Identifying as born-again when asked about religion

[jrtrent]

Not all “born agains” believe that. It’s quite possible to be all those things and still be born again. You can be an evangelical Lutheran, Anglican or Presbyterian. In fact, you can even be an evangelical and a Catholic.

“Born again” may have specific meanings for particular Christian groups, but I think you’re right about how generally the term can be applied. I like the explanation given by this article (caution: the last two paragraphs at the link provided are a “sinner’s prayer” invitation):

The phrase “born again” literally means “born from above.” Nicodemus had a real need. He needed a change of his heart—a spiritual transformation. New birth, being born again, is an act of God whereby eternal life is imparted to the person who believes (2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1-4, 18). John 1:12,13 indicates that “born again” also carries the idea “to become children of God” through trust in the name of Jesus Christ. . . Trusting in Jesus Christ, the One who paid the penalty of sin when He died on the cross, is what it means to be “born again” spiritually. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17). gotquestions.org/born-again.html

 

[cajunhillbilly]

**There is also a semi-recent development within the Evangelical community about Christianity not being a “religion”, but a relationship. And while they are right that being a Christian involves having a relationship with God, by the definition of what a religion is (a set of beliefs and practices of a faith), Christianity is most certainly a religion. **They will typically define religion as a faith that involves “working” for your salvation, which is an incorrect definition of religion. Thus, rather than say that their religion is either Protestant or Evangelical Christianity (or Non-Catholic Christian, or Lutheran, or what-have-you), they choose to say “Born-Again” or “I am Born Again”. Though, some might do it as a matter of being a part of the “Born-Again” Christian community as a religion, rather than objecting to the title of Christianity as a religion.

hopefully that made sense

Yep by definition Christianity is a religion. This is just some sort of slogan in my opinion. I have argued that the Christian faith is BOTH a religion and a relationship, but people just give me blank stares. Religion is by definition a set of beliefs about God or “gods”. Christianity does have a set of beliefs that has to be believed for one to be a Christian. But it also involves a relationship. That relationship is nourished by prayer, Scripture and the Sacraments. But people don’t get it because they have adopted a slogan.

 

[Karen107]

“Born again” may have specific meanings for particular Christian groups, but I think you’re right about how generally the term can be applied. I like the explanation given by this article (caution: the last two paragraphs at the link provided are a “sinner’s prayer” invitation):

The phrase “born again” literally means “born from above.” Nicodemus had a real need. He needed a change of his heart—a spiritual transformation. New birth, being born again, is an act of God whereby eternal life is imparted to the person who believes (2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1-4, 18). John 1:12,13 indicates that “born again” also carries the idea “to become children of God” through trust in the name of Jesus Christ. . . Trusting in Jesus Christ, the One who paid the penalty of sin when He died on the cross, is what it means to be “born again” spiritually. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17). gotquestions.org/born-again.html

I want to point out that Nicodemus needed a change of heart before he would allow himself to be baptized but infants don’t have to have a conversion of heart to be born again through their baptism. Parents act on behalf of their children when they baptize a child the church and Jesus accepts them as a child of God, priests have the authority to do this IN the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and raise them up in the church. A child is born into life when he is born, but when he is born of God through his baptism, he is welcomed into the family of God. (as it should be)

The grace that is given through our baptism comes from God,

Ephesians 2:8

8 For by GRACE you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—

1 John 4: 19 We love because he first loved us.

 

[ltwin]

With all do respect, this is an Internet forum. Specifically a Catholic Internet forum under a non-catholic religion thread. Inguaging in dialogue over theology, philosophy, etc. is inevitable. You made a claim, I simply asked to see citation or scripture to back up your case. That’s all.

I don’t think you understand me. I am not seeking to engage in apologetic discourse on this thread. I’m not seeking to argue over what conversion really is or how it is described in the Bible. I’m not seeking to engage in a discussion over what baptism means in the New Testament. There are threads where I have engaged in such a discussion. I never intended this to be one of them.

I only sought to make people aware that born again Christians are not monolithic on what they believe. I was specifically pointing out several areas raised by another poster and showing how I, as an evangelical Christian and someone who would identify with the label “born again Christian”, disagreed on all the points raised.

I never said I was right and everyone else was wrong. I simply said we need to bare in mind the broad parameters at play when we discuss who “born again Christians” are and what they believe. Never assume that one “born again Christian” you meet sets the mold for what all “born agains” believe.

By the way, I was born and raised Pentecostal. I still have family that is Pentecostal. This isn’t a me vs. you thing or an us vs. them thing. It comes down to, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. I’m simply here to spread the truth of God’s word and his Church.

God bless.

