Could someone please explain what Born Again really means.
I don't really know anyone who would say they were Born Again either so if you have a website or something I would very much like to know for myself what it means.
"Born again is a term used primarily in the Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Pentecostal branches of Protestant Christianity, where it is associated with salvation, conversion and spiritual rebirth. Outside of these circles, the term is often applied by extension to other phenomena, including a transcending personal experience — or the experience of being spiritually reborn as a "new" human being.
Christian concepts
To be born again in Christianity is synonymous with spiritual rebirth and, in many denominational traditions, salvation. The term is used somewhat differently in different Christian traditions.
The Christian use of the term is derived from the third chapter of the Gospel of John, where Nicodemus visits Jesus:
Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God."
Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again."
Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."
-John 3:1-5 (New Revised Standard Version)
(Note that some translators consider "born from above" to be a better translation than "born again".)
Most Christian denominations hold that a person must be born again in some sense in order to be a Christian, and thus that all who are true Christians are in fact born again, whether they describe themselves as such or not. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, considers that "Baptism is ... the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost." , though the term is not frequently used by Catholics. This is also the belief held by Eastern Christianity, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism, among other Christian traditions. However, the term itself is most frequently used by Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and Evangelical Protestants, where it is often associated with an intense conversion experience and an encounter of the individual with the power of God. Most "born-again Christians" believe that baptism is symbolic rather than sacramental. Many Christians who are "born again" in this sense deny that those without such an experience are true Christians.
The idea of being born again carries with it the theological idea that a Christian is a new creation, given a fresh start by the action of God, freed from a sinful past life and able to begin a new life in relationship with Christ via the Holy Spirit. John Wesley and Christians associated with early Methodism referred to the born again experience as "the New Birth". The Unity Church suggests that being born again is a continuous process that must be done repeatedly as one "dies" to old, ineffective ideas and redirects oneself toward Christ consciousness.
In recent history, born again is a term that has been associated with evangelical renewal since the late 1960s, first in the United States and then later around the world. Associated perhaps initially with Jesus People and the Christian counterculture, born again came to refer to an intense conversion experience, and was increasingly used as a term to identify devout believers. By the mid 1970s, born again Christians were increasingly referred to in the mainstream media as part of the Born Again Movement. A 1976 book of that title by Watergate conspirator and convicted felon Charles Colson, describing his path to faith in conjunction with his criminal imprisonment, played a significant role in solidifying Born Again identity as a cultural construct in the U.S. The term was sufficiently prevalent that, during that year's Presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter described himself as born again, notably in the first Playboy magazine interview of a U.S. Presidential candidate."
==========
As to whether or not "born again" should properly be translated "born from above",
the word translated "again" there is "anothen" in the Greek, and that's translated
"from above" in other places in the Bible, but not "again" in other places in the Bible.
I'd say that argues it's better translated "from above" in all instances.
The verses I think of would be
(New American Standard)
I Peter 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
I Peter 1:23
for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.
As twi used it, someone "born again" is different in a substantive way. They WERE like everyone
else since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, and thus only body and soul, neither of which is
immortal, and both of which die. However, once born again, they were born of God's Spirit,
and were now composed of body, soul AND spirit.
I think that explanation is different from what the average Christian means when
quote: (Note that some translators consider "born from above" to be a better translation than "born again".)
Yes. And it's not just a feeling; it either happened or it didn't.
The phrase born again is not used that many times in scripture, but I think VP was right that saved = born again = received holy spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues.
I also think VP was right that our adversary does try very hard to convince Christians that their Christianity is no good, that they're walk is poor, etc. and that many church Christians really do go all their life not sure if they're born again or not. VP wasn't perfect, but he gave us plenty to work with.
What appears at the above links is quite distinct and distant from Wierwille's teachings maintaining that man can be born again by the synergistic acts of himself and God.
Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?
It is simple to be born again ... it is synonymous with the word "saved" as used in the Bible. See Romans 10:9 ... "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
quote: Yes. And it's not just a feeling; it either happened or it didn't.
