History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

[BNR32FAN]

Being a history buff, and wanting to learn about the early Christians, is what lead me to my conversion to the Catholic Church. Before my conversion, I believed that all I needed to do to be "Born Again Christian" was:

1. Accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

2. Believe and pray to him/ asking him into my heart. (the sinners prayer)

3. Repent of my sins.

4. Join a church or religious community, if I wanted, but not necessary.

5. Have a full immersion baptisim.

6. Welcoming and receiving the Holy Spirit.


After digging and reading into early Christianity, I found that history was silent on the existence of the "born again" movement. For example, as far as my studies lead me, even the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, Uldrich Zwingli and John Calvin never mentioned or even said something in formality or in passsing about the born again Christian movement in any of their writings, or if they did, I missed it.

What my studies did show me though was that It wasn't until the 19th century where the idea “born again Christian" movement made its appearance in human history, and that the "born again Christian" movement can only trace its origin back in 1909-1915.


So...... as I mentiond, being a history buff of early Christianity, I would be much interested if any believer of the born again Christian movement, could show any teachings or writings supporting the born again Christian movement prior to the 19th cent. or from the early Christians prior to the Protestant Reformation.


Thank you for your input.

I’m sure you probably already know this but just to make sure. Being born again is becoming a new creation born of the Holy Spirit. It is walking in the Spirit. It is the desire to refrain from sin and to devote yourself to God. To obey His commandments and do what pleases Him. In a nutshell it’s devoting your life to serving God.

 

[redleghunter]

But where in Scripture does it say to be a Born again Christian all one needs to do is.....

1. Accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior.

2. Believe and pray to him/ asking him into our hearts. (the sinners prayer)

3. Repent of our sins.

4. Join a church or religious community, if we wanted, but not necessary.

5. Have a full immersion baptisim.

and

6. Welcoming and receiving the Holy Spirit.


Or in any other early Christian writings........ say.... prior to the Protestant Reformation?



Have a Blessed day

I don't think you will find 4-6 in any of the Reformation writings but you will find this in Holy Scriptures:
Acts of the Apostles shows how the Gospel was preached, how souls heard and believed and their actions thereafter (baptism) and becoming a part of the Body of Christ His Church.

To believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved is confirmed in Acts of the Apostles 16:31 to the jailer. Later that night the jailer cleaned Paul's wounds while he preached the Gospel and later those who heard and believed were baptized.

The Apostle states in Romans:

Romans 10: NASB

5For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BEDISAPPOINTED.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

14How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!”

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Being a history buff, and wanting to learn about the early Christians, is what lead me to my conversion to the Catholic Church. Before my conversion, I believed that all I needed to do to be "Born Again Christian" was:

1. Accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

2. Believe and pray to him/ asking him into my heart. (the sinners prayer)

3. Repent of my sins.

4. Join a church or religious community, if I wanted, but not necessary.

5. Have a full immersion baptisim.

6. Welcoming and receiving the Holy Spirit.


After digging and reading into early Christianity, I found that history was silent on the existence of the "born again" movement. For example, as far as my studies lead me, even the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, Uldrich Zwingli and John Calvin never mentioned or even said something in formality or in passsing about the born again Christian movement in any of their writings, or if they did, I missed it.

What my studies did show me though was that It wasn't until the 19th century where the idea “born again Christian" movement made its appearance in human history, and that the "born again Christian" movement can only trace its origin back in 1909-1915.


So...... as I mentiond, being a history buff of early Christianity, I would be much interested if any believer of the born again Christian movement, could show any teachings or writings supporting the born again Christian movement prior to the 19th cent. or from the early Christians prior to the Protestant Reformation.


Thank you for your input.

George Whitefield

 

[redleghunter]

3. Repent of our sins.

We see it quite often in the Acts of the Apostles, but once again the Apostle says thus:

2 Corinthians 7: NASB

10For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.

On a sinners prayer?