And I respect that. However, I do not intend on this thread to argue with you over who is right and who is wrong. I offered an educational post about the varieties of those called “born again Christians” and suddenly I’m expected to argue about Scripture and baptism and conversion, etc. I’m sorry, but that’s not what I signed up for.

God bless you too.

 

[ltwin]

Let me ask you then ldz.

Uhh :doh2:. I said I wouldn’t talk baptism, and now I’m talking baptism. Well, since you’ ask . . .

So why be baptized? And What identifies you as a born again Christian? I realize it’s a common belief among ‘born again’ Christians (which we all are) but fundamentalists who say they are born again (because of a conversion of their heart), and that water baptism doesn’t save, And why would anyone be baptized if they didn’t think it saved them and was just plain water or symbolic of being born into Jesus life and death?

I don’t believe water baptism is simply symbolic. I expect the Holy Spirit to do something in a baptismal service. When I was baptized rather late in my Christian life (got “born again” around 10, got baptized around 20) it began an entirely new period in my walk with God. I felt like I had finally sealed my spiritual commitment. I simply do not believe baptism is regenerative.

“The Urgency of Water Baptism” is an article written by an Executive Presbyter of the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination, on why baptism is important and should not be ignored or delayed. It is relatively short, and discusses the importance for the individual believer and for the entire congregation. Two paragraphs read,

The pattern of immediacy suits the typology. After a person dies, preparation begins immediately for burial. When a person is converted and dies to sin and his old life, preparation should be made immediately to bury the old sinful life. Baptism indicates the beginning of a new direction for life—a “newness of life” (Romans 6:4).

The disciples in the Early Church seemed to know how subtle the enemy is, that delaying obedience to Jesus’ command to be baptized in water opens the door for doubt and spiritual failure. New converts need to quickly make a public confession of their past guilt and sinful lives. The longer they wait for baptism, the less likely they feel the need for it.

 

[nicolakirwan]

In response to the question posed in the op–why will those who identify as “born again” often not give a denominational affiliation when asked?

I think one way to look at it is this. Think about the Gospels and the interactions that Jesus had with people in the Gospels. There are many. Think of the thief on a cross next to Christ. Then think about Acts, Peter’s preaching at Pentecost, and the amazing growth of the church right after Jesus’ resurrection and the people who believed. Think of Paul’s encounter with the Lord (then Saul).

These pictures show people evincing true faith in Christ and being saved thereby, but without yet knowing or understanding all the truths that make them saved. The Lord didn’t require them to understand, but to believe and obey. And this is also why miraculous signs were given, as Paul said in Corinthians, so that the Christian’s faith would not be placed in the wisdom of men, but rather in the power of God.

This emphasis on simply “believing in Christ and doing what He says” is, in my experience, at the heart of non-confessional, Christian spirituality. Reading and knowing the Bible then becomes very important as one must know what God has said in order to obey Him. “I have hidden Thy word in my heart that I might not sin against Thee.” (Ps. 119:11)

Now, with respect to baptism, I do not know of any Protestant congregation–including “non-denominational” ones–that view baptism as optional in any way, even if it is not believed to be regenerative. So people generally have a conversion experience that ignites their faith in Christ and then are baptized. Even the Catholic Church deems valid the baptisms of many denominations that do not believe baptism to be regenerative–the Baptists, for instance. So it is not one’s understanding about how God is working that saves, but rather it is obedience to His command (the CCC speaks of the “obedience of faith”), which is to believe and be baptized.

 

[nicolakirwan]

Meant to add:

The person identifying as “born again” is referring to having had a conversion experience that now defines their faith in Christ.

Someone who says they have been “born again” by virtue of a conversion experience will more likely than not have been baptized, and more likely than not that baptism is recognized by the Church (most non-Catholic Christian denominations have valid baptisms). So that person (more likely than not) would be deemed “born again” by the Catholic Church regardless of the difference of opinion as to what exactly makes them so.

 

[Mgray82]

I don’t think you understand me. I am not seeking to engage in apologetic discourse on this thread. I’m not seeking to argue over what conversion really is or how it is described in the Bible. I’m not seeking to engage in a discussion over what baptism means in the New Testament. There are threads where I have engaged in such a discussion. I never intended this to be one of them.

I only sought to make people aware that born again Christians are not monolithic on what they believe. I was specifically pointing out several areas raised by another poster and showing how I, as an evangelical Christian and someone who would identify with the label “born again Christian”, disagreed on all the points raised.

I never said I was right and everyone else was wrong. I simply said we need to bare in mind the broad parameters at play when we discuss who “born again Christians” are and what they believe. Never assume that one “born again Christian” you meet sets the mold for what all “born agains” believe.