This is a false dilemma. There are at least THREE choices:
"It" happened
"It" didn't happen
You thought "it" happened even though "it" didn't
This is not a commentary on the validity or reality of the experience. Reducing an argument to black & white often is an oversimplification.
1 John 5:12 - He that hath the son hath life, and he that hath not the son hath not life.
Is this also oversimplification?
quote: Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?
C'mon, you're a pfal grad. God never oversteps man's freedom of will. I'm glad the 12 on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 "cared to SIT".
Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?
I guess I'm a mite confused about this one myself.
Docvic never did say you HAVE to speak in tongues to be born again.
What he said about it was, *It is outward proof in the senses realm, of the internal reality of the spirit*.
Belle -- maybe this was before your time in twi ---
but I remember docvic saying he water baptized some folks who asked him to.
He said he didn't like it, saw no need for it, but did it anyway, since it helped their *believing*.
Perhaps he lied -- I don't know, but he claims he did it, regardless of his teachings on the subject.
So -- even he agreed to something he taught differently about. (no surprise -- eh??)
Where does the *You have to speak in tongues to be *saved* come from*??
As much as I don't care for docvic -- I never remember hearing him say that.
It certainly was not twi doctrine -- at least not the doctrine from pfal.
SIT is real to me. I know MANY folks who have never done it,
and they are *Christian* in every sense of the word --- (love thy neighbor, etc.)
I've never heard that (you have to SIT), except here. Meebe that was an lcm thing?? I don't know.
Regeneration (being born again) is not synonymous with salvation, which is a rather broad term. Salvation has past, present and future aspects. Those who have been been saved, are yet being saved and will yet be saved. Salvation includes a settled forensic (legal) justification, an accomplished and a progressive sanctification, a bodily redemption, an eschatological justification, a deliverance from the wrath of God, and a grant of life in the eschatological kingdom.
Regeneration is God’s making alive a spiritually dead man and is theologically sometimes said to be included in salvation. There is biblical language, however, that presents regeneration as instrumental to salvation (Titus 3:5).
It is God’s act of regenerating his elect that brings one to faith (which is a gift of God) in Christ. Faith does not appropriate God’s regenerating activity.
I used to oppose the notion that regeneration precedes faith, but the case made by “Gottswrks” (aka: “Gottschalk”) for regeneration being causally prior to faith in the following IRC discussion (which I have edited by bolding some text and deleting various posts and messages) changed my mind.
Start of Status Window buffer: Sun Aug 26 02:37:44 2001
*** Connecting to houston.tx.us.starlink-irc.org (6667)
Start of #prosapologian buffer: Sun Aug 26 02:39:11 2001
"Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?"
Johniam:
"C'mon, you're a pfal grad. God never oversteps man's freedom of will. I'm glad the 12 on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 'cared to SIT' ".
WordWolf responds:
"John, are you aware that you didn't answer her question? Any plans on actually answering it?"
I diagrammed it for ease of answering:
A) do you believe that one has to speak in tongues?
(i.e. -Is speaking in tongues required of God?)
B) If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again?
C) How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?
(Do you consider Christians as born again if they do not plan to sit at any point,
It is simple to be born again ... it is synonymous with the word "saved" as used in the Bible. See Romans 10:9 ... "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
I agree with DogLover and I learned that in twi.
DogLover gave the *correct* definition -- as accepted by many "Christian" outfits...
To make a long story short -- docvic taught that when you accept Jesus as your Saviour (Romans 10:9),
then God creates within you spirit once again -- now you are a 3-part being again.
Body, Soul, AND Spirit -- ie --- *born again*.
Cynic,
Just wanted to let you know that-if there was a reason you took us to that discussion-
I for one didn't see it even with the bolding.
My reason for posting the log of the IRC discussion is that, showing that faith follows regeneration, Gottchalk's argument shows also that getting born again (which is to be regenerated) is not something that happens because one directs oneself to Christ in accordance with Romans 10:9, but is something that turns to Christ those in whom regeneration has taken place.
