Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by StraightAndNarrow, May 27, 2007.
Is it necessary for someone to be born again in order to be saved?
Can you be married without being hitched?
Can you be non-blind and see at the same time?
Come on, these are two descriptions of the same
event: Jesus saving your soul is when you
are born again, is when you are redeemed, is when
you become a part of the body of Christ is when
you become the Bride of the Messiah is when
you are indwelt with the Holy Spirit is when you
adopted into the family of God is when you are born
into the family of God is when you etc. & etc.
Jesus does it all for you!
Yea I do not understand the question. It's like asking is it necesary to be caucasion to be white.
I'm sorry but your poll is textually invalid.
To validate it correctly, you need to change one or the other.
Example Your poll is likened unto saying:
Is it necessary to eat food to sustain life?
Yes, scientifically one must eat food to sustain life. -or-
No, one doesn't have to do wear tennis shoes to sustain life.
The answers must directly pertain to the question.
You didn't ask: Must there be visible changes in ones life for them to truly be saved?
In Context you could say
Is it necessary to be born again to be saved?
Yes, it is necessary TO BE BORN AGAIN to be saved. -or-
No, it is not necessary TO BE BORN AGAIN to be saved.
KJV John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
A better way to frame the question would be:
It is necessary to be born again in order to be saved.
The new birth does not precede salvation, it is salvation.
Or, if that's not your point, how about:
The evidence of the new birth is a transformed life.
The evidence of the new birth is one's public profession of faith.
The question is not confusing to me at all.
I think the poller wants to know if being born again is requisite to being saved.
By the way, I did not do the poll, because the answers are both, to me, false.
Jesus did not say to Nicodemus that it is necessary to be born again in order to be saved, and it is equally false that no change in one's life accompanies salvation.
So, short answer. Not necessary.
(I edited this and started a new thread so as not to derail this thread).
The question Straightandnarrow has posted in is relation to the "Christian:definition" thread. Read the last few posts of that thread and I think his question will make more sense.
You do not need to be born again to go to Heaven?
That is false teaching.
"Ye must be born again"
Not my words, but Christ's...
I know you believe in the elect, but even the elect must be born again.
All I can say is I don't know anyone who is "born again" that is not saved.
Also, I don't know anyone who is "saved", that is not born again.
I know some of us differ on theology, but did not know this was one of them.
I'm wondering Pinoy, do you mean (for instance) that the OT saints were saved but not born again (at least not on the day that they believed)?
No. Brother Bob said it correctly.
I am saying that God FIRST saved, THEN regenerated, His people.
No one is born not at enmity with God, all have sinned, and all were born dead in sin and trespasses, therefore, the need for the new birth, because when one is dead in sin and trespasses, then there is no way anything of the Spirit will make sense to you.
However, at the cross, what Christ accomplished was the redemption, the salvation, in time, of God's own, past (Old Testament), present (His time, ex. His disciples in His immediate geographic area), and future (Paul, the saints everywhere in this globe, us).
Having been redeemed and the cross past, all who are in Christ will be regenerated (born again), by the Holy Spirit.
I do not know at what point in their lives the Old Testament saints were regenerated. But all God's creatures will be regenerated.
John 3:8, is, to my mind, not an explanation on whether or not the new birth can be experienced. I believe, at this point of my reading the Scripture, it is Christ's explanation of the fact that one cannot know who is born again, but can only accept the fact of the new birth the way one accepts the fact of the reality of the wind.
I do not know when I was born again.
Perhaps when I became an atheist, I was in fact already born again, because the reason I became an atheist was the simmering contempt that was within me at the hypocrisies of religion, and the inconsistencies of the Christ that each religion presented, and the final straw being when I joined a religion (in the Philippines) whose teaching on Christ was that He was nothing more than a specially chosen human.
My spirit rebelled at that teaching, and even when I was already in the atheist camp, with my mouth I denied Christ but in my heart I yearned for Him. And then came the time when I heard the gospel preached by an Arminian preacher, and everything else clicked, and I couldn't wait to get my hands on the New Testament for everyone who would come forward and accept Christ !
I apologize to everyone. I do not mean to turn this into a testimony thing but I can only speak for myself.
Salvation is not regeneration, and vice versa. Regeneration is something God does to His child.
When you are saved, you are born from above.
You cannot be born again until after you're saved.
"Born from above" is found only in John 3:3, and john 3:7. It's being born into the family. (It's also why it's not logical to think you need to be adopted into the family.) There are no works on our part involved in this, and no guarantee that there ever will be any.
"Born again" is found only in 1 Peter 1:3 and 1:23. It certainly involves an outward working and change. Only a person who is born from above can be born again. One comment about this is that I have taught for years that although "born from above" is found in John 3:3, that the idea of "born again" is found in John 3:5. I recently was shown that "born again of water and spirit" does occur in some manuscripts.
To say that "born again" and "born from above" mean the same thing is to say that God is the author of confusion because he used two completely different words to say the same thing, and the passages are contradictory.
How many contradictions are you willing to accept in Scriptures?
Good quote and good post!
So if you have to be saved in order to be born again....
Then salvation comes first...
Then later Born again....
Is this what you all are saying?
How much time passes between being saved and born again?
nanoseconds, minutes, weeks, years...
Preach it, Brother! :thumbs:
How much time passes between when someone is saved and they start growing and living an obedient life?
minutes, weeks, years?
KJV 1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
It seems to me that when one believes on Jesus Christ that one is born of God (actually has been born of God).
"is born of God" ek theou gegennetai (from God has been born) past perfect participle - a state of being. It is also passive, God did it to that one.
So anyone who is currently believing in/on Jesus Christ has been born of God.
It would then appear that we are first regenerated then we believe as per brother pinoy.
The very moment we are saved, we start growing in Christ...
"Saved" and "born again" are two terms that mean the same thing.
Some Grow slower than others... but God is growing us each second of the day...
I agree with part of what you have said, but in 1 John 5:1, those who are believing are believing in the present tense. It's a present, active, participle.
What happens if they stop believing?
BTW, it does not necessarily negate anything. Those who are believing are begotten of God; does not rule out that there are those who have believed who are not begotten of God.
How do you contrast "believing" (present, active) with "believe" (aorist)?