And I respect that. However, I do not intend on this thread to argue with you over who is right and who is wrong. I offered an educational post about the varieties of those called “born again Christians” and suddenly I’m expected to argue about Scripture and baptism and conversion, etc. I’m sorry, but that’s not what I signed up for.

God bless you too.

This is all confusing. I’m sorry if I don’t understand.

I have a feeling everybody on here has an idea what someone means when they say or ask the phrase “born again” in terms of Catholic/Protestant interpretation.

Again, I just wanted to see what passages from the bible you were referring to in regards to being born again. That’s all.

I’m not arguing with you. I’m engaging in peace. I came from Pentecostalism, so I feel like we have that much in common.

Glad to see you here in the forums and I wish you truth in your journey here.

 

[ltwin]

This is all confusing. I’m sorry if I don’t understand.

I have a feeling everybody on here has an idea what someone means when they say or ask the phrase “born again” in terms of Catholic/Protestant interpretation.

Again, I just wanted to see what passages from the bible you were referring to in regards to being born again. That’s all.

I’m not arguing with you. I’m engaging in peace. I came from Pentecostalism, so I feel like we have that much in common.

Glad to see you here in the forums and I wish you truth in your journey here.

I don’t mean to be rude. I just felt like I made an observation, and then people were telling me “provide a Scripture verse” for what I considered an obvious observation: “born again Christians” are a diverse group. That frustrated me because Scripture is not a resource to discuss the religious scene of 21st century North America. I probably did sound rude, so I apologize.

Particular scriptures would be ones like Luke 24:47, John 3:3, Romans 10:13-15, Ephesians 2:8, Titus 2:11, Titus 3:5-7.

 

[tarboy]

I’ll clarify my post.

*I found out that some protestants here will say “I’m a born-again” instead of saying their actual religion name when asked “What’s your religion?” Why do they do that and Catholics don’t? *

Here, maybe I need to say, what “church” instead like “Lutheran”, “Methodist” and “Mormon”. I guess saying religion is too general.

Saying you are “born again” is much less divisive than touting a specific denomination or branch of a denomination. Mentioning denominations starts to introduce the differences between them, why they seperated.

 

[4Squarebaby]

nicolakirwan:

Meant to add:

The person identifying as “born again” is referring to having had a conversion experience that now defines their faith in Christ.

Someone who says they have been “born again” by virtue of a conversion experience will more likely than not have been baptized, and more likely than not that baptism is recognized by the Church (most non-Catholic Christian denominations have valid baptisms). So that person (more likely than not) would be deemed “born again” by the Catholic Church regardless of the difference of opinion as to what exactly makes them so.

That is pretty much it. This thread can be a sister to the gazillion denominations thread in my opinion. The organizational name of the family I fellowship with is not important. It is not what binds me to the brother who has a country band in his house versus the blues band or a choir chanting in an unknown , to me tongue.

Now born again also seperates us from the Tim McVie’s. Ever been in a debate about Islamic terrorist and someone like Tavis Smiley will say Christian terrorist like Tim McVie? And the only proof of his faith is that his parents had enough obediance to their faith to have had him baptized.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[CopticChristian]

That is pretty much it. This thread can be a sister to the gazillion denominations thread in my opinion. The organizational name of the family I fellowship with is not important. It is not what binds me to the brother who has a country band in his house versus the blues band or a choir chanting in an unknown , to me tongue.

Now born again also seperates us from the Tim McVie’s. Ever been in a debate about Islamic terrorist and someone like Tavis Smiley will say Christian terrorist like Tim McVie? And the only **proof of his faith **is that his parents had enough obediance to their faith to have had him baptized.

4,

I am amused at the constant reference to “proof of Faith”…Protestants are entwined with this…I need no proof of anything…nor do I ask, nor do I question, nor would I say…this, in my opinion, ingorant statement…

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[4Squarebaby]

I am amused at the constant reference to “proof of Faith”…Protestants are entwined with this…I need no proof of anything…nor do I ask, nor do I question, nor would I say…this, in my opinion, ingorant statement…

Really try to marry without submitting a proof of baptism or a proof of baptism of your fiancee.Now it would not be asked for in many evangelic churches. To an evangelic Tim McVie would not be consider a Christian because his parents had him baptized 25 years before he murdered hundreds,

 

[CopticChristian]

Really try to marry without submitting a proof of baptism or a proof of baptism of your fiancee.Now it would not be asked for in many evangelic churches. To an evangelic Tim McVie would not be consider a Christian because his parents had him baptized 25 years before he murdered hundreds,

4,

This is proof needed for a Sacramental Marriage and it goes without saying that all this is proof of is that you were baptized in the faith, not proof of your Faith.

Calvin is considered Christian having murdered others. So what are you telling me here?

