Christianity versus 'Churchianity'

[Josh]

If Jesus said to Nicodemus you must be born again to see the Kingom of God and that being born again is a spiritual birth, then I understand that to be the basic requirement to be a Christain. This is not a denominational question but a requirement by our Lord.

To me, that seems to be missing the forest for the trees. Jesus told his disciples to follow him. To be in Jesus' kingdom, we need to follow him so we will end up where he is. Following Jesus is not about following a religious formula, including learning special religious terms like "born again".

I am not suggesting that any Christian faith group are not saved but I believe there are people in every Christian faith group that are highly religious in their practise but have not been born again. I have heard many testimonies of those who were very religious and then were born again and share what a difference this has made in their life.

My testimony is that I grew up around evangelical churches and preaching that talked a lot about being "born again" but the term had almost no meaning because it was not accompanied by a life of obedience to the simple teachings of the New Testament. In fact, I consider a lot of so called "born again Christianity" to simply be dead religion.

I use the term of being born again to see what understanding a person has about what this means as some believe their highly religious ways are what saves them and not through the grace of God that makes them into new creatures with new appetites to follow Christ.

I consider the term "born again" to simply be another trapping of a particular denomination and religious system - just like how Catholics would refer to "confirmation" or the Amish would refer to "being baptised".

So, how would an Amish person witness in words to an unbeliever telling them how we are saved ?

The Amish believe that the best testimony is a life lived in obedience to Jesus. Eventually, if someone has questions about why they live the way they do, they can learn about it from the scriptures. That is how they view things.

To be frank, I think their way is proving to work better than the old Dwight L. Moody type of formula, which doesn't seem to be accomplishing very much for Jesus' kingdom these days.

[ohio jones]

A "Born-Again Christian" is a term some choose
A redundant phrase in the language we use
So please think about this question my friend
How can you be a Christian 'less you're born again?

[Ken]

A "Born-Again Christian" is a term some choose
A redundant phrase in the language we use
So please think about this question my friend
How can you be a Christian 'less you're born again?

So....

Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists are not Christians?

[Sudsy]

If Jesus said to Nicodemus you must be born again to see the Kingom of God and that being born again is a spiritual birth, then I understand that to be the basic requirement to be a Christain. This is not a denominational question but a requirement by our Lord.

To me, that seems to be missing the forest for the trees. Jesus told his disciples to follow him. To be in Jesus' kingdom, we need to follow him so we will end up where he is. Following Jesus is not about following a religious formula, including learning special religious terms like "born again".

Call things a 'religious formula' if you like. I would call what Jesus said about being 'born again' as a requirement to have eternal life and it is referred to in various ways as 'conversion' or 'being saved' and involves a work of God in the heart of man to be born of the Spirit which is the beginning of a life of being led of the Holy Spirit in how to follow Jesus teachings.

I am not suggesting that any Christian faith group are not saved but I believe there are people in every Christian faith group that are highly religious in their practise but have not been born again. I have heard many testimonies of those who were very religious and then were born again and share what a difference this has made in their life.

My testimony is that I grew up around evangelical churches and preaching that talked a lot about being "born again" but the term had almost no meaning because it was not accompanied by a life of obedience to the simple teachings of the New Testament. In fact, I consider a lot of so called "born again Christianity" to simply be dead religion.

What really matters is what God regards as becoming His child. I believe the scripture teaches that when one becomes a believer they become new creation in Christ Jesus. A new way of living begins. I agree that some that use the term 'born again' have not had any experience of this and they live to some degree religious but in their heart they have not been changed. Jesus pointed this out to the Pharisees as Jesus knew their hearts.

I use the term of being born again to see what understanding a person has about what this means as some believe their highly religious ways are what saves them and not through the grace of God that makes them into new creatures with new appetites to follow Christ.

I consider the term "born again" to simply be another trapping of a particular denomination and religious system - just like how Catholics would refer to "confirmation" or the Amish would refer to "being baptised".

Well, I would not call the term 'born again' to be something other than what Jesus said it was, that being a second birth, one of the Spirit required for those born of the flesh. Jesus didn't say this was optional but rather 'Ye must be born again'.

So, how would an Amish person witness in words to an unbeliever telling them how we are saved ?

The Amish believe that the best testimony is a life lived in obedience to Jesus. Eventually, if someone has questions about why they live the way they do, they can learn about it from the scriptures. That is how they view things.

To be frank, I think their way is proving to work better than the old Dwight L. Moody type of formula, which doesn't seem to be accomplishing very much for Jesus' kingdom these days.

To be frank back at ya , the Amish are not a good example of reaching the lost for Jesus by their method of spreading the Good News. Living a life of obedience is not all that scripture says we are to be involved in for people to be saved. Read Romans 10 about words matter and not just living a certain life style. We should all be concerned and involved in guiding people to the Saviour and escaping hell. Something I need to be more active about.

It is easy to go Evangelical bashing as it is to go Anabaptist or other faith group bashing. There are lots of faults in every group of professing Christians including Holdeman Mennonites. You seem to favor the Amish in their Christianity. What prevents you from joining them ?