Cynic, sorry, but that's just too long and I'd rather "discuss" the topic than merely be given something to read on a topic. I am glad that you had the discussion and that you're open-minded enough to change it because of a discussion. :)
David, they are just questions - I've asked this question a few times on here and, yes, during the 90's, a person was considered to not really be born again if they did not speak in tongues. :) I believe that it may have been more "enforced" (for lack of a better word) in some areas than in others, but in my area, Bob Moynihan kicked a lady out of my fellowship because she wouldn't speak in tongues - she didn't want to and didn't believe in it. He, furthermore, called my parents and my ex husband's parents "unbelieving" because they don't speak in tongues.
My purpose for asking was not to derail the thread or to change the discussion to SIT specifically. I was just curious as to what Johniam thinks based on his previous post.
1 John 5:12 - He that hath the son hath life, and he that hath not the son hath not life.
Is this also oversimplification?
In my opinion, yes, but the example is different in kind from the point that I was making. The addition of a third (or more) choice includes the possibility of being mistaken.
quote: "John, are you aware that you didn't answer her question? Any plans on actually answering it?"
As already discussed, no, SIT is not a requirement for salvation, it's an option after salvation. A very good option, IMO.
During the Living Victoriously class, VP said (on LV in God's peace) that every time he got unpeaceful he would wait for his next sober thought and just SIT like crazy. "It still works, baby! Every time!," he said. I would have to concur. Many times I've SIT under duress and the storm went away sooner rather than later. Why wouldn't anyone care to do this?
Where does the *You have to speak in tongues to be *saved* come from*??
As much as I don't care for docvic -- I never remember hearing him say that.
It certainly was not twi doctrine -- at least not the doctrine from pfal.
There's a thread about this somewhere
From what I saw, there were things not directly taught in PFAL where people inferred things like "if you don't speak in tongues you're not born again".
It's not that big a leap from "speaking in tongues is the external evidence of the internal reality" to "if someone doesn't speak in tongues you have no evidence (external manifestation) therefore you don't know that they're born again" to "I never heard them SIT, maybe their not born again" to"someone who doesn't SIT is not born again".
Wierwille didn't teach it, but it was prmoted informally in some areas.
quote: The addition of a third (or more) choice includes the possibility of being mistaken.
There is no 3rd choice. The 2 are either it happened or it didn't. You chimed in with "it didn't happen but you thought it did". That's from man's point of view. In reality, it still either did or didn't happen, regardless of who thought what.
Black and white thinking is OK, but I don't need it for ALL situations. This is one area where TWI crossed the line. I don't need black and white thinking to pick out clothes, food, cars, etc. But when I'm dealing with spiritual things, like salvation and eternal life, I want my choices to be simple.
Consider that scripture says that Jesus was in all points tempted, yet without sin. Was Jesus a woman? Did he ever go through labor? PMS? Was he married? Have kids? How could he possibly have been tempted in all points as us, unless temptation and sin are black and white from God's view?
Perspective, John. Perception is reality for that individual - it is not necessarily truth.
Ask any police officer - he'll tell you there are three sides to every story - his story, her story and what really happened. Heck, even vee pee says that "experience is no guarantee for truth" and "people can be sincere, but sincerely wrong."
If you take away from or change "the word of vee pee" you no longer have "the word of vee pee".
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
8
7
7
Popular Days
Aug 12
21
Aug 13
10
Aug 15
7
Aug 11
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Cynic 5 posts
WordWolf 8 posts
Oakspear 7 posts
johniam 7 posts
Popular Days
Aug 12 2006
21 posts
Aug 13 2006
10 posts
Aug 15 2006
7 posts
Aug 11 2006
7 posts
WordWolf
Here's a website or something.
=================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again
"Born again is a term used primarily in the Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Pentecostal branches of Protestant Christianity, where it is associated with salvation, conversion and spiritual rebirth. Outside of these circles, the term is often applied by extension to other phenomena, including a transcending personal experience — or the experience of being spiritually reborn as a "new" human being.
Christian concepts
To be born again in Christianity is synonymous with spiritual rebirth and, in many denominational traditions, salvation. The term is used somewhat differently in different Christian traditions.