Here's a famous one.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

Being a history buff, and wanting to learn about the early Christians, is what lead me to my conversion to the Catholic Church. Before my conversion, I believed that all I needed to do to be "Born Again Christian" was:

1. Accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

2. Believe and pray to him/ asking him into my heart. (the sinners prayer)

3. Repent of my sins.

4. Join a church or religious community, if I wanted, but not necessary.

5. Have a full immersion baptisim.

6. Welcoming and receiving the Holy Spirit.


After digging and reading into early Christianity, I found that history was silent on the existence of the "born again" movement. For example, as far as my studies lead me, even the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, Uldrich Zwingli and John Calvin never mentioned or even said something in formality or in passsing about the born again Christian movement in any of their writings, or if they did, I missed it.

What my studies did show me though was that It wasn't until the 19th century where the idea “born again Christian" movement made its appearance in human history, and that the "born again Christian" movement can only trace its origin back in 1909-1915.


So...... as I mentiond, being a history buff of early Christianity, I would be much interested if any believer of the born again Christian movement, could show any teachings or writings supporting the born again Christian movement prior to the 19th cent. or from the early Christians prior to the Protestant Reformation.


Thank you for your input.

Hi being saved is a line you are on one side of it or not. If you look at the great white throne there is a group who's names are not written in the Lambs book of life. They are judged by the things they did in this life and all of them are going to be guilty. Jesus told the thief on the cross that this day he would be in paradise. This man expressed his faith and was born of the Spirit. John has a thesis in chapter 20 30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. The entire gospel is written to this end. Chapter 3 is very popular for the born again movement. This movement wants to see people believe in Jesus. So chapter 3 leads to verse 16 which again divides people into two groups. Those who believe Jesus is the son of God given for salvation that who so ever believes will not perish but receive eternal life and those who don't. This is why the invitation or alter call is trying to make people make a conscious choice to believe the gospel. John 3 17 is not as popular but speaks to the same idea.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

The gospel is not different and the promises are real and many have been saved with this method of sharing the gospel. The problem is often an incomplete gospel is given and the size of the commitment is real light and the concept of being in eternal jeopardy by your sins is not expressed. As Gal 3 shows an alter call can be a good thing or not it is based on what gospel you preach. 6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Peter in Acts on the day of Pentecost
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly[fn] received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
If you look at this passage Peters message is repent and believe to be saved. He notes that 3000 were added that day so the crossing the line from being unsaved to saved happened upon belief. The turning the altar call into a circus is not right but the gospel has not changed and people are either saved or not so presenting a clear gospel so one can cross over is a good thing. It was just sort of formulized into a evangelical revival rally long ago. Nothing wrong with a rally calling people to repent and believe the gospel.

 

[redleghunter]

As does Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition shown through the writings of the Early Church Fathers/Christians. (see post # 14)

Baptism in the NT occurs after those hearing the Gospel are pierced in the heart, and believe.

Acts 2 shows the sequence. Gospel preached, people believe and are pierced in the heart, come forward to be baptized.

Acts 10, Gospel is preached the people hearing believe and receive the Holy Spirit and then are baptized. Only when our Christian forebears became institutionalized did they put the cart before the horse.

Baptism is faith in action.

 

[redleghunter]

Not trying to be dis-respectful redleg, but I couldn't disagree more, my studies of Early Church history is what led me to the Catholic Church.

Prominent Anglican clergyman that converted to Catholicism, John Henry Newman which
ultimately became a Cardinal (1801–1890) says it best:


"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."


You should read his and fellow Anglican convert to Catholicism and Catholic Cardinal Henry Edward Manning's (1808–1892) writings.

Have a Blessed day

The deeper in history I went as a Catholic I was confronted with the New Testament church. I could not find Roman Catholic distinctives there.

 

[Colin Bwogi]

Being a history buff, and wanting to learn about the early Christians, is what lead me to my conversion to the Catholic Church. Before my conversion, I believed that all I needed to do to be "Born Again Christian" was:

1. Accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

2. Believe and pray to him/ asking him into my heart. (the sinners prayer)

3. Repent of my sins.

4. Join a church or religious community, if I wanted, but not necessary.

5. Have a full immersion baptisim.

6. Welcoming and receiving the Holy Spirit.


After digging and reading into early Christianity, I found that history was silent on the existence of the "born again" movement. For example, as far as my studies lead me, even the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, Uldrich Zwingli and John Calvin never mentioned or even said something in formality or in passsing about the born again Christian movement in any of their writings, or if they did, I missed it.