 

[Mgray82]

4,

This is proof needed for a Sacramental Marriage and it goes without saying that all this is proof of is that you were baptized in the faith, not proof of your Faith.

Calvin is considered Christian having murdered others. So what are you telling me here?

The murder of Michael Servetus…

Coptic, this may be a little off topic but can you provide a worthy link or article on this? I can’t find anything that seems reliable online.

I don’t know much about it so I have no opinion.

Glad to see us in a thread where we agree

 

[cajunhillbilly]

4,

This is proof needed for a Sacramental Marriage and it goes without saying that all this is proof of is that you were baptized in the faith, not proof of your Faith.

Calvin is considered Christian having murdered others. So what are you telling me here?

I am sorry but Calvin did not murder anyone. He was opposed to the death of Severatus. It was the civil authorities who had him burned, NOT Calvin. And finally, Severatus would have been executed in Spain by the Inguisation if he head gone there. The Catholic authorities wanted him dead too.

 

[CopticChristian]

The murder of Michael Servetus…

Coptic, this may be a little off topic but can you provide a worthy link or article on this? I can’t find anything that seems reliable online.

I don’t know much about it so I have no opinion.

Glad to see us in a thread where we agree

Mgray,

I do not know what you consider reliable, however you decide…

evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

Murderer And Heretic John Calvin
Burned Michael Servetus At The Stake
Dan Corner

jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/2011/02/02/thoughts-on-john-calvins-murder-of-michael-servetus/

1. Calvin was the prosecutor of Servetus’ case, not the jury.
2. Calvin requested a different form of death for Servetus, but was denied. If he had control over whether or not Servetus died, wouldn’t he also have had control over how he died?
3. Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva at this point. Servetus was murdered in 1553; Calvin became a citizen of Geneva in 1559.
4. Calvin did not have the majority of friends on the Geneva council at this point in history.
5. Servetus’ false doctrines were capital offenses in Geneva at this point in history.
   John Calvin influenced Servetus’ murder. He agreed that he deserved death because of his denial of the Trinity and possibly his denial of infant baptism. He sinned no doubt in prosecuting Servetus and condoning his murder, but Calvin did not murder Servetus. The decision was not his to make at this point in Geneva. Thus, Calvin murdered Servetus as much as any other prosecutor murders the defendant(s) in the cases that they prosecute.

21stcr.org/multimedia/artitcles/did_calvin_murder_servetus.html

We have to look no further than Calvin’s own words — “Posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster” — to judge Calvin’s guilt in the matter. Also in 1561 Calvin wrote to a friend: “I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.” Calvin wished to be viewed as God’s servant for having Servetus murdered.

biblelife.org/calvinism.htm

Another victim of Calvin’s fiery zeal was Gentile of an Italian sect in Geneva, which also numbered among its adherents Alciati and Gribaldo. More or less Unitarian in their views, they were required to sign a confession drawn up by Calvin in 1558. Gentile signed it reluctantly, but in the upshot he was condemned and imprisoned as a perjurer. He escaped only to be incarcerated twice at Berne where, in 1566, he was beheaded. Calvin also had thirty-four (34) women burned at the stake after accusing them of being witches who caused a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545. The number of people murdered by John Calvin has been a dispute – not the fact that he murdered them. Calvinists reject the references describing John Calvin’s reign of terror because they worship him. John Calvin’s actions were very paganistic like his mentor, Saint Augustine. Jesus and all of the Apostles would have abhorred and condemned these blatant mass murders.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

"John Calvin’s actions were very paganistic like his mentor, Saint Augustine."

So Calvin was paganistic like Augustine? So now a Doctor of the Church was the mentor of Calvin? This is just absurd. The whole church at that time considered the execution of heretics proper and fitting- The Roman Catholic Church included. If the Catholic church could have done so, it would have executed Luther, Calvin and Malancthon, the leaders of the Reformation. I am not defending Calvin per se. But his actions must be seen in light of the spirit of the that time, not ours.

 

[4Squarebaby]

To bring this back to being “born again” some would say Tim McVie was a “Christian terrorist” because a Bishop did not officially release him from the Catholic Church. So he is Christian on an account of his parents living their faith and having their child baptized. To those believing he needs to be born again himself we would argue at the “Christian terrorist” label being applied to Tim McVie.

 

[CopticChristian]

To bring this back to being “born again” some would say Tim McVie was a “Christian terrorist” because a Bishop did not officially release him from the Catholic Church. So he is Christian on an account of his parents living their faith and having their child baptized. To those believing he needs to be born again himself we would argue at the “Christian terrorist” label being applied to Tim McVie.

4,

Ok,

Tell me,

How does someone get born again?

What is a Christian?

You need Faith, how do you get it?

You need grace, how do you get it?

Is there such a thing as Authentic Faith?