Being born again

[NewCreation435]

John 3:1-8 Jesus discussed being born again with Nicodemus. It says

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”"

Some seem to think of salvation as more of a process and some seem to think of it as an event. But, is it not both? A woman who gives birth first goes through months of being pregnant and a baby forming within the womb. But, birth is also an event. With a clear start and end period of time that can be noted. There was a definite time or period when a change occurred. For me, that time was in 1983. So, do you see salvation as a process or a event or both? Other thoughts about this passage?

 

[Lamb]

We can also see salvation as starting in Genesis when God made the promise of a Savior to Adam and then again we can also go back to the cross as the beginning of salvation where it was won for us

Being born again is actually being born "from above" as the Greek anōthen should be translated. John uses that word in another place to mean from above. That's why baptism is God's work and Jesus points out that we cannot rebirth ourselves, it's the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[NewCreation435]

We can also see salvation as starting in Genesis when God made the promise of a Savior to Adam and then again we can also go back to the cross as the beginning of salvation where it was won for us

Being born again is actually being born "from above" as the Greek anōthen should be translated. John uses that word in another place to mean from above. That's why baptism is God's work and Jesus points out that we cannot rebirth ourselves, it's the work of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, all that is true. When I was in the Methodist church it seemed like salvation was viewed as a more gradual process. If there was a specific period of time it was often vague. With Baptist, it is more centered around the sinner's prayer that pastors and evangelists ask people to pray, but it is more clearly defined as a specific date and time.

 

[Lamb]

Yes, all that is true. When I was in the Methodist church it seemed like salvation was viewed as a more gradual process. If there was a specific period of time it was often vague. With Baptist, it is more centered around the sinner's prayer that pastors and evangelists ask people to pray, but it is more clearly defined as a specific date and time.

Doesn't that put the focus on us instead of Jesus though? That's why I prefer to see salvation as being completely Jesus and not looking at myself for anything because I can't contribute. He is my Savior. Being born again is completely a work of God and even though it is happening to me I have no say in the matter of that birth.

 

[Josiah]

Methodist and Baptists both are generally synergistic. But yes, in the Baptist form, justification is usually viewed as a specific event or (at least) the microsecond one freely choose Jesus as their personal Savior - doing their part in justification (self doing the part that actually is effectual, that actually results in justification). In the Methodist form of synergism, it's all viewed quite loosely, less an event than a growing into, less a result of Decision alone and more inclusive of other factors. The bottom line is the same (synergism, Pelagianism or at least semi-Pelagianism) .... Jesus doing HIS part (usually making it possible) and self doing OUR part (the part that's actually effectual).


In popular Catholicism, there's two aspects to this: Initial grace which is simply GIVEN to the person from grace/mercy (often associated with Baptism) which begins a slow PROCESS (that continues into Purgatory) of synergistic cooperation - the emphasis NOT at all on decision (Catholic denies we CAN make a decision) and more on a life of love and obedience, becoming more Christ-like (the point being the Great Commandment), our justification thus being progressive and synergistic (but the emphasis on sanctification, not decision). The Catholic form of synergism is thus less radical than we see in some of Protestantism (Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical) but more like Methodist than Baptist in that it's not a single thing but a life-long process, with emphasis on love rather than decision.


Lutheranism and Calvinism (first - wave Protestantism) is monergistic. This view holds that Jesus is the Savior and therefore Jesus does the saving; that justification is HIS work/accomplishment - not ours. Thus the point is not OUR decision or will or merit or accomplishements or good works, but rather Jesus. This view looks to the Cross and not in the mirror. Objective justification happened on the Cross (and for all) and subjective justification (the application to ME) happened when God placed faith into our hearts as "the gift of God." This view is in keeping with the ancient Creed ("The Holy Spirit is the Author and GIVER of Life") and the Ecumenical Council of Orange and I'd argue in keeping with Scripture. And it is what makes Christianity Christian since it's all about Christ as the Savior. All other world religions hold that self ultimately saves self (albeit divine help is essential) and that usually this is lifelong (and for Hinduism and Buddhist, like Catholicism, extends beyond this life).


They are very different paradigms. And we here at CH have had MANY discussions of this difference over the years. IMO, the difference matters since IMO there is only one Savior. And thus denominations matter since they hold either to monergism (Jesus is the Savior) or to various forms of synergism (justification is a cooperative process - Jesus doing His part and we doing our part, the part that actually is effectual), it all comes down to who is the Savior? And whether the denomination directs us to the Cross or to the mirror. I think that matters. Some don't.



- Josiah

 

[NewCreation435]

Doesn't that put the focus on us instead of Jesus though? That's why I prefer to see salvation as being completely Jesus and not looking at myself for anything because I can't contribute. He is my Savior. Being born again is completely a work of God and even though it is happening to me I have no say in the matter of that birth.

It seems like to me based on experiencing both denominations that the Methodist church is more based on what man does. There is an emphasis on discipleship. The result of which is that you can never be truly sure if your saved or not or if you will lose your salvation at some point. While with the Baptist faith, the emphasis is more on what God did. That results in doctrines such as once saved always saved. The reasoning goes that if I did it then I can lose it. But, if God did it through the Spirit and it isn't the result of works then I can't lose it such because I am bad or struggle with my faith. They seem similiar, but really there are differences between them. Methodist seems more like saying that salvation is a process of becoming Christlike. The struggle though is that none of us is anywhere close to being Christ, so there may be a feeling of defeat.