What my studies did show me though was that It wasn't until the 19th century where the idea “born again Christian" movement made its appearance in human history, and that the "born again Christian" movement can only trace its origin back in 1909-1915.


So...... as I mentiond, being a history buff of early Christianity, I would be much interested if any believer of the born again Christian movement, could show any teachings or writings supporting the born again Christian movement prior to the 19th cent. or from the early Christians prior to the Protestant Reformation.


Thank you for your input.

I feel privileged to be apart of this spiritual exchange.
Well, I believe that being "Born Again" is very important to it's specific point and time of effect unto a Christian. But after one is Born again, it's not for him to stay to that point. Because I believe that 'to be Born again' is like an Entrance or a point of entrance into that which Christ really desires us to receive.

You see, Christ mentioned this thing of 'being Born Again' once in his teaching. And he did so because Nichodimus asked a very important question saying "How do I enter into the Kingdom of God?"

What are we given to learn here?

Christ's point was the KINGDOM, that's why a great deal of his teachings was about the Kingdom and not Born again, not that being Born Again wasn't important, but that the real deal was the KINGDOM.

Think about it, if being Born Again is the doorway into the wealth of heaven(the Kingdom), why would you hang onto the doorway and even identify yourself by the name of the doorway: don't you need the wealth wherein the door is leading you?
Or you have just chosen to ignore the Kingdom, and be stuck at the door.

Jesus says, seek ye first the Kingdom...

My point is let us seek to understand what the Lord wants us to receive, and we will be better witnesses with better testimonies unto them that need Salvation.
They will be born again, not because we are born again, but because we bring to them the very truth which Christ desires of us to testify: The KINGDOM.

God bless you all.

 

[redleghunter]

You should read his and fellow Anglican convert to Catholicism and Catholic Cardinal Henry Edward Manning's (1808–1892) writings.

I have read Cardinals Ratzinger, Manning and Newman. I'm reminded of this quote from Cardinal Newman on religious syncretism:

"We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}

Greeks dedicate images to devils, and call them gods; but we to True God Incarnate, and to God's servants and friends, who drive away the troops of devils." [Note 18] Again, "As the holy Fathers overthrew the temples and shrines of the devils, and raised in their places shrines in the {377} names of Saints and we worship them, so also they overthrew the images of the devils, and in their stead raised images of Christ, and God's Mother, and the Saints. And under the Old Covenant, Israel neither raised temples in the name of men, nor was memory of man made a festival; for, as yet, man's nature was under a curse, and death was condemnation, and therefore was lamented, and a corpse was reckoned unclean and he who touched it; but now that the Godhead has been combined with our nature, as some life-giving and saving medicine, our nature has been glorified and is trans-elemented into incorruption. Wherefore the death of Saints is made a feast, and temples are raised to them, and Images are painted ... (John Henry Newman [made a cardinal by Pope Leo III in 1879]; Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power, Chapter 8; Newman Reader - Development of Christian Doctrine - Chapter 8)

And this one from Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) :

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.“

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).
Principles of Catholic Theology

 

[Mountainmike]

Keep going back in history. The farther you go back the more Evangelical you will become.

Acts chapter 2 is probably the best historical evidence of born again Christians. Which really according to Jesus in John 3 there are no other types.

Totally wrong. Just not so.

The further back you go.
Read such as ignatius - or iraneus
The more Catholic you become.

The first generation those TAUGHT by apostles
believed in " paradosis" ( tradition) that is the faith handed down by appointed succession bishops , and sacraments like Eucharist of the real flesh valid only if performed by those bishops or their appointees. They also believed in the authority of the church,with primacy at Rome, doctrinal issues resolved in council by the power to " bind and loose", IE church authority." the foundation of truth"

Born again threw out the bath, let alone the baby and bath water.