The Christian use of the term is derived from the third chapter of the Gospel of John, where Nicodemus visits Jesus:
Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God."
Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again."
Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."
-John 3:1-5 (New Revised Standard Version)
(Note that some translators consider "born from above" to be a better translation than "born again".)
Most Christian denominations hold that a person must be born again in some sense in order to be a Christian, and thus that all who are true Christians are in fact born again, whether they describe themselves as such or not. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, considers that "Baptism is ... the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost." , though the term is not frequently used by Catholics. This is also the belief held by Eastern Christianity, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism, among other Christian traditions. However, the term itself is most frequently used by Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and Evangelical Protestants, where it is often associated with an intense conversion experience and an encounter of the individual with the power of God. Most "born-again Christians" believe that baptism is symbolic rather than sacramental. Many Christians who are "born again" in this sense deny that those without such an experience are true Christians.
The idea of being born again carries with it the theological idea that a Christian is a new creation, given a fresh start by the action of God, freed from a sinful past life and able to begin a new life in relationship with Christ via the Holy Spirit. John Wesley and Christians associated with early Methodism referred to the born again experience as "the New Birth". The Unity Church suggests that being born again is a continuous process that must be done repeatedly as one "dies" to old, ineffective ideas and redirects oneself toward Christ consciousness.
In recent history, born again is a term that has been associated with evangelical renewal since the late 1960s, first in the United States and then later around the world. Associated perhaps initially with Jesus People and the Christian counterculture, born again came to refer to an intense conversion experience, and was increasingly used as a term to identify devout believers. By the mid 1970s, born again Christians were increasingly referred to in the mainstream media as part of the Born Again Movement. A 1976 book of that title by Watergate conspirator and convicted felon Charles Colson, describing his path to faith in conjunction with his criminal imprisonment, played a significant role in solidifying Born Again identity as a cultural construct in the U.S. The term was sufficiently prevalent that, during that year's Presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter described himself as born again, notably in the first Playboy magazine interview of a U.S. Presidential candidate."
==========
As to whether or not "born again" should properly be translated "born from above",
the word translated "again" there is "anothen" in the Greek, and that's translated
"from above" in other places in the Bible, but not "again" in other places in the Bible.
I'd say that argues it's better translated "from above" in all instances.
The verses I think of would be
(New American Standard)
I Peter 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
I Peter 1:23
for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.
As twi used it, someone "born again" is different in a substantive way. They WERE like everyone
else since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, and thus only body and soul, neither of which is
immortal, and both of which die. However, once born again, they were born of God's Spirit,
and were now composed of body, soul AND spirit.
I think that explanation is different from what the average Christian means when
they say "born again."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: (Note that some translators consider "born from above" to be a better translation than "born again".)
Yes. And it's not just a feeling; it either happened or it didn't.
The phrase born again is not used that many times in scripture, but I think VP was right that saved = born again = received holy spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues.
I also think VP was right that our adversary does try very hard to convince Christians that their Christianity is no good, that they're walk is poor, etc. and that many church Christians really do go all their life not sure if they're born again or not. VP wasn't perfect, but he gave us plenty to work with.
Take your best shot, WW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Welcome Noni1974!
Have a hot, steaming, cup of coffee! If you spill it on yourself, you have every right to sue TWI.
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I did-I thought my post was informative and clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/arti...generation.html
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/arti...gism_short.html
What appears at the above links is quite distinct and distant from Wierwille's teachings maintaining that man can be born again by the synergistic acts of himself and God.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogLover
It is simple to be born again ... it is synonymous with the word "saved" as used in the Bible. See Romans 10:9 ... "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I agree with DogLover and I learned that in twi.
Have a great weekend, one and all! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
This is not a commentary on the validity or reality of the experience. Reducing an argument to black & white often is an oversimplification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
DogLover gave the *correct* definition -- as accepted by many "Christian" outfits.
Twi (the way international), believed the same -- but put their own spin on it.