 

[psalms 91]

It seems like to me based on experiencing both denominations that the Methodist church is more based on what man does. There is an emphasis on discipleship. The result of which is that you can never be truly sure if your saved or not or if you will lose your salvation at some point. While with the Baptist faith, the emphasis is more on what God did. That results in doctrines such as once saved always saved. The reasoning goes that if I did it then I can lose it. But, if God did it through the Spirit and it isn't the result of works then I can't lose it such because I am bad or struggle with my faith. They seem similiar, but really there are differences between them. Methodist seems more like saying that salvation is a process of becoming Christlike. The struggle though is that none of us is anywhere close to being Christ, so there may be a feeling of defeat.

Its called progressive sanctification which I wholeheartedly agree with

 

[Josiah]

Its called progressive sanctification which I wholeheartedly agree with

IMO, where I have trouble with the Catholic and Methodist paradigm is that this is presented as salvation and justification (a lot of Evangelical churches do this, too). Yes, sanctification (the Christian life and walk) is progressive and synergistic, but Justification is not. This point is the one on which all of Christianity depends. Mess this up and Christianity is destroyed and we just have another form of all the other world religions.

EVERYONE agrees that the Christian is divinely called to many things - including moral perfection, divine love, making disciples of all people, etc. Many things, huge things. And yes, Christians are called to become more Christlike. But here's the (IMO absolutely CRITICAL distinction): Lutherans and Calvinists argue that these are NOT what saves and justifies (Jesus does that), these are not what makes one saved but rather what the saved are called to do. Lutherans and Calvinists insist that Justification is not progressive, sanctification is; that Jesus is the Savior not simply the Helper and/or Possibility Maker - but that we are called to RESPOND to the gift of justification with our whole being; becoming Christ-like is not what saves.

As I noted, Catholics and Methodist (and to a greater degree, many Evangelicals) are synergistic - meaning they hold that JUSTIFICATION (what Protestants often mean by "salvations") is a cooperative effort: Jesus doing His part (the part that actually saves no one) and we do our part (the effectual part). It's just that Catholics and Methodist make our part primarily love and life whereas Evangelicals make it decision (as well as lesser emphasis on repentance).

The distinction here is monergism (Jesus saves) proclaimed by Lutherans and Calvinists to synergism (it's a cooperative progress) proclaimed by Catholics and Methodists, and in a more radical form by Arminian "Evangelicals". IMO, this distinction matters - and so denominational views here matter.


Thank you.


A blessed Lenten season to all...


- Josiah

 

[NewCreation435]

Methodist and Baptists both are generally synergistic. But yes, in the Baptist form, justification is usually viewed as a specific event or (at least) the microsecond one freely choose Jesus as their personal Savior - doing their part in justification (self doing the part that actually is effectual, that actually results in justification). In the Methodist form of synergism, it's all viewed quite loosely, less an event than a growing into, less a result of Decision alone and more inclusive of other factors. The bottom line is the same (synergism, Pelagianism or at least semi-Pelagianism) .... Jesus doing HIS part (usually making it possible) and self doing OUR part (the part that's actually effectual).


In popular Catholicism, there's two aspects to this: Initial grace which is simply GIVEN to the person from grace/mercy (often associated with Baptism) which begins a slow PROCESS (that continues into Purgatory) of synergistic cooperation - the emphasis NOT at all on decision (Catholic denies we CAN make a decision) and more on a life of love and obedience, becoming more Christ-like (the point being the Great Commandment), our justification thus being progressive and synergistic (but the emphasis on sanctification, not decision). The Catholic form of synergism is thus less radical than we see in some of Protestantism (Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical) but more like Methodist than Baptist in that it's not a single thing but a life-long process, with emphasis on love rather than decision.


Lutheranism and Calvinism (first - wave Protestantism) is monergistic. This view holds that Jesus is the Savior and therefore Jesus does the saving; that justification is HIS work/accomplishment - not ours. Thus the point is not OUR decision or will or merit or accomplishements or good works, but rather Jesus. This view looks to the Cross and not in the mirror. Objective justification happened on the Cross (and for all) and subjective justification (the application to ME) happened when God placed faith into our hearts as "the gift of God." This view is in keeping with the ancient Creed ("The Holy Spirit is the Author and GIVER of Life") and the Ecumenical Council of Orange and I'd argue in keeping with Scripture. And it is what makes Christianity Christian since it's all about Christ as the Savior. All other world religions hold that self ultimately saves self (albeit divine help is essential) and that usually this is lifelong (and for Hinduism and Buddhist, like Catholicism, extends beyond this life).


They are very different paradigms. And we here at CH have had MANY discussions of this difference over the years. IMO, the difference matters since IMO there is only one Savior. And thus denominations matter since they hold either to monergism (Jesus is the Savior) or to various forms of synergism (justification is a cooperative process - Jesus doing His part and we doing our part, the part that actually is effectual), it all comes down to who is the Savior? And whether the denomination directs us to the Cross or to the mirror. I think that matters. Some don't.



- Josiah

Thank you, that helps me think about it a little differently