History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

I don't know anything of a "modern born again movement" in the church.

What I do know is that Jesus said that you must be born again to see the Kingdom of God.

What I see in the evangelical view of salvation is a group of people trying their best to obey all of the various actions and ideas listed in the scriptures concerning what it means to have that new life.

I see people "laying down their old life" I see people "taking up their cross" and following Jesus. I see people "confessing" what they are doing openly.

The OP lists the supposed "steps" required by evangelicals in order to be born again.

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.

It is likely that anyone personalizing what they see of salvation between them and God would partake of all or most of those steps.

But I don't know of anyone who teaches about being "born again" who tells people that they must say such and such a prayer to be saved. I know of no evangelist who tells people that if they don't "check all of these boxes" they can't be born again.

Everyone I know of simply communicates that a person, in order to be saved, must make these concepts we find in the scriptures highly personal or they are not saved. That - over and against - some sort of corporate involvement such as that found in the formal churches.

What we see in the "modern born again movement" is simply people believing what they see in the scriptures and partaking of it in a personal way while openly confessing what they are doing to God and to men.

They are simply making what many have called the "great exchange" - giving their old life to God and taking His life upon themselves anew.

If there's anything wrong with that - I'll let God correct me rather than listen to the OP or any earthly hierarchy which claims to rule in God's stead or solely represent Him here on earth.

I know whom I have believed and I am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have entrusted to Him against that day.

IMO - the only reason organized religion finds evangelicalism so threatening is because it takes the power of salvation out of their hands and places it squarely between God and the sinner.

Colin Bwogi said:

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

Click to expand...

Hello Collin B (Habari yako Bwana? ) - Welcome to CF and thanks for bringing into the discussion this understanding that many of us have of what being born of water and Spirit means.
No ritual of any sort can deliver us from our holy God's righteous judgement. I was baptised by immersion at the age of 29 to declare and give witness that by God's grace I was 'born again' by His Spirit. I heard, I believed, I was saved. He did it, He does it, all glory to Him.
><>

Hello sir, glad to know that the forum has more from East Africa. To God be all the Glory. Amen

There are only 3 possibilities for salvation.

1) God saves people

2) God and people save people each doing their part

3) people save themselves by doing their part

Most all calling themselves Christian hold to the second position. This includes the "born again movement types", the Catholics, Lutherans, Evangelicals for the most part, and Charismatic groups, cults and what have you.

But scripture teaches the 1st possibility. God saves people wholly by grace from beginning to end.

In the end, # 2 is logically #3, people think they save themselves but give God the credit.

Fidelibus said:

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

Click to expand...

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

I didn't say that it did require all the things on your list.

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

Where does it say in Gods word to rely on "other Christian writings" prior to and/or after the Protestant Reformation or any other "words" other than those by God/Jesus?
2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Matthew 4:4

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

May the Lord lead all through His word. Amen.

A_Thinker said:

John 3

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Click to expand...

I must say the downfall of Catholicism is that it has become an institution that will run people through the sacrament system without really worrying about them being Born Again. What you have at that point - I am starting to think, is people in charge that were not Born Again either, just perpetuation the same thing.

My experience is that in practice Catholicism has become more about perpetuating the institution than anything.

I spoke to my priest recently and mentioned I wonder if I am in the right place - he almost seemed ready to just say "OK - see you later" - it was like reverse evangelization.

I realize there are better places than where I am for Catholicism, but here I think the simple Gospel message has not be taught for decades.

Mountainmike said:

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"

Click to expand...

These issues - primacy not supremacy, and councils - leans more Orthodox than today's Catholic Church it seems.

The more I read early Church, the more Eastern I see things.

Fidelibus said:

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.

Click to expand...

As a "movement" I agree, it wasn't known as that. But that doesn't change Yeshua's words... one must be born again, today... and back then.

But I was to draw your attention to an interesting verse. Yeshua has the discussion with Nicodemus and when they draw toward the end we read:

John 3:10 Yeshua answered and said to him, "Aren't you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?

There is surprise here... Nicodemus was a teacher and he is being asked why he doesn't know this. That means, the idea of being "born again" was understood before Yeshua spoke about it. Now, I will admit (and I believe) that when Yeshua spoke about it he took it to its true depth of meaning. But the idea of being "born again" was understand, at least on a rudimentary level, by Jews at that time.

There are mentions of being born again outside of Scripture yet from that time period. I have a friend who wrote on this years ago... I will look for that article.