The pfal class (power for abundant living), taught by the founder and 1st president of twi
*dr.* victor paul wierwille (hereafter referred to as docvic) ----
taught a few extra things, that gave that *new spin* to being born again.
In the pfal class -- docvic tells us man was originally formed, made, and created.
He also says man was designed originally as body, soul, and spirit.
The body was formed, the soul was made, and the spirit was created.
He continued on to say that when man (adam) sinned, he did not die PHYSICALLY that day,
but he died SPIRITUALLY, thus the spirit God gave to man was lost, dead, no longer a part of the *three-some*.
And from the day adam sinned to the day of Pentecost in Acts 2,
(when the apostles spoke in tongues
man was a *two-part being*, and not *three-part* as originally planned.
Docvic went on to teach that many in the Old Testament had spirit UPON them (conditionally),
but it wasn't the same as having it IN THEM (unconditionally), like adam did (created in him).
The folks who had spirit conditionally, were folks like the prophets,
and they could lose the spirit, if they screwed up in their personal lives.
To make a long story short -- docvic taught that when you accept Jesus as your Saviour (Romans 10:9),
then God creates within you spirit once again -- now you are a 3-part being again.
Body, Soul, AND Spirit -- ie --- *born again*.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Yes. And it's not just a feeling; it either happened or it didn't.
This is a false dilemma. There are at least THREE choices:
"It" happened
"It" didn't happen
You thought "it" happened even though "it" didn't
This is not a commentary on the validity or reality of the experience. Reducing an argument to black & white often is an oversimplification.
1 John 5:12 - He that hath the son hath life, and he that hath not the son hath not life.
Is this also oversimplification?
quote: Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?
C'mon, you're a pfal grad. God never oversteps man's freedom of will. I'm glad the 12 on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 "cared to SIT".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I guess I'm a mite confused about this one myself.
Docvic never did say you HAVE to speak in tongues to be born again.
What he said about it was, *It is outward proof in the senses realm, of the internal reality of the spirit*.
Belle -- maybe this was before your time in twi ---
but I remember docvic saying he water baptized some folks who asked him to.
He said he didn't like it, saw no need for it, but did it anyway, since it helped their *believing*.
Perhaps he lied -- I don't know, but he claims he did it, regardless of his teachings on the subject.
So -- even he agreed to something he taught differently about. (no surprise -- eh??)
Where does the *You have to speak in tongues to be *saved* come from*??
As much as I don't care for docvic -- I never remember hearing him say that.
It certainly was not twi doctrine -- at least not the doctrine from pfal.
SIT is real to me. I know MANY folks who have never done it,
and they are *Christian* in every sense of the word --- (love thy neighbor, etc.)
I've never heard that (you have to SIT), except here. Meebe that was an lcm thing?? I don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Regeneration (being born again) is not synonymous with salvation, which is a rather broad term. Salvation has past, present and future aspects. Those who have been been saved, are yet being saved and will yet be saved. Salvation includes a settled forensic (legal) justification, an accomplished and a progressive sanctification, a bodily redemption, an eschatological justification, a deliverance from the wrath of God, and a grant of life in the eschatological kingdom.
Regeneration is God’s making alive a spiritually dead man and is theologically sometimes said to be included in salvation. There is biblical language, however, that presents regeneration as instrumental to salvation (Titus 3:5).
It is God’s act of regenerating his elect that brings one to faith (which is a gift of God) in Christ. Faith does not appropriate God’s regenerating activity.
I used to oppose the notion that regeneration precedes faith, but the case made by “Gottswrks” (aka: “Gottschalk”) for regeneration being causally prior to faith in the following IRC discussion (which I have edited by bolding some text and deleting various posts and messages) changed my mind.
1 John 5:1
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
"Gottschalk's" website is http://solagratia.org .
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Cynic,
Just wanted to let you know that-if there was a reason you took us to that discussion-
I for one didn't see it even with the bolding.
Perhaps others did, but I doubt the majority of posters read it.
Moreover, even I say there's a point beyond which a post is too long.
If you really want to say something there,
may I suggest trimming out a few pages not germane to the discussion,
and "enable the help files"?
