Born Again?

by IT Support 61 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

ros

LittleToe:
Just to make sure I didn't give a false impression, let me quote myself:
I agree with you that Christianity is a "personal relationship" (term not in the Bible) rather than association with any organization or doctrinal beliefs.
You said:
Ros:Personal relationship:
(Jesus words - "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." - John 17:3 KJV)"Know" (ginosko) means more than just "Accurate Knowledge", as the JW's portray. It has a personal quality.
Here is how the Amplified Bible (AMP) renders John 17:3:
John 17
3 And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with, and understand) You, the only true and real God, and [likewise] to know Him, Jesus [as the] Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), Whom You have sent.
I had not thought about this text in the way I think you are expressing it--that is, as meaning salvation is held now (in the past tense)? I think of the word "know" in this scripture as carrying more depth than just "I know Him." While I agree with you, as I said, that Christianity is a personal relationship with God--a spiritual one--and I agree that to know someone has a personal quality (not necessarily a personal relationship), I'm not sure I am getting the point. Does your point agree with the scriptural points I mentioned. If not, how does it differ?
Jesus and the apostles frequently used the term "inherit" or "inheritance" with reference to salvation, again usually in the future tense (e.g., "will inherit", not "have inherited." Examples:
Ephesians 1:13,14:
Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory.
Colossians 3:24
... since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
You said:
Salvation gained while physically alive:
There are examples of this in the Old Testament, too, such as the Psalms and the prophets (e.g. Isaiah and Jeremiah).
Maybe I'm confused by semantics. Christ was the "first fruits" of salvation. I'm distinguishing between salvation and the hope of salvation. Do you believe Christ's kingdom was established while he was on earth or after His death and resurrection?
What OT examples are you referring to?
Where does faith come in? If I own a precious treasure, knowing that I have it is not faith. What I have now does not require faith. But if I'm promised a treasure as a reward for something, and I believe the promise, then I do what is necessary on faith. It's faith because I don't have it yet, but I believe I will. This can apply to inheritance, too.
It's not just a "Fundamentalist" or "Born Again Denomination" teaching, it's pretty much mainstream, especially in Calvinist circles.
IMHO, an assurance of salvation leads one to act out of love instead of fear. It seems far more in line with the concept of a God of love, rather than one who expects us to ever live up to something we can't live up to.
I apologize if it seems my reference to "fundamentalist" or "born-again denomination" sounds critical or demeaning--I don't mean it that way. I simply don't know what would be a term that distinguishes the general group of church denominations who more or less share the same view about "born again," the experience of getting "saved" in a Holy Spirit experience by asking Jesus to come into their heart, and are similar in the way they express their faith. I consider orthodox Christianity mainstream (e.g., Catholic, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians). I think you'll agree that they differ from mainstream Baptists, Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Nazerenes, and in recent years a lot of so-called "non-denominational" churches, which are the general class of churches I refer to as "fundamentalists" or "born-again denominations" because people tend to understand those definitions. Then there are Adventist groups. And again there are the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, which are collectively another general classification. I mean no disrespect for any of these groups.
It's also not clear why you might think I'm describing a God who expects more of people than what they are capable of.
Jesus said the widow's mite was more than the treasures given by the rich. On the other hand, I don't believe God tortures people for eternity because they didn't ask Jesus to come into their heart.
Thanks for your perspective, though. I find it fascinating to see how others interpret scripture
I agree with that. I accept (dare I say that "f" word) denominations, as well as many others, even us non-church-goers, as Christian. I was impressed by a minister in the Church of the Brethren in my town. Church of the Brethren used to be much like the Quakers and Mennonites and Anabaptists. They reformed and now they promote no doctrine except Christ as Lord and pacificism. This particular minister's congregation sponsored an Islamic family to come to this country some years ago, and he was telling me how the family visited their church occasionally out of appreciation. He said, "You see, we accept them as our brothers in Christ." Now I think that is the spirit of Christianity. What Christians need to be careful about, imo, is judgmentalness.
Blessings,
~Ros
LittleToe
Ros:
You stated that the term "personal relationship" was not found in the bible. You're correct that it isn't found in precisely those words, but then the bible wasn't written in English. My quotation was merely to point out that the concept is clear (IMHO).
I did pick up on your statement that you hold that position to be true, s'ok
I'm stating that whilst we are not literally in "glory" with the full fruits of that salvation, we are guaranteed it, and as such we can say that we possess it. The best illustration is that of a dollar bill, which is a promisary note or token, held on behalf of the treasury.
In a spiritual sense, we have the "token" of the Holy Spirit, and the indwelling of Christ as the first fruits.
As for Christ's kingdom, I think there are two ways of looking at this.
The first is physically within linear time, where the promises were made yea and Amen upon the cross.
The second is in eternity, which met (in time) at the cross, but was ever present (foreknowledge being the closest to our comprehension of this).
I would just caution you not to mix up "faith" and "hope", for whilst they are both assured, they are quite different things (on re-read that sounds a little condescending - I really don't mean to be, but I don't know how to better put it - sorry, in advance).
It's also not clear why you might think I'm describing a God who expects more of people than what they are capable of.
Sorry, I'm not with you on this. I never made any comment about how you view God's requirements.
As for denominations, I'd rather just keep them completely out of it. Even within groups, opinions vary, so it's not really a clear way of expressing a doctrinal position (even Calvisnist v's Armenian helps little). For example, I've seen a wide spectrum of Baptist churches (expressing doctrine and practice from liberal to conservative, cessationist to charismatic, Calvinist to broadly Arminian).
Tolerance in love, over judgmentalism, warms my heart any day of the week, too.
Every blessing.
Truly your brother, in Christ, regardless of differences of doctrinal persuasion,
Ross.
Yerusalyim

