Born-again Christians

[Dave_Noonan]

Claiming an experience is not evidence of one being saved or regenerated. Evangelical churches are certainly aware that just because one claims the experience doesn’t mean one is saved. The person has to bear spiritual fruit and began to display a change of life as evidence that the experience was genuine.

But can one be saved without the experience? I think most evangelicals would say no.

 

[ltwin]

But can one be saved without the experience? I think most evangelicals would say no.

By experience if you mean one has to have an “in church altar call experience” then no they don’t. My brother is a born again Christian. Ask him when he “got saved” and he can’t tell you. Why? Because he has spent his entire life in church and somehow, somewhere along the way he became a disciple of Christ.

So no you don’t have to have a defined experience to be saved, you just have to have a relationship with Christ and accept His free gift of grace and redemption.

The altar call is a way for a person who is in a service but doesn’t know Christ to respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and demonstrate publicly their faith in Christ. It offers a chance for the church to pray with and welcome the new believer. In both the cases of me (who was saved by responding to an altar call) and my brother, faith in Christ and evidence of that faith is still needed.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

By experience if you mean one has to have an “in church altar call experience” then no they don’t. My brother is a born again Christian. Ask him when he “got saved” and he can’t tell you. Why? Because he has spent his entire life in church and somehow, somewhere along the way he became a disciple of Christ.

So no you don’t have to have a defined experience to be saved, you just have to have a relationship with Christ and accept His free gift of grace and redemption.

No, I don’t really mean an altar call experience–I think most evangelicals would grant this a much more fluid identification. Although on the other hand I do know many Southern Baptists who would say that if it’s not a public experience of confession (in their minds “altar call”) that it really doesn’t count as being born again (Rom 10:9).

So would you say that your brother never had an experience of being saved then? (Sort of “born again” from birth?) Or that he had an experience, but because it was so long ago that he can’t remember it? Or that his acceptance/experience was gradual and thus can’t be p(name removed by moderator)ointed?

 

[ltwin]

I don’t know. I think its really pointless. The fact is my brothers saving faith in Christ is real as shown by the way he lives his life and the fruit he bears.

But if it is said that to be a Christian one must have a “born-again” experience, then that limits who is a Christian based on our journey to Christ. Other Christians are not able to identify a “born-again” moment in their lives. Nevertheless, their saving faith in Jesus is real and their lives show the results of such a faith. That is the real way you identify someone who is “born again”.

While I’m sure there are evangelical churches they may say that you have to do it the way we do it or you are not “born again,” but I would never attend such a church.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I don’t know. I think its really pointless. The fact is my brothers saving faith in Christ is real as shown by the way he lives his life and the fruit he bears.

But if it is said that to be a Christian one must have a “born-again” experience, then that limits who is a Christian based on our journey to Christ. Other Christians are not able to identify a “born-again” moment in their lives. Nevertheless, their saving faith in Jesus is real and their lives show the results of such a faith. That is the real way you identify someone who is “born again”.

While I’m sure there are evangelical churches they may say that you have to do it the way we do it or you are not “born again,” but I would never attend such a church.

I don’t think you and I disagree that such hairsplitting is really irrelevant.

But I DO think most evangelicals would say that if you can’t point to some experience of being “born again” (just as you were born physically) that your salvation is in question. I think most (though certainly not all) would say that such an experience could occur in a wide variety of contexts.

 

[1voice]

But can one be saved without the experience? I think most evangelicals would say no.

The way that many people evaluate what they think the experience of being ‘born from above’ looks like … is a classic illustration of the verse …
“Man looks on the outside … God looks on the heart”

Everyone that repents and gives their life to Christ is an individual … and their personal experiences are individual as well. I have talked to some that have had dramatic things happen within and without when they committed their life to Christ … I have also known people that simply knew that they knew that they knew that something changed deep inside … no drama … just peaceful confidence where it didnt exist before… Everyone is created as an individual and every individual that comes to Christ is treated as such by their Creator. “My sheep know my voice”

… It is very common that the experience can be very pleasant … Gods love is very intoxicating … and when he washes sin away… the sense of peace and wonder … when the new man takes his first breath … is amazing … There is nothing wrong or unscriptural about truly knowing the joy and freedom that Jesus gives… The day of pentecost is a perfect example of what people can expect to enjoy… and do enjoy.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I have always been amused by churches called “Full Gospel”. Which Gospel do they have that was left out of my bible?

Never heard “Full Gospel Church” used before but it does raise some some questions.
Are their gospels bigger?
More verses and chapters?
Are their verses longer?
Should the rest of us be calling ourselves “half-gospel”, “2/3 gospel” etc?

