History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

[Dale]

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.

Mountainmike,

You refer to "altar calls" in quotes, as a symptom of the "born again" movement.

Do you believe that Peter converted thousands of people at Pentecost without an "altar call"?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

So all you have are continued subjective opinion and won’t engage in actually backing your assertions with evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

Mountainmike,

You refer to "altar calls" in quotes, as a symptom of the "born again" movement.

Do you believe that Peter converted thousands of people at Pentecost without an "altar call"?

I believe Peter went out to Baptise, which is the true entry point into the christian church.

And that is the start of a spiritual journey. It is not the "do this one thing and be saved forever"
The quasi sacrament "ask jesus into your life"...that many of these communities seem to prefer. One problem is of course, these congregations are not homogenous.

 

[Mountainmike]

So all you have are continued subjective opinion and won’t engage in actually backing your assertions with evidence.

We dont dispute the scriptures. So no discussion needed.
I dispute the veracity of the structure and teaching of born again communities.
Ive pointed out, they are poles apart from the early church described by the earliest fathers.
Since when did any of them do a eucharist of the real flesh, by a bishop in succession? And you know that is what ignatius speaks of to the smyrneans.
If John the apostle -Ignatius and polycarps teacher - didnt know the meaning of John 6as its author, and the eucharist who does? Certainly not the "invention" of recent movements like the born again communities. I can say from personal experience NONE of them had read the early fathers! But claimed knowledge of the early church. Ha! How dare they...

 

[Mountainmike]

Im not sure you can compare more recent institutions.

Even from the earliest days. This didnt apply ....

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that ALL men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ..."

Arguably it still does not for many minorities. And it never has.

..

Single priests has not failed.

It is an assumption repeated so often it has become fact without ever being proven. There are celibate and married priests both orthodox and catholic.
There is no dogmatic barrier to it, it is the present policy.

What has happened is obnoxious creatures that prey on children have wormed their way in everywhere there are children, from scout movements to , entertainers ( the most recent fiasco in the UK) , swimming clubs to churches.(including the present storm in the anglican church) Sadly all have the problem.

The catholic church is so big that the numbers of them are high. But they are still no more prevalent than in the community generally. And decades ago, the organistations were nowhere near as well trained todeal with it. Bishops were chosen for their sanctity, not their competience or power of observation. Sad but true.

It is also true that children are far more vulnerable in their own homes as victims of people they know. But it is not as newsworthy. Nor do the multimillino claims get publicity. The perpetrators generally are not worth suing. The catholic church is. But onlyif you can find an argument it was complicit. So thats what happens.

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.

 

[redleghunter]

We dont dispute the scriptures. So no discussion needed.
I dispute the veracity of the structure and teaching of born again communities.
Ive pointed out, they are poles apart from the early church described by the earliest fathers.
Since when did any of them do a eucharist of the real flesh, by a bishop in succession? And you know that is what ignatius speaks of to the smyrneans.

You are conflating a Sovereign act of God, born again/born from above with issues of ecclesiology as if such brings about born again.

I think all the Ad Hominems posted by you and the OP just detracts from the true issue. Catholics believe one cannot be born again (John 3) unless they are Catholic and physically partake of sacraments. Putting the church in possession of the sovereignty to declare one born again.

Whereas Jesus says:

The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)

This is a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit.

This is the true issue between us. You opt for 3rd century understanding of what is born again. I gave you Jesus and the Apostles. It’s not a hard choice.

Now since the Scriptures are settled and support my comments. Please prove your point about the church fathers.

Let’s start with Irenaeus. Your claim is his support for apostolic tradition and by extension he and the orthodox bishops have been faithful in communicating the apostolic tradition.

To prove your point will you provide what in the time of Irenaeus was apostolic tradition and show me his quotes on what he stated was the tradition handed down.

Don’t waste time with him providing evidence of bishop successions. I know the quotes and his argument. What we need to nail down is what they actually taught and what Irenaeus argued they and he taught.

Can we do this without hurling insulting assertions?

If you won’t will another Roman Catholic do so?

 

[AlexDTX]

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.

Jesus said it.
Joh 3:3 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.
It is not a movement, it is salvation.

 

[Hillsage]

As a former cradle Catholic, I am surprised you don't know this. Anyway, as far as the teachings of the Catholic Church from Sacred Scripture, we look at the following passages:

You just might not have been surprised, if you too had been raised as an 'unsaved' Catholic who participated in all the ‘religious rituals’ of the Church, but without experiencing the ‘spiritual realities’ represented by those ‘rituals’. Please hear me, I am not saying it isn't possible to eventually become a Christian as a cradle born Catholic. I just don't believe it happens in the ritualistic order as is taught by the RC church.