Early church certainly didn't believe in bible alone : the New Testament was aproduct of church authority and still centuries in the future.And few could read the bible let alone afford one for almost two millennia. Which is why faith is and was passed by tradition, which carries the meaning to go with the words.

Born again is a movement based on historic amnesia.
Where are the succession bishops, church authority and sacraments?
Other than the non biblical quasi sacrament " asking Jesus into your life", " altar calls" and such like.

It is part of the " make it up as you go along" christian movement: the bible means what you want it to mean, that accounts for endless Protestant schisms. I was part of one of those movements once, and it was amazing how they claimed the bible was all important, then ignored all except bits they liked! And they turned intellectual cartwheels to avoid obvious truth in passages they didn't like.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Being a history buff, and wanting to learn about the early Christians, is what lead me to my conversion to the Catholic Church. Before my conversion, I believed that all I needed to do to be "Born Again Christian" was:

1. Accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

2. Believe and pray to him/ asking him into my heart. (the sinners prayer)

3. Repent of my sins.

4. Join a church or religious community, if I wanted, but not necessary.

5. Have a full immersion baptisim.

6. Welcoming and receiving the Holy Spirit.


After digging and reading into early Christianity, I found that history was silent on the existence of the "born again" movement. For example, as far as my studies lead me, even the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, Uldrich Zwingli and John Calvin never mentioned or even said something in formality or in passsing about the born again Christian movement in any of their writings, or if they did, I missed it.

What my studies did show me though was that It wasn't until the 19th century where the idea “born again Christian" movement made its appearance in human history, and that the "born again Christian" movement can only trace its origin back in 1909-1915.


So...... as I mentiond, being a history buff of early Christianity, I would be much interested if any believer of the born again Christian movement, could show any teachings or writings supporting the born again Christian movement prior to the 19th cent. or from the early Christians prior to the Protestant Reformation.


Thank you for your input.

So, how about if I took your logic:

"As a Christian History Buff, I examined the early Acts church and formed my doctrine based exclusively on the early Acts church. Here is what I found: The only way to come to Jesus was through existing disciples AND you couldn't get the Holy Spirit unless Peter and John were involved. Armed with that "early Acts doctrine", I have eliminated the Apostle Paul, because he came into Christianity a different way. The "early acts procedure" wasn't followed and therefore the Apostle Paul is illegitimate."

Worse, aren't you doing exactly what the Pharisees did. They eliminated Jesus, because He didn't do or act as they thought He should. As far as they were concerned, He didn't honor the Law and He wasn't from the right place.

Obviously, I think you would disagree with that logic, but that is exactly what the kind of logic you are applying. What if God was making a church course-correction. Is God not allowed to do that any more, in your theology? I know God woke me up. I didn't answer an altar call in a born-again church, nor would my "church" ever have led me to Jesus. But, God....

One final challenge: If you examined Christian history: One of 5 bishops of the still less-than-1000-years-old church decided to take over and make himself the leader of all the other bishops and call himself pope and needs people to bow to him and his authority (very different from the Holy Spirit-inspired Peter and Paul). Why did you decide that following that one bishop was more correct than going all the way back to the first split and siding with the 4 of 5 bishops? If you are consistently applying your logic, you should have gone all the way to the Eastern Orthodox church. What stopped you from going back beyond the first church splitters (the catholic church)?

 

[redleghunter]

Totally wrong. Just not so.

The further back you go.
Read such as ignatius - or iraneus
The more Catholic you become.

The first generation those TAUGHT by apoatles
believed in " paradosis" that is the faith handed down by appointed succession bishops , and sacraments like Eucharist of the real flesh valid only if performed by those bishops or their appointees. They also believed in the authority of the church,with primacy at Rome, doctrinal issues resolved in council by the power to " bind and loose"

They certainly didn't believe in bible alone, the New Testament was aproduct of church authority and still centuries in the future. And few could read the bible let alone afford one for almost two millennia

Born again is a movement based on historic amnesia.
And is part of " make it up as you go along" christianity that accounts for endless Protestant schisms. I was part of one of those movements onc, and it was amazing how they claimed the bible was all important, then ignored all except bits they liked!