I for one didn't see the main point as sufficiently supported.
I doubt you meant "I'm right because the post is long", but it would be an
easy conclusion to make, that this is what you meant to say.
Finally, I'd bet money that the original questioner didn't get anything from it.
Feel free to ignore my advice, but expect the more obvious results if so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Belle:
"Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?"
Johniam:
"C'mon, you're a pfal grad. God never oversteps man's freedom of will. I'm glad the 12 on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 'cared to SIT' ".
WordWolf responds:
"John, are you aware that you didn't answer her question? Any plans on actually answering it?"
I diagrammed it for ease of answering:
A) do you believe that one has to speak in tongues?
(i.e. -Is speaking in tongues required of God?)
B) If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again?
C) How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?
(Do you consider Christians as born again if they do not plan to sit at any point,
or are they not born again on that basis?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
My reason for posting the log of the IRC discussion is that, showing that faith follows regeneration, Gottchalk's argument shows also that getting born again (which is to be regenerated) is not something that happens because one directs oneself to Christ in accordance with Romans 10:9, but is something that turns to Christ those in whom regeneration has taken place.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Cynic, sorry, but that's just too long and I'd rather "discuss" the topic than merely be given something to read on a topic. I am glad that you had the discussion and that you're open-minded enough to change it because of a discussion. :)
David, they are just questions - I've asked this question a few times on here and, yes, during the 90's, a person was considered to not really be born again if they did not speak in tongues. :) I believe that it may have been more "enforced" (for lack of a better word) in some areas than in others, but in my area, Bob Moynihan kicked a lady out of my fellowship because she wouldn't speak in tongues - she didn't want to and didn't believe in it. He, furthermore, called my parents and my ex husband's parents "unbelieving" because they don't speak in tongues.
My purpose for asking was not to derail the thread or to change the discussion to SIT specifically. I was just curious as to what Johniam thinks based on his previous post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: "John, are you aware that you didn't answer her question? Any plans on actually answering it?"
As already discussed, no, SIT is not a requirement for salvation, it's an option after salvation. A very good option, IMO.
During the Living Victoriously class, VP said (on LV in God's peace) that every time he got unpeaceful he would wait for his next sober thought and just SIT like crazy. "It still works, baby! Every time!," he said. I would have to concur. Many times I've SIT under duress and the storm went away sooner rather than later. Why wouldn't anyone care to do this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
From what I saw, there were things not directly taught in PFAL where people inferred things like "if you don't speak in tongues you're not born again".
It's not that big a leap from "speaking in tongues is the external evidence of the internal reality" to "if someone doesn't speak in tongues you have no evidence (external manifestation) therefore you don't know that they're born again" to "I never heard them SIT, maybe their not born again" to"someone who doesn't SIT is not born again".
Wierwille didn't teach it, but it was prmoted informally in some areas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
VPW took it upon himself to get people "born again'. It is not his to give or implement.
There is only one who can bring this birthing to pass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: The addition of a third (or more) choice includes the possibility of being mistaken.
There is no 3rd choice. The 2 are either it happened or it didn't. You chimed in with "it didn't happen but you thought it did". That's from man's point of view. In reality, it still either did or didn't happen, regardless of who thought what.
Black and white thinking is OK, but I don't need it for ALL situations. This is one area where TWI crossed the line. I don't need black and white thinking to pick out clothes, food, cars, etc. But when I'm dealing with spiritual things, like salvation and eternal life, I want my choices to be simple.
Consider that scripture says that Jesus was in all points tempted, yet without sin. Was Jesus a woman? Did he ever go through labor? PMS? Was he married? Have kids? How could he possibly have been tempted in all points as us, unless temptation and sin are black and white from God's view?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Perspective, John. Perception is reality for that individual - it is not necessarily truth.
Ask any police officer - he'll tell you there are three sides to every story - his story, her story and what really happened. Heck, even vee pee says that "experience is no guarantee for truth" and "people can be sincere, but sincerely wrong."
If you take away from or change "the word of vee pee" you no longer have "the word of vee pee".
Are ya gonna answer my questions?
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.