I have also said for years, with confirmation from many, that Catholics who actually get born again and Spirit baptized (with the evidence of prayer tongues 'In the experience of those I'm speaking to') are very often the most committed "Christians" I/we have known over the years. I have also noticed Fedlibus, that adult Protestants who convert to Catholicism, are most often, more committed and knowledgeable Catholics concerning 'the church' and it's teachings than most of the RC church's 'pew warmers'. A 'condition' which I believe described me.

"Born Again in Water Baptism:

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.John 3:3,5 – Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

I believe scripture supports that Jesus experienced several baptisms in His 30 years as the 'pattern son' whose life we are to follow. Two of those baptisms are, as you mention above. A baptism in water and the subsequent baptism of the Spirit from above after his baptism in water. Even though both of those two events were obviously sequential in the case of Jesus, I personally believe one does error, in believing those two baptisms are a 'one and the same' event. And scripture supports that 'opinion' for me. That's what happened both, at the house of Cornelius and also at Samaria;

ACT 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

My testimony is also a 'Gentile' one like the house of Cornelius. I was born again saved for 6 months before receiving the baptism of the Spirit and then subsequently being water baptized a few months after my Spirit baptism.

ACT 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
ACT 8:15 Who, when they (Peter/John) were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

John 3:22 – after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus’ teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

Still being, under the law, which Jesus had not fulfilled had nothing to do with this OT baptism being the NT baptism which He initiated 'after His resurrection'. A 'baptismal process' which we call, the Great Commission...of Christ for His church.

I have single question for you Fidelibus; If the baptism of John forgave sins as scripture states...then why did Jesus still have to die, for the forgiveness of sins?

MAR 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

I'm going to quit here Fedelibus, because, as you said, yours "was a long post" and I really don't want to spend that much time posting returns anymore. I think 'this post' of mine is too long also. I'm really more interested in seeing what others think, and deciding if all of my 'heretical' thinking is still 'the truth' I believe I'm seeing, in opposition to the opinion of orthodoxy.

 

[Hillsage]

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

I do praise him....as I have done for the last 46 years. I am truly grateful for His grace and my life in Him, as well as His life in me.

 

[Mountainmike]

Now read what I wrote.

In this instance I spoke of ignatius, and how the practice of born again congregations cannot be reconciled in the slightest with the early church as regards for example either apostolic succession or sacraments, or indeed how they viewed the church.

I speak of experience IN these communities.

So whilst we agree on the importance of a few verses , they are no justification for the wholesale apostasy of many of the communities that live under that name.
" born again"

You are conflating a Sovereign act of God, born again/born from above with issues of ecclesiology as if such brings about born again.

I think all the Ad Hominems posted by you and the OP just detracts from the true issue. Catholics believe one cannot be born again (John 3) unless they are Catholic and physically partake of sacraments. Putting the church in possession of the sovereignty to declare one born again.

Whereas Jesus says:

The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)

This is a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit.

This is the true issue between us. You opt for 3rd century understanding of what is born again. I gave you Jesus and the Apostles. It’s not a hard choice.

Now since the Scriptures are settled and support my comments. Please prove your point about the church fathers.

Let’s start with Irenaeus. Your claim is his support for apostolic tradition and by extension he and the orthodox bishops have been faithful in communicating the apostolic tradition.

To prove your point will you provide what in the time of Irenaeus was apostolic tradition and show me his quotes on what he stated was the tradition handed down.

Don’t waste time with him providing evidence of bishop successions. I know the quotes and his argument. What we need to nail down is what they actually taught and what Irenaeus argued they and he taught.

Can we do this without hurling insulting assertions?

If you won’t will another Roman Catholic do so?

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

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?

It is not water baptism.
It is the water of purification from numbers 19, ezk 36 25-27

 

[redleghunter]

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.

I don't think Luther ever harmonized his medieval understanding of baptismal regeneration and the spiritual transformation of being born again or from above. Will have to research that if he did.

But he did make a distinction by testimony in this quote:

"At last meditating day and night, by the mercy of God, I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that through which the righteous live by a gift of God, namely by faith. Here I felt as if I were entirely born again and had entered paradise itself through the gates that had been flung open."​

The Most Dangerous Thing Luther Did

 

[redleghunter]

It is not water baptism.
It is the water of purification from numbers 19, ezk 36 25-27

I was leading up to that by questioning first the poster to who made the claim to get more clarity.

So agree with you and God says in Ezekiel 36 He would do the washing.

So you pretty much called time out as I was winding up to pitch.

You ruined a good slider .

But your astute contribution is much appreciated.

 

[redleghunter]

Now read what I wrote.

In this instance I spoke of ignatius, and how the practice of born again congregations cannot be reconciled in the slightest with the early church as regards for example either apostolic succession or sacraments, or indeed how they viewed the church.

I speak of experience IN these communities.