can't find the exact citation in his books at the moment, unfortunately. But he suggested that being "born again" is not necessarily a momentous and momentary conversion experience. Rather, it is the process of constant renewal that is experienced by all those allow themsevles to be "led by the spirit." (Ro 8:14)

This is the Catholic view...Salvation is a process, not JUST a one time event.
The Catholic editions of the bible translate the conversation between Jesus and Niccodemus as "Born From Above"...which is significantly different than "Born Again" especially with the "Johnny come lately" implications that the "evangelical and non-denominational crowd give it.
JT, you're just so wrong in so many ways in your statement.
You said,
the bible teaches and its followers accept that if you don't have the classification of Born Again, God is going to Kill you- so with that as your option is it any wonder that believers speak in terms of how much they love their Heavenly father-
neither of those assumptions are true. Romans Chapter 2 gives a view of what happens to those who do not know Jesus...it isn't all gloomy either. And, the Catholic Church does NOT believe the "Born Again" stuff in the sense that the evangelicals use it.
IT,
By definition all Christians are "born again" or "born from above", it doesn't have to be a one time momentous event, but rather trying to live your life by Christian Principles. JW baptism doesn't meet the Catholic definition of Baptism because it's not done in the Trinitarian (and biblical) format of Baptising in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Obedience would say seek baptism if in doubt...you can PM me if you would like to talk more.
Michael
LittleToe

Yeru:
This is the Catholic view...Salvation is a process, not JUST a one time event.

IMHO Salvation is promised once - sanctification is a (slow) process...
Yerusalyim

Thus the reason for so many arguements about theology...different terms for the same thing?
LittleToe

Very probably - the devil is in the semantics...
Often the question "What do you mean by that term?" would suffice to reduce upset and thrown toys.
I find it interesting that in Protestant circles, the beliefs are nigh on identical, bar for five main points (they agree in over 90%), and that the difference between that and Catholicism is probably even less.
Even the Reformers weren't trying to split the church, but reform certain aspects.
That's why I prefer to call a Christian someone who has a "personal relationship with Christ", and let everything else fall where it will. After all, we are all continually learning (and being sanctified/[or whatever term you prefer to use]).
Glad you jumped into this one, Michael. I always like to see your perspective on these kind of things, regardless of level of agreement.
Billygoat