Hillsage said:

This is an intriguing post and I’m looking forward to see what happens, because I was born, baptized, confirmed and wed as a Catholic. But at 22 years of age, and 4 years after quitting not only The Church, but also giving up totally on God... My life changed with a born again experience which Jesus says must happen first in John, as Redleg already mentioned. So this might be an interesting and informative ride.

Click to expand...

Yours is a very common story. Praise God that He brought you into saving faith in Him.

Markie Boy said:

These issues - primacy not supremacy, and councils - leans more Orthodox than today's Catholic Church it seems.

The more I read early Church, the more Eastern I see things.

Click to expand...

You are welcome.
But first study those disparate churches , with a history of subservience to the state, and the revisionism they now present of their own history, that is far from "one" . Indeed - study also 14th century orthodox writings that acknowledge the Roman and Latin doctrines, and that much of the dispute was exaggerated for local reasons. Study finally such as kallistos ware ( orthodox bishop charged with ecumenical dialogue) who sees only one problem not many in the reunion, which is addressing the papal role, in which all accept primacy. Maybe not as black and white as orthodox try to paint it.

Finally scripture - NO POSSIBLE reinterpretation of scripture can ever make the holder of keys a joint office - but it is that of individual steward with power to bind and loose, and head pastor, nor does it give power for others to depose him. The orthodox position makes no sense in either scripture or papal history. When Augustine is Quoting authority against donatists, he doesn't list the five church patriarchs. He lists ALL the popes. When Leo speaks, the assembled council said " there speaks Peter"
Only a whitewash of history supports orthodox.

Any christian denomination can be "born again". Born Again isn't a sect but a theological term when someone accepts Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. It's supposed symbolize a new birth of the spirit.

I know some countries confuse "Born Again" with "Protestantism" though.

Fidelibus said:

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

Click to expand...

Same. I used to be a protestant, baptist to be exact... ironically, i went to this charismatic church (or at least I did until i fell under suspicion which is a long story) occasionally but did attend mass like twice a month at most. Anyway, my reason for siding more with Catholicism is in terms of the apologetics which I feel is more intelligent both on an academic level and a biblical level. I used to despise the Catholic church and was so focused on refuting it, yet the more I worked on refuting it (via scripture) the more I saw that they actually make more sense.

I found that not only is Protestantism loaded with theological hypocrisy but it is all a bunch of point of views of some guy that evolved. They criticize catholics of XYZ, but each of the protestant sects have cherry picked what theological beliefs to retain.. that is why you have some protestants who believe in praying to saints, sacraments, etc. They are also responsible for anti-trinity cults with in Christianity.

Mountainmike said:

You are welcome.
But first study those disparate churches , with a history of subservience to the state, and the revisionism they now present of their own history, that is far from "one" . Indeed - study also 14th century orthodox writings that acknowledge the Roman and Latin doctrines, and that much of the dispute was exaggerated for local reasons. Study finally such as kallistos ware ( orthodox bishop charged with ecumenical dialogue) who sees only one problem not many in the reunion, which is addressing the papal role, in which all accept primacy. Maybe not as black and white as orthodox try to paint it.

Finally scripture - NO POSSIBLE reinterpretation of scripture can ever make the holder of keys a joint office - but it is that of individual steward with power to bind and loose, and head pastor, nor does it give power for others to depose him. The orthodox position makes no sense in either scripture or papal history. When Augustine is Quoting authority against donatists, he doesn't list the five church patriarchs. He lists ALL the popes. When Leo speaks, the assembled council said " there speaks Peter"
Only a whitewash of history supports orthodox.

Click to expand...

I'm open to what you are saying - I'm just struggling. I'd rather stay Catholic if my conscience will let me. Anything you'd be willing to share - I'm interested. Feel free to private message as well if you don't mind.

God Bless

Johnny4ChristJesus said:

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.

Click to expand...

It’s amazing we sometimes forget and some have forgotten, that the Christian church began dissenting with the sitting Magisterium of the time the Jewish council, the seat of Moses.

It was by an eccentric desert prophet proclaiming the Kingdom of God was at hand and an itinerant preacher Rabbi from Galilee who in opposition of the sitting magisterium taught from and proved truth claims from Holy Scriptures coming also in deed and in Power.