Can you address the Scriptures which refute your claim?

Can you provide the quote from Irenaeus which refutes the truth of Acts 2 and Acts 10 which actually shows the actions of evangelists preaching Christ crucified, died and risen seated at the Right Hand of Power and the reaction of souls believing the message?

Can you show me NT souls speaking of appropriating the Treasury of Merit for salvation and if that works like the Divine Treasury?

And if you care to, please support the remainder of your assertions. Adding evidence to an assertion just may make for an argument.

Finally, for some reason you and the OP seem to handle the term Born Again with contempt as if it refers to some Protestant term when our Lord says one must be born again of Spirit. You also make it sound like it is some human effort or man has sovereign design over how one is born again.

Born Again or born from above is a sovereign action of God and nothing we do. Born again of Spirit is God enabling us as a new creation spiritually to discern His Gospel leading us to faith and repentance.

See Ezekiel 36:24-28

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Totally wrong. Just not so.

The further back you go.
Read such as ignatius - or iraneus
The more Catholic you become.

The first generation those TAUGHT by apostles
believed in " paradosis" ( tradition) that is the faith handed down by appointed succession bishops , and sacraments like Eucharist of the real flesh valid only if performed by those bishops or their appointees. They also believed in the authority of the church,with primacy at Rome, doctrinal issues resolved in council by the power to " bind and loose", IE church authority." the foundation of truth"

Born again threw out the bath, let alone the baby and bath water.

Early church certainly didn't believe in bible alone : the New Testament was aproduct of church authority and still centuries in the future.And few could read the bible let alone afford one for almost two millennia. Which is why faith is and was passed by tradition, which carries the meaning to go with the words.

Born again is a movement based on historic amnesia.
Where are the succession bishops, church authority and sacraments?
Other than the non biblical quasi sacrament " asking Jesus into your life", " altar calls" and such like.

It is part of the " make it up as you go along" christian movement: the bible means what you want it to mean, that accounts for endless Protestant schisms. I was part of one of those movements once, and it was amazing how they claimed the bible was all important, then ignored all except bits they liked! And they turned intellectual cartwheels to avoid obvious truth in passages they didn't like.

If the visible church had not become corrupt and given itself over to the world, there would have been no need for God to intervene and wake people up outside the church as you know it or as the Eastern Orthodox--descendant of 4 of 5 bishops--knows it. But, what God did with Paul (waking him up outside the traditional church), He is surely capable of doing today. Paul's doctrine didn't come through the traditional church. It came from God. Certainly, there are people who twist Truth today, but if you think they are limited to the protestant church, you are being deceived.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Hi being saved is a line you are on one side of it or not. If you look at the great white throne there is a group who's names are not written in the Lambs book of life. They are judged by the things they did in this life and all of them are going to be guilty. Jesus told the thief on the cross that this day he would be in paradise. This man expressed his faith and was born of the Spirit. John has a thesis in chapter 20 30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. The entire gospel is written to this end. Chapter 3 is very popular for the born again movement. This movement wants to see people believe in Jesus. So chapter 3 leads to verse 16 which again divides people into two groups. Those who believe Jesus is the son of God given for salvation that who so ever believes will not perish but receive eternal life and those who don't. This is why the invitation or alter call is trying to make people make a conscious choice to believe the gospel. John 3 17 is not as popular but speaks to the same idea.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

The gospel is not different and the promises are real and many have been saved with this method of sharing the gospel. The problem is often an incomplete gospel is given and the size of the commitment is real light and the concept of being in eternal jeopardy by your sins is not expressed. As Gal 3 shows an alter call can be a good thing or not it is based on what gospel you preach. 6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Peter in Acts on the day of Pentecost
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly[fn] received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
If you look at this passage Peters message is repent and believe to be saved. He notes that 3000 were added that day so the crossing the line from being unsaved to saved happened upon belief. The turning the altar call into a circus is not right but the gospel has not changed and people are either saved or not so presenting a clear gospel so one can cross over is a good thing. It was just sort of formulized into a evangelical revival rally long ago. Nothing wrong with a rally calling people to repent and believe the gospel.