So whilst we agree on the importance of a few verses , they are no justification for the wholesale apostasy of many of the communities that live under that name.
" born again"

Ok your approach is Sola Ecclesia. What from Ignatius leads you to this conclusion?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Ok your approach is Sola Ecclesia. What from Ignatius leads you to this conclusion?

Maybe passages like this:

Trallians:

2

1 For when you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in human fashion but in the fashion of Jesus Christ who died for us, that by believing in his death you may escape dying. 2/ It is necessary then (as is your practice) to do nothing without the bishop; but be subject also to the presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope, in whom we shall be found if we live in him; 3/ and it is also necessary for those who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ to please all people in every way; for they are not ministers of food and drink but servants of the church of God; thus they must be on their guard against complaints as against fire.

3

1 Similarly let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, as also the bishop who is a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and as the band of the apostles. Nothing can be called a church without these, 2/ concerning which I am persuaded that you are so disposed. For I have received the exemplar of your love, and I have it with me in your bishop whose very demeanor is a great lesson, and his gentleness a (great) power, whom I think even the atheists respect.

 

[dsaly1969]

I am a former Catholic and Episcopalian. This is what I see in the Bible.

We are all imperfect beings who tend to make wrong choices which hurt ourselves and others. “This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:22-24). Jesus came to save us from that. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him (John 3:16-17). Through faith in Jesus we can die to our “old selves” (self-centered egos). “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20). “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come (2nd Corinthians 5:17). Jesus only gave us one Commandment to follow in His New Covenant: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another (John 13:34-35). “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven” (Luke 6:37). We can do these only with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. “The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and make you remember all that I have told you” (John 14:26).

 

[redleghunter]

There is great respect for the pastor, elders and deacons. All are present at the Lord's Supper every Sunday.​

So not seeing any issues here.

Edit: Yet I ask. Is your bishop present at the Eucharist every Sunday?

1 For when you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in human fashion but in the fashion of Jesus Christ who died for us, that by believing in his death you may escape dying. 2/ It is necessary then (as is your practice) to do nothing without the bishop; but be subject also to the presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope, in whom we shall be found if we live in him; 3/ and it is also necessary for those who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ to please all people in every way; for they are not ministers of food and drink but servants of the church of God; thus they must be on their guard against complaints as against fire.

1 Similarly let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, as also the bishop who is a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and as the band of the apostles. Nothing can be called a church without these, 2/ concerning which I am persuaded that you are so disposed. For I have received the exemplar of your love, and I have it with me in your bishop whose very demeanor is a great lesson, and his gentleness a (great) power, whom I think even the atheists respect.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

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.

I agree with you that "Born again" is not a protestant term. In fact, it isn't meant to be just a theological term at all, it is meant to be an experience: a 2nd birth--a birth of the Spirit. It is not, in any way shape or form, symbolic. It is a real experience, according to Scripture, that is necessary to see the kingdom of God.

Jesus Christ, Himself, shared with Nicodemus in John 3:3-7 how critical it was: "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. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

According to the Apostle John, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His Name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-3)

And when someone is born again, they should have confirmation directly from the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:16).

If you need to hear affirmation from someone else or you start to doubt that you are born again based on something someone else says, you may not really be born again. If you are born again, you should know that you know that you know that you are in a relationship with Him.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There is great respect for the pastor, elders and deacons. All are present at the Lord's Supper every Sunday.​

So not seeing any issues here.

Edit: Yet I ask. Is your bishop present at the Eucharist every Sunday?

No, he isn't present, though the Priest he has appointed is present.

Though i don't know how you could read a purely Evangelical reading into Ignatius who insists on the necessity of having Bishops and being subject to them. He goes so far as to compare the Church to a harp whose strings representing the Bishops make a harmonious song when strung together. Could you endorse this?

Magnesians (5) And if I, in a short time, have achieved such spiritual and not merely human communion with your bishop, all the more do I congratulate you who have become one with him, as the Church is one with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is one with the Father, so that all things may be in harmony. Let no man be deceived. If a person is not inside the sanctuary5 he is deprived of the Bread [of God]. For if the prayer of one or two men6 has so much force, how much greater is that of the bishop and of the whole Church. Any one, therefore, who fails to assemble with the others has already shown his pride and set himself apart. For it is written: ‘God resists the proud.’7 Let us be careful, therefore, not to oppose the bishop, so that we may be obedient to God.

Ignatius seems to presume that Church is necessary to the Christian life. Evangelicalism says its good to have a Church but ultimately not necessary when compared to faith alone.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

I was leading up to that by questioning first the poster to who made the claim to get more clarity.

So agree with you and God says in Ezekiel 36 He would do the washing.

So you pretty much called time out as I was winding up to pitch.

You ruined a good slider .

But your astute contribution is much appreciated.

Sorry....I responded from early in the thread, have not read through it yet,lol...but I enjoy your posts.