LT,
IMHO Salvation is promised once - sanctification is a (slow) process...
Well put! May I add: "sanctification is a (slow and sometimes painful) process.
Andi
mouthy

Hi ros nice to see you here.It has been a long time . I think Little Toe has a real handle on the word IMHO. That is one of the reasons I stopped attending BRCI -They did seem to think they were Christians when they were JWs.In fact I have a tape where Ron Frye even stated this.(You can hear my response to him on it also...I dont think any JWs are Christians.)To be a Christian one must be a follower Of Christ.Obviously JW are followers of OLD MEN...I was also one of those . I thought Jesus was Micheal the Ark Angel. NOT!!!! I do hope your well. Jim called the other day... I am still in touch with him & Dan will you be at the next BRCI...??? sorry to steal the thread for my questions...((HUG)))
ros

LittleToe:I tend to agree in principle with just about everything you responded to my post. Very nicely stated, too. While I still think Jesus was trying to describe spirit resurrection to Nicodemus, you're right that there are some places where terms like "rebirth" etc. are applied as to the present repentant condition, though I tend to think of that as figurative. The example I have used at times is:
Suppose we were in circumstances of being stranded on a remote deserted island in the ocean. We HOPE that we will be found and saved. After some months, a ship appears on the horizon, and it becomes bigger and bigger until it is obvious that the ship is coming to the island. We shout: "We are saved! We are saved!"
Now, we have FAITH that we are found and will be saved. But in our faith we already feel saved even though the reality will be when we have been removed from the island and arrived safe and cozy at home. Is that how you might also differentiate hope and faith?
My point about "personal relationship" not being in the Bible, although I agree with the principle, is that I tend to avoid terminology not contained in Scripture that lends to being identified with certain sects of Christianity. So I don't usually use that particular phrase in defining my spiritual relationship with God--as I did with that caveat in our discussion.
Yeru:Back when I was JW-baptised, it was in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Grace:
How are you, love? I didn't get cards sent out this year, so don't think I forgot you. You wrote:
Hi ros nice to see you here.It has been a long time .
Least a year--last Xmas I think. :-)

I think Little Toe has a real handle on the word IMHO.
You mean "born again"? Yes, I understand that is the evangelical position. To be honest, I don't know anyone else in the world who has come to the conclusion that I did about the term. (How's that for an independent "personal relationship"? :-D))) However, I've presented the thought to some folks who say the idea is definitely viable. I have no idea how orthodox views the term.
I've also discovered some other very interesting points (at least I think so) by avoiding religious terminology not in Scripture. It's just my way of staving off subliminal doctrinal persuasion.

That is one of the reasons I stopped attending BRCI -They did seem to think they were Christians when they were JWs.In fact I have a tape where Ron Frye even stated this.(You can hear my response to him on it also...I dont think any JWs are Christians.)
Well, as you know, that is a reason why some of us are not excited about the Pennsylvania group. I do believe I was a Christian when I was a JW, albeit my convert perception of the whole experience was vastly different from that of people raised in the religion. I had already been taught about Christ, and the ladies who were my mentors were the same as me--out of evangelical religion before they were JWs. Early in my Bible study I was taught that Jehovah's Witnesses were progressive in their Bible study. We (converts) delved deep into the doctrine of hell first, then soul, and then trinity. I still agree with the Adventist conclusions on those doctrines. My general experience has been that most JWs didn't study doctrine to the degree that we converts out of other religions did. (I didn't want to be wrong about Hell ! That was the biggee in my day--not trinity.) The reason I was taught that we did not dwell week after week on preaching salvation through Christ over and over is stated at Hebrews 6:1:
Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And we will do this, if God permits.
Consequently, while Christ was always in my perception as the redeemer and mediator between me and Jehovah, because I had already been taught of Jesus since early childhood (been "born again" twice), it never occurred to me that people raised in JWs would not have a basis to perceive Christ as I did.