Or…is it all about picking a name which makes your church appear superior so that it stands above other churches…easier to look down your your nose at all those UN-full-gospel churches that way…

 

[crazzeto]

Never heard “Full Gospel Church” used before but it does raise some some questions.
Are their gospels bigger?
More verses and chapters?
Are their verses longer?
Should the rest of us be calling ourselves “half-gospel”, “2/3 gospel” etc?

Or…is it all about picking a name which makes your church appear superior so that it stands above other churches…easier to look down your your nose at all those UN-full-gospel churches that way…

There is generally a belief among Churches that many other churches ignore many parts of the doctrine of Jesus Christ (though they wouldn’t use that term, so from now on I’ll just use “Gosple”). This much, is actually very true. The problem as I see it is, how are these people judging this (particularly given the typical belief system which allows for anything goes).

The name certainly doesn’t invoke an image of humility at all.

 

[4Squarebaby]

Haha funny. The “Full Gospel” is a term that has origins among the 19th century Holiness and Higher Life movements.** It suggested a belief that God still healed and did the miraculous. This was in an age when a lot of Christians were saying God didn’t do the miraculous anymore. **

Anyway when the Pentecostal Movement began at the 20th century, they sort of just adopted it for themselves. In short, the Full Gospel (or Fourfold or Foursquare Gospel) is that Jesus is:

Savior,

Spirit Baptizer,

Healer,

and Soon Coming King.

The term implies that a lot of Christians no longer teach that God actively heals and works in the lives of His people. People who use the term “Full Gospel” are saying look you need to read the whole Bible and believe the whole Gospel. You can’t just pick what makes since in the natural. You have to take all the Gospel, even though it is hard to believe that God still works in the same way as he works in the Bible. You need to teach the entire Bible. Thus, the term is similar to the “Bible Church” or “Bible Christian” label.

I guess the best example would be the Full Gospel Baptist a charismatic group which look indistinguishable from Pentecostal groups while most Baptist do not

 

[ltwin]

Never heard “Full Gospel Church” used before but it does raise some some questions.
Are their gospels bigger?
More verses and chapters?
Are their verses longer?
Should the rest of us be calling ourselves “half-gospel”, “2/3 gospel” etc?

Or…is it all about picking a name which makes your church appear superior so that it stands above other churches…easier to look down your your nose at all those UN-full-gospel churches that way…

I guess it could be that way for some people. But really a name like “born again” is just reasserting the fact that so many people who claim to be Christians do not live as if they were born again or born from above. People who say they are a born again Christian are just saying that their faith is real unlike so many of the nominal Christians that abound.

The term “Full Gospel” is just saying that they believe that miracles still happen. I’m not sure if this is a problem in Catholicism, but there are so many mainline and traditional Protestant churches that essentially say that the miraculous has ended and you shouldn’t expect God to do miracles anymore. People who claim the Full Gospel label are saying Jesus hasn’t changed.

 

[ltwin]

I guess the best example would be the Full Gospel Baptist a charismatic group which look indistinguishable from Pentecostal groups while most Baptist do not

I supposed “Full Gospel” is a lot less confusing for some than “Fire-Baptized Holiness”. I was talking to some Baptists kids once who passed by a church with that name. They were so confused and were asking questions like “how can you be baptized in fire?” They were completely clueless.

 

[Publisher]

I supposed “Full Gospel” is a lot less confusing for some than “Fire-Baptized Holiness”. I was talking to some Baptists kids once who passed by a church with that name. They were so confused and were asking questions like “how can you be baptized in fire?” They were completely clueless.

I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I guess it could be that way for some people. But really a name like “born again” is just reasserting the fact that so many people who claim to be Christians do not live as if they were born again or born from above. ***<—That “assertion” is what allows them to look down their noses at other people. ***People who say they are a born again Christian are just saying that their faith is real unlike so many of the nominal Christians that abound. ***<—That’s a “saying” which helps them to look down their noses at other Christians. Who are you to say how “real” someone else’s faith is anyway? ***

The term “Full Gospel” is just saying that they believe that miracles still happen. <—No it isn’t. The term “Full Gospel” can mean different specifics to different people. And I’ve yet to meet a Christian who thinks miracles no longer happen. I’m not sure if this is a problem in Catholicism, but there are so many mainline and traditional Protestant churches that essentially say that the miraculous has ended <—Really?! I’ve lived longer as a non Catholic than as a Catholic and have never heard in ANY church that essentially says “the miraculous has ended”. As close as they come to essentially saying anything even close to that is maybe saying there are less miracles and that in comparison to modern times, the ancient age could be called the AGE of miracles. But I’ve heard nobody saying the “miraculous has ended” and you shouldn’t expect God to do miracles anymore. <—Gee……have never heard that either. As close as I’ve heard to that kind of claim is pastors telling people they shouldn’t be expectant of miracles to get them out of their self made problems. They shouldn’t think that they will automatically receive miracles in their lives for being Christians. They shouldn’t go around planning on miracles…that kind of stuff. But again…nothing like you claim. People who claim the Full Gospel label are saying Jesus hasn’t changed.<----People who DON’T claim full gospel say the same thing.