And what if what you called a circus is actually a move of God? Is it right for you to judge it--because it doesn't look reverent enough to you? Do you know which ones are acting, which ones are controlled by demons, and which ones are genuinely being touched by God? If you don't have that inside information from God, I would be very careful how you judge.

 

[Colin Bwogi]

Now concerning Fidelibus' issue of Baptism being Born again; let it be known that these words of Christ Jesus are not come to us that we might just interpret them anyhow.

The Word says that "...in all our getting, let's make sure that we get understanding" (Proverbs 4:7)
He needs us to understand these things so we might be true sons of Wisdom, because He loves us even as His only begotten Son(John 3:16).

Now, when He says that 'we must be born of water', we have to be like Nichodimus asking ourselves "How?"
(1John 5:1-8)
This Water(Faith in the waters of Baptism) is record that we are sons of God and that through it, we have overcome this world. Yet again, one would ask "How?"
We ought to know and also understand that this Water represents two basic principles in the Kingdom of God, and that is Judgment and the Word of God, because it's the Word that judges that which is clean from that which is unclean: this' why we have always seen God's judgment related to Water(in the days of Noah, in Exodus at the Red sea, and even in the Baptism of Repentance which we call the Baptism of Water), for in the Baptism of Water, we see a judgment wherein the waters separate the old man(which remains under the water) from the new man(which is born out of the water - a new man washed clean of the old man): a new man that can stand in the judgment of Water which is also to say that he is given to judge right from wrong, because he has been made clean(John15:3) for the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, he that is born of water, he has been washed clean by the Word of God, that he might judge according to the judgment of Spirit of God.

Therefore, in this we understand that being Born Again is sealed in these two Baptisms: the Baptism of Water and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Born of the water and of the Spirit.

NB: Water, spiritually representing the Word of God in the Earth after her purpose(Isaiah 55:10-11)

God bless you

 

[Mountainmike]

Distinguish the movement " that calls itself born again" ( I was once part off ) and the tradition and baggage those congregations have ( like disavowing the need of authority of the church) - the subject of this thread.

Distinguish that from the handful of underlying scriptures on which the movement claim basis, which ALL Christians share and own not just them

So to regard my contest of the movement as a contest of those scriptures ( I don't) is a pure straw man argument: the kind the born again movement loves and is part of their playbook.

And yes I do have contempt, for the way such congregations , or rather their leaders appointed by no one., claim to base on scripture alone, whilst ignoring much of it, and also the way they misrepresent Christian history. They wasted years of my life.

For sure there are good people and good Christians in all of these movements, I would say despite the movements not because of them.

As for your central theme: " show me scripture": if you are the history proponent you claim you will know your theme is specious:

Because you will know most first generation fathers STRESS the role of bishops in the means of passage of true doctrine, where little is said in scripture on the role of bishops, Or their role in Valid sacraments such as eucharist.

The first fathers taught by apostles say all this, so there is clearly doctrine beyond scripture clearly recorded in history. To deny that is to either - regard apostles as apostate - to regard their teaching as worthless - or to believe that Jesus allowed the gates of hell to prevail against his church, which he says he will not. Why would Jesus allow all christians from the first to stray? And if they did not, then bishops are vital both in true doctrine and sacraments, as is the primacy of Rome.

And that which is said in scripture like " stay true to tradition we taught you" , " foundation of truth is the church" is generally ignored or misrepresented by those claiming " sola scriptura" as a theme, or claim that the church is just a spiritual union. That's not how the early church saw it.

Clearly in the real world scripture is not alone , and the meaning of even the word " church " is disputed, tradition carries true meaning for the word "church" which is one of the words Born again dispute. Easy to dispute anything if you kick out the dictionary of meanings that was handed down as tradtion.

Can you address the Scriptures which refute your claim?

Can you provide the quote from Irenaeus which refutes the truth of Acts 2 and Acts 10 which actually shows the actions of evangelists preaching Christ crucified, died and risen seated at the Right Hand of Power and the reaction of souls believing the message?