Mountainmike said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hi if you look at America today in the 240 years since the constitution was founded we can compare the way it is viewed with the original writings of the founders and see that we are very far apart from the intent. The following of traditions is a way of departing from the source as traditions deviate from the original over time. If you get back to the original you can find the original intent. The study of both the old and new testament will bring you to alignment with the scriptures. That is good enough for me. Read Revelation the letters to the 7 churches and you will see the Jesus in the 1st century was very critical of doctrine, practices and moral conditions of what you would call the beginning of the pure apostolic line and tradition. For instance the idea the priests need be single and celibate; is this scriptural or contradiction? Jesus chose Peter a married man and Philip was a father of daughters and then Paul writes the qualification for bishops and elders that they should be the husband of one wife and have their children in order. This seems to be pretty clear and yet over the generations the tradition is taking single celibate men to run the church. The book of Genesis said it is not good for man to be alone. This applies to priests too. The old testament example of the priesthood had married men. The verse by Paul saying it is better not to marry are taken out of context and applied to all. Paul was imprisoned and shipwrecked and beaten and on the road for the gospel and he knew that would be a hard place to bring a wife. For those who are on that sort of path a wife is not a good thing to bring to the things to be suffered. A guy sitting over a parish running a church with families is not in the same situation. If you look at the current scandal in the Catholic church it is obvious this policy of single priests has failed. We could go down the line issue by issue and examine current policy verses scriptural teaching and debate each on on its own merit. I chose this one as an example as it seems a difficult thing to defend the status quo verses the scripture.

Actually if you look back in history being a "christian" in general was started with Jesus. Catholicism didn't start until much later when a group recognized Peter as the "first pope".

So technically you converted to a religion that came after Christianity. And more importantly a religion that the pope more or less controls. They have decided what books make it and what books don't make it into their version of the bible. Despite the fact many of their added books conflict with the normal bible christians use.

BTW not saying catholics aren't christians. Just saying they are more of a branch off.

Fidelibus said:

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

Click to expand...

I've read what John Newman has to say about Protestantism. It's completely incoherent. All he does is rave about the Arian heresy. What does that have to do with Arianism? Protetants aren't Arians, since they do believe in the Divinity of Jesus.

Cis.jd said:

I found that not only is Protestantism loaded with theological hypocrisy but it is all a bunch of point of views of some guy that evolved. They criticize catholics of XYZ, but each of the protestant sects have cherry picked what theological beliefs to retain.. that is why you have some protestants who believe in praying to saints, sacraments, etc. They are also responsible for anti-trinity cults with in Christianity.

Click to expand...

Haven't Catholics enough of their own issues to deal with ?

Markie Boy said:

I'm open to what you are saying - I'm just struggling. I'd rather stay Catholic if my conscience will let me. Anything you'd be willing to share - I'm interested. Feel free to private message as well if you don't mind.

God Bless

Click to expand...

Read james likoudis books - they are an eye opener ( a convert from orthodox to catholic)
It includes a long thesis by a greek speaking orthodox who read the latin writings (a big no no at the time) and found himself agreeing with the latin doctors such as acquinas.

Also kallistos ware videos are online.

Catholics are all seemingly worreid about the ultraconservative attacks on the pope and about the horrendous actions of some in the clergy. I share the hatred of what was done, but I am optimistic it will be resoved. I have faith that our Lord will preseve his church - That He will see that the mess is resolved - and guide the pope throught troubled times. I wonder whether fatimas third secret is describing the tribulations of the present pope and church.

A_Thinker said:

Haven't Catholics enough of their own issues to deal with ?

Click to expand...

Not in the context that sola scriptura has created 10000 opposing doctrines in protestantism. I take that figure not from numbers of denominations, but the mutually exclusive variants of eucharist, baptism, sacraments, salvation, marriage , moral issues, end times, clergy and succession, even nature of Godhead, and many more besites.: you name it protestants disagree fundamentally on it with each other. Yet out of all of these permutations (there are many more than 10000) there can only be one truth.

All of them a direct result of the flawed beliefs that any interpretation of scripture consistent with words is truth. Yet there is only one truth. What scripture means was handed by tradition and the voice of the authority of the church. Even before there was scripture, the new testament was a product of the church!.

Then to cope with the lack of authority all create their own tradition the "confession" or "articles" that say what it means. In all cases a "man made tradition" not the one handed down from biblical times, visible in the early fathers. eg "bishops needed for valid eucharist of the real flesh". - the catholic meaning of tradition. The faith handed down, and decided by authority and councils where there were disputes on heresy.

Even Luther lamented "there are now as many doctrines as heads" - but it was him that let pandora out of the box, in disavowing authority, so all get to make up their own version. Even he had to admit that scripture was a product of the very authority he disavowed, which authority carried specific meanign with scripture (eg eucharist of real flesh)