The “full gospel” crowd, “born again” crowd, “Bible Church” crowd, all these people that feel the need to differentiate themselves from other Christians with special, descriptive words that offhandedly imply that the “other” Christians are "nominal" <–to use YOUR word in some way have always seemed more in tune with their own ego, than with God’s good graces.

Your first paragraphs seems to do nothing but inadvertently confirm that idea, even though the attempt was to argue against it.

 

[Bearontherun]

The “full gospel” crowd, “born again” crowd, “Bible Church” crowd, all these people that feel the need to differentiate themselves from other Christians…

Does “new testament church” fall into this list too? I have heard Christians say that they found a “new testament church” and have wondered about the term.

 

[ltwin]

The “full gospel” crowd, “born again” crowd, “Bible Church” crowd, all these people that feel the need to differentiate themselves from other Christians with special, descriptive words that offhandedly imply that the “other” Christians are "nominal" <–to use YOUR word in some way have always seemed more in tune with their own ego, than with God’s good graces.

Your first paragraphs seems to do nothing but inadvertently confirm that idea, even though the attempt was to argue against it.

Please chill out. There are Protestants, called cessationists (look it up) who believe that the miraculous have ceased, and they attack Catholics for believing in “superstition” as they call it. There Christians who don’t believe that God can stop a pin falling to the ground so give me a break on that one. There are actually a lot of nominal Christians, i. e. Christians in name only. Maybe they were baptized as children, maybe as teens, maybe as adults. Either way they are currently Christians in name only. It affects all traditions and denominations.

There are nominal Pentecostals as well, i.e they can dance, shout, and speak in tongues till the cows come home but outside of church they live their life in the same manner as a non-Christian. No one should defend nominal Christianity. If you are a Pentecostal, be Pentecostal; if you are Catholic you need to be Catholic.

These people are not pointing out the flaws of other Christians so much as distinguishing themselves. It’s no different than the word “Catholic” or “Orthodox”. Everyone gives themselves a label.I suppose Catholics are looking down on everyone else as well. And Methodists are saying that their methodical religious life is superior to Anglicanism. And Baptists are saying they have the correct teaching on baptism. I could go on and on.

These people do believe they are right. But don’t you believe that when you describe yourself as a Catholic that your church is the right one, possessing Catholicity. And when the Orthodox describe themselves as such, they are saying we are the true faith. Both of those labels imply that those who are not Catholic or Orthodox are missing something. Don’t know why you are getting upset with these groups for doing the same thing.

 

[ltwin]

Does “new testament church” fall into this list too? I have heard Christians say that they found a “new testament church” and have wondered about the term.

Someone who names their church that is saying that “we are a church that believes and practices everything like that the New Testament church did.” So yeah, its similar.

 

[4Squarebaby]

The “full gospel” crowd, “born again” crowd, “Bible Church” crowd, all these people that feel the need to differentiate themselves from other Christians with special, descriptive words that offhandedly imply that the “other” Christians are "nominal" <–to use YOUR word in some way have always seemed more in tune with their own ego, than with God’s good graces.

Your first paragraphs seems to do nothing but inadvertently confirm that idea, even though the attempt was to argue against it.

It is no different then cafeteria, in name only…

 

[ltwin]

I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Yeah I know that, but it seems that a lot of Protestants don’t really realize where the “fire” reference comes from.

 

[Publisher]

Yeah I know that, but it seems that a lot of Protestants don’t really realize where the “fire” reference comes from.

My great uncle on my dad’s side was a “Pentacostal Holiness” minister. When I worked in Alabama some 20 years ago, I worked with two ladies who were members of the “Pentacostal Holiness church”…formerly “Fire Baptized Holiness”.

I believe the “Fire Baptized Holiness church” is predominantly African American these days.

 

[ltwin]

My great uncle on my dad’s side was a “Pentacostal Holiness” minister. When I worked in Alabama some 20 years ago, I worked with two ladies who were members of the “Pentacostal Holiness church”…formerly “Fire Baptized Holiness”.

I believe the “Fire Baptized Holiness church” is predominantly African American these days.

Yes a legacy of the interracial beginnings of Pentecostalism and the unfortunate split on racial lines. The Fire-Baptized Holiness Church was originally white and black. However, they split. Later the White branch merged with the PHC and you have the Pentecostal Holiness of today.

Its funny how names can be held onto even when they are not that descriptive. My family and I spent time at a PHC church once. They were not Holiness, and they were barely Pentecostal (by that I mean that typical Pentecostal behavior tended to be conducted behind closed doors instead of openly in the services.) . But I can’t say that all churches in that denomination are like that.