[Josh]

Call things a 'religious formula' if you like. I would call what Jesus said about being 'born again' as a requirement to have eternal life and it is referred to in various ways as 'conversion' or 'being saved' and involves a work of God in the heart of man to be born of the Spirit which is the beginning of a life of being led of the Holy Spirit in how to follow Jesus teachings.

At issue here is that every denomination claims that their specific formula is just what Jesus said and what the Bible says. Evangelicals have a lack of perspective about this.

To be frank back at ya , the Amish are not a good example of reaching the lost for Jesus by their method of spreading the Good News. Living a life of obedience is not all that scripture says we are to be involved in for people to be saved. Read Romans 10 about words matter and not just living a certain life style. We should all be concerned and involved in guiding people to the Saviour and escaping hell. Something I need to be more active about.

It is easy to go Evangelical bashing as it is to go Anabaptist or other faith group bashing. There are lots of faults in every group of professing Christians including Holdeman Mennonites. You seem to favor the Amish in their Christianity. What prevents you from joining them ?

An open question is just how effective the evangelical formula is at actually winning converts. When one looks at the world in its present condition, the answer is "not very much". I think it's time to move back to a more historic model of Christianity, where we share the gospel via deeds and example first, and words come later after there is an open door.

[ohio jones]

A "Born-Again Christian" is a term some choose
A redundant phrase in the language we use
So please think about this question my friend
How can you be a Christian 'less you're born again?

So....

Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists are not Christians?

Best example of non sequitur I've seen for a while.

If they are Christians, it's because they are born again, not because they are Presbyterian or whatever. Christianity versus 'Churchianity.'

[Ken]

So....

Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists are not Christians?

Best example of non sequitur I've seen for a while.

If they are Christians, it's because they are born again, not because they are Presbyterian or whatever. Christianity versus 'Churchianity.'

It depends on how you use the term doesn't it? To the extent that Catholics and Orthodox ever use the term "born again" (which they tend not to) they would consider that to have happened when they were baptized at a few weeks of age.

Is that how you are using the term? That "born again" simply means baptism and nothing more?

Or are you using the term in some broad sense that doesn't refer to any specific life moment or event but just to one's faith in general?

[Sudsy]

Call things a 'religious formula' if you like. I would call what Jesus said about being 'born again' as a requirement to have eternal life and it is referred to in various ways as 'conversion' or 'being saved' and involves a work of God in the heart of man to be born of the Spirit which is the beginning of a life of being led of the Holy Spirit in how to follow Jesus teachings.

At issue here is that every denomination claims that their specific formula is just what Jesus said and what the Bible says. Evangelicals have a lack of perspective about this.

Well I think I'll stick with what Jesus said that one must be born again to see the Kingdom of God as I chose to believe His perspective lacks nothing and is the only one that really matters.

To be frank back at ya , the Amish are not a good example of reaching the lost for Jesus by their method of spreading the Good News. Living a life of obedience is not all that scripture says we are to be involved in for people to be saved. Read Romans 10 about words matter and not just living a certain life style. We should all be concerned and involved in guiding people to the Saviour and escaping hell. Something I need to be more active about.

It is easy to go Evangelical bashing as it is to go Anabaptist or other faith group bashing. There are lots of faults in every group of professing Christians including Holdeman Mennonites. You seem to favor the Amish in their Christianity. What prevents you from joining them ?

An open question is just how effective the evangelical formula is at actually winning converts. When one looks at the world in its present condition, the answer is "not very much". I think it's time to move back to a more historic model of Christianity, where we share the gospel via deeds and example first, and words come later after there is an open door.

I don't share your evaluation nor your view on what comes in what order in evangelism or your model of early Christianity. The problem with your view is that in many cases those who believe they are sharing the Gospel via good deeds first and words later never get around to sharing the words on what we must do to be saved from our sins. Good deeds and sharing the Good News in words are to go together not in some order. Sadly in our area the leading examples of Christians doing good deeds only are not seeing new converts coming to Christ. There seems to be a lack of boldness in using words and as Romans 10:13 says words are a must in sharing the Gospel.

[Sudsy]

This link gives what I believe is a good comparison of the use of the term Christian compared to the term born-again Christian -

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologic ... ame-thing/

Personally I associate the term 'Churchianity' with those who speak of being a Christian and participate in a local Christian church yet have never been born-again. Jesus says of these as being those that He never knew. There is a special relationship that occurs with Jesus in those who have been born-again.

[ohio jones]

So....

Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists are not Christians?

Best example of non sequitur I've seen for a while.

If they are Christians, it's because they are born again, not because they are Presbyterian or whatever. Christianity versus 'Churchianity.'

It depends on how you use the term doesn't it? To the extent that Catholics and Orthodox ever use the term "born again" (which they tend not to) they would consider that to have happened when they were baptized at a few weeks of age.

Is that how you are using the term? That "born again" simply means baptism and nothing more?

Or are you using the term in some broad sense that doesn't refer to any specific life moment or event but just to one's faith in general?

Best example of the fallacy of bifurcation I've seen for a while.