I've grown up with the term "born again". "You must be born again in order to get into Heaven." I can't tell you how many times I've heard that said, and how many times I've said that to other people. I've taken the whole concept for granted.
As I've read, studied, and talked with numerous people smarter than me, I've started to lean more and more towards God predestining people to salvation, instead of us choosing to go to Him. Does this mean that humans have absolutely no choice in the matter of salvation? I'm not 100% sure. Both predestination and free will seem to be supported in scripture, so that makes me think that both, in some way must be true, but I do tend to lean more towards predestination. I should say though, that I am still learning.
Back to the original topic: If predestination is the case on who is saved and who is not and people do not repent and go to the Lord on their own accord, are individuals really "born again", or do they simply start showing fruits of God's work in them?
Is "born again" a name given to a concept that is found in scripture though not explicitly stated such as the Trinity? Is it something that I didn't state here or in my previous tweet?
I started thinking about this issue when a friend of mine brought it up during a discussion/debate over Sola Scriptura. He thinks that Sola Scriptura is not only wrong, but unbiblical, and that Protestants are very very wrong in holding to it. (One of many many flaws we Protestants have apparently.) Anyway, I was just wondering what any of your thoughts might be.
Hi Stephanie,
ReplyDelete"Being born again" is definitely a Scriptural concept - Jesus says in John 3:3, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." The problem is how evangelicals have hijacked the term "born again" to mean "having a conversion experience" or worse, "accepting Jesus into one's heart/making a decision for Christ/surrendering one's life to God."
If one reads a little farther in John 3, Jesus says: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (v. 5). Being born again = being born of water and the Spirit = Baptism. I know my Calvinist friends will disagree with me here. But it is SO explicit throughout all of the New Testament that Baptism is more than just a symbol of rebirth and more than just a New Covenant sign.
Now I am not saying that one cannot have an experience of conversion from death to life. Many people do as the Word of God gives them life. But nowhere in Scripture does it say "One must have a conversion experience to enter the kingdom of heaven." Some people are baptized as babies and never knew a day in their lives when they didn't believe in Jesus. God gave them life through "the washing of water with the Word."
The whole idea that "you must have a conversion experience to be saved" arises, I believe, out of the separation of the work of the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments. If Baptism does not really convey the Holy Spirit (though Acts 2:38 teaches that it does!) then one must look to one's inner experience to determine whether one is in the grace of God. The history of Calvinism (especially in America) is a prime example of this.
As for predestination...humans can only choose that which is consistent with their nature. Since our nature is corrupted in Adam we can only choose against God, not for Him. But God gives us life through His Word. This is not to say that humans (even Christians) cannot at some point reject this Word. Scripture seems to indicate that this is indeed possible.
I have to agree with Dawn... "born again" is a biblical concept, and in fact one that would support predestination. The idea that we are "born" again has much similar to our first birth. I don't know about you but I don't remember having a choice in the matter ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnd, yeah... being born of the "water and the Spirit" may very well be the water of the physical birth and then the "born again" by the Spirit. The jury is still out on that for me.
Steph, I wonder with all sincerity where free will is supported in Scripture.
Hi Aaron,
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the water in John 3:5 is the "water of the physical birth" seems to me like a stretch to avoid the obvious baptismal implications. Is there any evidence that the phrase "born of water" was used in the time of Christ to describe physical birth? Because there is a HUGE amount of evidence that the phrase "born of water and the Spirit" was taken to mean "baptized" from the earliest days of the church.
"Born of water and the Spirit" is analogous to other Scriptural phrases such as "the washing of water with the Word" (Eph. 5:26) and "the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). I've noticed that Reformed and evangelical folks generally bend over backwards to avoid the idea that the water referred to in these passages is literal and refers to baptism.
Haha! I knew that would get your goat! ;-)
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I haven't spent much time on it. I come from a tradition that sees baptism as purely symbolic, but Rosebrough had definitely convinced me that the Bible does not teach anything about it being a symbol. That was enough for me to take in for the moment. Probably need to go back and review that podcast and do my own study... but it is not the topmost thing on the list, unfortunately.
Yeah, Aaron, my history with baptism is very similar to yours, I've always believed it to be purely symbolic, and the idea that it is not, isn't totally foreign to me as I've heard of it before, but I've definitely never considered it.
ReplyDeleteI've always thought the role of baptism was much like exchanging wedding rings. It's not the rings that marries the couple, they are only a symbol of the union, visible for others to see. What actually marries the couple is the signing of the document. (At least I think it is... I'm not married so I don't know for sure!)
Dawn, I think my friend would agree with you that being born again is a scriptural concept, but not the way it is commonly used among Christians today, though I don't know for sure so I don't want to speak for him. What you said certainly makes sense however. John 3 is exactly the passage he referenced saying that Protestants use that passage to justify saying that people have to be born again, but he claims, as you've said, that the passage is about baptism and it's importance in being saved. (Something I'm not sure about myself...)
I was trying to follow the conversation tonight on Twitter on this passage and it's implications, but I was having a really hard time doing so! Was pretty interesting, although, for me pretty confusing at times!