To be a Christian one must be a follower Of Christ.Obviously JW are followers of OLD MEN...I was also one of those .
I was not. And I was often criticised for it, too. I never believed the Watchtower over the Bible--ever! Many JWs did not consider me to be a real JW or a Christian. So I guess I'm really caught in between--JWs don't consider me Christian, Evangelicals don't consider me Christian, they don't consider each other Christian. . . all I've got is my "personal relationship". Well, I kinda like it that way.
I thought Jesus was Micheal the Ark Angel. NOT!!!!
To me, it's immaterial whether Jesus was Michael or not. It's whom He is raised to be after his sojourn on earth that matters. HOWEVER--I believe this firmly: That if a person with the best of intentions concludes that the Bible teaches that Jesus was Michael before He came to earth, that belief does not preclude him/her from being a Christian, or conforming to the teachings of Jesus, and I do not believe God will torture such one for eternity. Conversely, if Jesus was Michael, I do not believe it precludes trinitarians from being Christians and I do not believe God will torture them for their error--UNLESS they are to be judged as they judged. (Maybe we should pray that whomever is wrong, forgive them Lord, for they know not . . .)
I do hope your well.
Doing very well. My mom is moved here and is in assisted living. I'm her guardian, so have that added responsibility. Believe it or not, have started a new career at my age. Never would have thought, but feel really lucky.
Jim called the other day... I am still in touch with him & Dan
Is Jim in Canada now? I haven't talked with him in a while--since spring. I know he was planning a trip through Europe, but didn't know whether he made it. I've been waiting to hear about his book, whether it has been published yet. I did get a call from Richard Rawe yesterday. He's going to be hosting a conference (imagine that) in Washington where I was a JW. He said AlanF is coming to debate another fellow on creationism. They're trying to get Greg Stafford to come as well.
Will you be at the next BRCI...???
Yes. I missed it last year because I hadn't accrued vacation leave yet. But I'm planning to make it this year. I might like to try to do a graphical presentation on ancient Israel--if they might be interested. :-)
sorry to steal the thread for my questions...((HUG)))
Hey, everyone, my apologies too. Sorry for treating this like Chat. Nice diversion for us, though, huh Grace?-- since it has been a while. Hugs to you, too, love.
Blessings,
~Ros
LittleToe

Ros:
Is that how you might also differentiate hope and faith?

Not quite, but again it's nice to see how you reason on it. I tend to be another degree more positive than your definition.
I think that in the context of salvation they are both assured, because we have a token of God's love, in the form of the Holy Spirit.
We have a "hope" because the full fruit of our salvation is yet future, as you rightly point out.
"Faith" is even more concrete because it is the "substance" of that assurance.
It's a fruit produced by the Holy Spirit that makes things concrete in our mind, so that we "know" it's going to occur, and hence probably start speaking as if we already have the full fruit of salvation, even though we've got a little ways to wait yet.
I know quite a few people who I would personally clearly classify as Christians, who have hope, but yet lack full assurance of faith (and I admit that it's only God that truly knows, at the end of the day - hence I have to leave the small and very human measure of doubt that I'm not a "hypocrite", nor are my friends). This lack has often been augmented by a deficiency of teaching, IMHO. But then I also believe we are taught at the pace we "personally" need, which is also a work of the Holy Spirit, in "Progressive Sanctification", wherein we are slowly conformed into the image of Christ (which, on a side note, is interesting because we were originally made in the image of God ).
Btw, FWIW, I count you a Christian.
I was "born again" whilst still a JW Elder, complete with their doctrines. The only thing that had changed intellectually was an awareness that Christ was more than I'd been previously taught. Experientially I came into a "personal relationship" with him, and that was that.
It was after that that my doctrines began to unravel, as I read the bible with a new insight.
They continue to evolve, and I love the fresh insights that your own perspective brings.
I've since had many other experiences, some of which dwarf the original one.
I understand that you've had at least a couple of spiritual encounters which you called being "born again". I suspect the first one was all that was required to breathe new life into you. The second was probably to improve your assurance. Just an observation (based on what appears to be Paul's experience of conversion, and then later seeing the third heaven).

Born Again?

Share this