I have been mulling over this one for sometime now and I would be interested to see what the theo-convo thinks about this.
I propose that the term "born again" has been misused for a very long time. The current excepted meaning of this term is "regenerated". I would agree that at conversion we are regenerated and all who are truly saved are indeed regenerated. So in that sense if you equate born again to regeneration it is certainly true that every must be "born again". So here is my qualm: John 3:3 was part of a midnight discourse between Jesus and a prominent Pharisee, likely there was no gentile audience. Moreover, the entire force of John 3 seems to be that salvation was not only for the Jews ie John 3:16 "for god so loved the WORLD...". I submit that this verse has nothing to do with regeneration, but instead is jesus' declaration the being of Jewish decent was no longer sufficient for salvation. If you look at John 3:18 it seems to pronounce condemnation upon the unbelieving Jew. Again recall the audience was a Pharisee. I think one of the primary reasons we have this dual covenant gotta stick with Israel at all cost mindset is because we have not seen the real implications of this text. John 3:3 is a convenient text for regeneration to be taught from, but I don't believe that is what Christ was talking about. Any thoughts?
Sorry for any spelling issues I posted this from my iPod.
I agree with you Jay. In fact, much more I am seeing the Gospels, as well as Paul at times, strongly speaking against the privileged position of the Jews. This is certainly a prime example in John 3. In fact, it seems rather ironic that Nicodemus comes to Jesus looking for a confirmation of his Jewish "formula." "We know that you are from God, or else you'd not be able to do the things that you are doing." (my paraphrase. . .sorry) It seems that Nicodemus, much like many of us, has it "all figured out." That's when Jesus throws him off, and as you rightly stated, opens the Gospel message for the entire world. The irony I see in all of this is that: a. Nicodemus comes with a formula; b. Jesus directs him away from his simple and misguided formula; c. we take this verse and make it into a formula. It is the only time the phrase "born again" is even used in the Bible, and we have used it as a "catch phrase," basing our entire belief system on it. How about this one. . . .Jesus tells the rich ruler to "sell everything he has and give it to the poor, and then follow Me." Why don't we take that incident as our statement of conversion: I'm a "sold everything I have and given it to the poor Christian." I'll admit that it isn't as catchy as "born again," but then again, it only appears once in the N.T. as well. Anyway, sorry for rambling, but I'm not big on cliches or formulas, so this one got me going!
ReplyDeleteWiith John 3:3 one of the problems is that rebirth is a great description of regeneration, so from the pragmatic viewpoint the text 'works'. However using this text as the go to verse regarding regeneration does violence to the true meaning of the verse. We see the same thing done with rev 3:20 "behold I stand at the door and knock..." that verse has nothing to do w/ letting Jesus in your heart, it was Jesus essentially knocking on the door of a lukewarm church. Nonetheless the pragmatist sees rev 3:20 as a verse that 'works' in evangelism, so who cares if the real meaning is discarded. Unfortunately I think a huge majority of theology and practice of our faith today is governed by pragmatism... "if it works it's true" and I find that to be troubling. I could go on and on.
ReplyDeleteI
Btw great point on being a "i sold everything and gave to the poor Christian" that was a very similar situation and yet a significantly different response. We chose to cling to born again because it is abstract enough to not have a pointed meaning.
ReplyDeleteI guess I have never actually heard myself even use that phrase before...it has always been one of those phrases used in church and small group classes, so I just rolled with it. I'm not one to go up to people and ask them if they're born again and I'm also not one to say I'm born again...using that particular phrase obviously (I'm a Christian...no worries).
ReplyDeleteIt's weird that you post this now though Jay because just the other day a couple of people from a church (Baptist I believe?) came to our door and were "advertising", more or less, their church and their overall belief in JC. They asked my dad if he was saved and he said yes, but then they asked if he was born again. I don't know it just kind of felt awkward, I guess, to me that those things would be used separately, like two different things. Maybe they felt like they would go on a "question rampage", if you will, but it just seemed odd to me, especially considering I had always found the two, "saved" and "born again", to be synonymous.
I enjoyed the "formula" analogy. It's definitely a different way of thinking about that verse, in particular, for me. I would also say that sometimes it seems like we not only use the phrase to save people, but also to condemn. I'm sure all the "UNLESS YOU ARE BORN AGAIN!" stuff can get not only tedious but also disheartening for some.
My thinking is if the person who is born again understands that Jesus wasn't trying to get Nicodemus to use a different formula, but to get away from them, they are saved and can use that knowledge to further the kingdom. That is, as we know, continuing to expand throughout the world, of course.
I imagine those questioners of your dad were looking to cause him to doubt his profession of faith. Their justification in doing that is found in matt7 not everyone who says lord lord will enter thekingdom. It is unfortunate that they use this methodology. The common thought over the last many years of fundamentalism is that a person must be convinced that they are lost before they can be saved. I used to hold that same mindset, I am not so sure of that anymore. It seems that many people have a ministry of condemnation. I of course believe in the condemnation of the lost, but do not see the exploitation of that condmenation to be the primary means of spreading the gospel.
ReplyDeleteWell that was an off topic rant sorry
Right and I have no doubt that those people were Christians and understood the meaning of both phrases. I've just always used one or the other to describe salvation.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that "born again" is a term that is used more to describe a person who has been saved dramatically. Like someone in prison accepts Jesus or someone who has lived a long life without ever knowing JC.
Like I said, that is not the phrase I would use to describe my salvation, even though they are the same thing. So I guess I just find it weird that kids who get saved at VBS are "saved", but others say "born again".
Right, and I think it is great that people have the faith to go door to door sharing the Gospel, or at least what they think of the Gospel. The Gospel however is good news, and if we are on a Gospel mission we are on a mission to spread good news. Now certainly people must have a conception of sin and their need for Christ, but the primary goal of Gospel ministry is not to convince of sin, but to proclaim grace. The declaration of sin is a means to layout the black cloth so to speak, but that is only so that we can place the diamond of the Gospel upon it. (I bet you have heard that somewhere.)
ReplyDeleteAs for Born Again being dramatic salvation vs. the simple term saved being no so dramatic, I tend to disagree. My point is that there term 'Born Again' is only speaking about salvation in the sense that Jews are not saved simply because they are Jewish, but instead they must be 'Born Again' in other words their original birthright as a Jew is no longer valid.
Nicodemus wanted to "inherit" eternal life. Inheritance involves birthright, Jesus let him know that He needed to be 'born again' in the sense that He needed adopted into the family of faith those redeemed by Christ.
again, I do not think the force of John 3:3 is conversion or regeneration, but instead is about how the new covenant supersedes the old.
Excellent insight, Jay. So much of Luke and John seem to deal with this notion of Jewish pride in their "position." It does seem to me, regardless of how we describe salvation, there does have to be some conscious recognition that "once I was lost, but now I am found." At the same time, I wholeheartedly agree with you that ours is truly a Gospel of grace. While condemnation may work with some individuals, it is very difficult for me personally to use this approach when introducing an individual to the beauty of Christ.
ReplyDelete