Can you show me NT souls speaking of appropriating the Treasury of Merit for salvation and if that works like the Divine Treasury?

And if you care to, please support the remainder of your assertions. Adding evidence to an assertion just may make for an argument.

Finally, for some reason you and the OP seem to handle the term Born Again with contempt as if it refers to some Protestant term when our Lord says one must be born again of Spirit. You also make it sound like it is some human effort or man has sovereign design over how one is born again.

Born Again or born from above is a sovereign action of God and nothing we do. Born again of Spirit is God enabling us as a new creation spiritually to discern His Gospel leading us to faith and repentance.

See Ezekiel 36:24-28

 

[☦Marius☦]

Being a history buff, and wanting to learn about the early Christians, is what lead me to my conversion to the Catholic Church. Before my conversion, I believed that all I needed to do to be "Born Again Christian" was:

1. Accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

2. Believe and pray to him/ asking him into my heart. (the sinners prayer)

3. Repent of my sins.

4. Join a church or religious community, if I wanted, but not necessary.

5. Have a full immersion baptisim.

6. Welcoming and receiving the Holy Spirit.


After digging and reading into early Christianity, I found that history was silent on the existence of the "born again" movement. For example, as far as my studies lead me, even the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, Uldrich Zwingli and John Calvin never mentioned or even said something in formality or in passsing about the born again Christian movement in any of their writings, or if they did, I missed it.

What my studies did show me though was that It wasn't until the 19th century where the idea “born again Christian" movement made its appearance in human history, and that the "born again Christian" movement can only trace its origin back in 1909-1915.


So...... as I mentiond, being a history buff of early Christianity, I would be much interested if any believer of the born again Christian movement, could show any teachings or writings supporting the born again Christian movement prior to the 19th cent. or from the early Christians prior to the Protestant Reformation.


Thank you for your input.

He isn't questioning the concept of being born again guys, he is questioning the modern evangelical "born again movement". Which is essentially the format most protestant churches use in their services and theology. Examples would include modern inventions such as:

-Once saved always saved
-Faith alone
-Sola Scriptura
-Rejection of all apostolic tradition
-Non liturgical services
-Lack of belief in the real presence in the Eucharist.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Goes back pretty far.

Nicodemus was smart enough to ask what must one do to be born again?
M-Bob

PS -- although the sinner's prayer never seems to be mentioned. That could be a man-made thing? Man always thinks that he has the answer to everything.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Would it be fair to say we are talking about that Evangelical type of Protestantism that rejects Luther and prefers the radical side of the reformation? If so, the OP is right.

One could read into the text of the Bible their own theology, especially that new Protestant born again theology and say that their Church (or more appropriately movement) has been around since the beginning but this seems disingenuous since one would also have to admit this Evangelical theology ceased to exist very shortly after the Apostles, being replaced with an Episcopal structure which valued communion between Churches (insisted on it in fact) and even decreed through councils what the whole Church ought to believe and confess. Even the Apostolic Church didn't operate as modern Evangelicals do.

This is to put aside that simply quoting the bible when it talks about being born again is not evidence of the theology being currently advocated since what the phrase "Born again" is the very thing in contention. This no longer becomes a question of history but a question of whose theology is right.

Since this is a question of history how do those who want to insist that the Apostles were essentially Evangelical in character (judging by the interpretations of the Bible offered) deal with the next generation of Christians or subsequent generations? Orthodox, Catholic and Oriental explanations of the Church and how it worked explain more easily the faith of the Fathers than any modern Evangelical ever could. I would even grant the Magisterial side of the reformation more legitimacy in explaining historically their place (though I reject it).

 

[FireDragon76]

If it's water baptism then why isn't the word for baptism used in the born again dialogue. And why is born of water and born of Spirit not one in the same?

The Spirit operates in baptism.

Luther absolutely believed, taugh, and confessed baptismal regeneration, as do all Lutherans today. It is not true that the "Born Again Christian" was part of his religious ethos.

Even in confessionally Reformed churches, there is a presumption that those children who are baptised are among the elect. It is the traditional, high theology of the Reformed churches in Europe.