor of the notion of personal experience and the so called “born again” experience as contrasted with the teaching of the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic East/West and some Protestants that Baptismal regeneration is the one time born again experience. The experience is not necessarily experience in cognition as in infants however it is an experience nevertheless.

I often refer to the notion that we vaccinate our children without their permission or understanding against diseases that will kill them and do the same as it regards infant Baptism.

Pax

coptic,

Jesus was the one who invented the expression “born again.” Dont you realize that?

For us, infant baptism simply means we accept the child into the church as part of Gods Kingdom. Jesus said “Let the children come. They are of the Kingdom.” We do not consider it some kind of vaccination. It is the acknowledgement of the church of a new partner in Christ. Peace, JohnR

 

[AbideWithMe]

What you are describing my friend is the ONGOING nature of salvation, not a one-time experience. No one is belittling the experience, but Catholics do not enshrine it as an event of the past, but merely another step in an ongoing transformation.
The reason many ‘born again’ people fall into sin is the expectations that arise over a past “event” do not materialize. So they rationalize they were never “saved” in the first place, or they need to (as I heard one Pentecosal preacher somewhat cynically refer) keep rededicating their rededications.

JustaServant—

I think you’ve made a number of valid critiques here. But evangelicals have made all these self-criticisms among themselves already. There’s nothing new here. Evangelicals do a better job of soul-searching amongst themselves than can be done by someone who isn’t an evangelical. (As Catholics likewise do the best job of criticizing themselves.) And, from what you’ve said, I gather you were a fundamentalist, not an evangelical, so your experience was with fundamentalists.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Much of what modern fundamentalsist/evangelicals believe about being “born again” (in the experiencial sense) dates back to this person:
Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875) was a minister, a lecturer, a professor, and a traveling revivalist who held heretical views on the Atonment. He invented the practice which he called the Anxious Seat, and developed a theological system around it. Finney was straightforward about his purpose for this technique and wrote the following comment near the end of his life:

The Anxious Seat was considered to be a psychological technique that manipulated people to make a premature profession of faith. It was considered to be an emotional conversion influenced by the preachers’ magnetism.
The system that Finney admitted had replaced biblical baptism, is the nucleus for the popular plan of salvation that was made normative in the twentieth century.
It was popularized by Dwight L. Moody. It was standardized by Billy Graham.
Finney’s opponants were from his side of the Tiber. And they had good reason to be concerned. These names might mean nothing to Catholic scholars, but they should to Reformed Protestants.They included:
John Humphrey Noyes (1811–1886)
George W. Gale (1789–1861)
Lyman Beecher (1775–1863)
Asahel Nettleton (1738–1844)
Arthur (1786–1865) and Lewis (1788–1873) Tappan
Asa Mahan (18??–1889)
Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834 –1892)
David Martin Lloyd-Jones.
Ian Murray’s “Revival & Revivalism” (which used to be in my library) is a wonderful resource book looking the damage Finney’s teachings have done to American Protestantism. The ‘invitation’, ‘sinner’s prayer’ are innovations that is not even compatable with conservative Reformed principals, let alone Catholicism.

Again, these are some valid criticisms of Charles Finney. However, a good deal of the Reformed criticism of him was that he was falling into what some Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists perceived to be the errors of Rome…among them the idea that salvation is synergistic.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Again, these are some valid criticisms of Charles Finney. However, a good deal of the Reformed criticism of him was that he was falling into what some Calvinists and hyper-Calvinist perceived to be the errors of Rome…among them the idea that salvation is synergistic.

Much worse than that. Finney was full blown Pelagian.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Much worse than that. Finney was full blown Pelagian.

I know that charge is made, but that seems like it’s going too far as a criticism to me. He didn’t believe in the bondage of the will as Martin Luther did. But full blown Pelagian? Can you give several lengthy writings from him to show that? I’m not giving a snarky challenge—I’d really be interested in reading proof of full blown Pelagianism from him.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I know that charge is made, but that seems like it’s going too far as a criticism to me. He didn’t believe in the bondage of the will as Martin Luther did. But full blown Pelagian? Can you give several lengthy writings from him to show that? I’m not giving a snarky challenge—I’d really be interested in reading proof of full blown Pelagianism from him.

Here is a good article that discusses it at length: cpcnewhaven.org/cms/uploads/Pelagian%20Controversy.doc

Here also is Finney’s statement on original sin, in which he argues that man is born morally neutral: gospeltruth.net/1851Sys_Theo/st38.htm