Much of the controversy in the Church these days centers around the New Birth and what actually happens to those who believe. Some teach that a simple prayer of faith and baptism are all it takes. Some teach that all we have to do is let Jesus come into our lives and we are saved. However, the Bible is very clear that no one sees the Kingdom of God unless they are Born Again. Also, it is this "regeneration" that is the New Birth that changes a person from a Natural Man into a genuine Christian. This New Birth is what enables a person to believe and be saved. The person is a New Creation old things are past away, behold, the new has come. This means that the light from the life of God in them will be manifest in a life that is growing in Grace. They are working in cooperation with God in their sanctification. This is not what justifies them in God’s eyes. Instead, He justified them when they repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. – Mike Ratliff
The following devotional by Martin Luther is from Faith Alone.
A New and Different Person
by Martin Luther
You should not be surprised at my saying, "You must be born again." (John 3:7)
This new birth shows itself most clearly when trials and death draw near. Then it becomes clear whether or not a person has experienced the new birth. At that time, human reason–the old light–twists and wrestles, refusing to let go of its own thinking. It doesn’t want to give up and turn to the gospel. Reason simply won’t let go of its own light. But those who are born anew, or who are being born anew, surrender and follow God. They give up their old light, life, possessions, honor, and whatever else they have. They trust what John records in his gospel and cling to it. As true children of God, they will receive their eternal inheritance.
If your old, arrogant light of reason grows dark, becomes dead, and is replaced by a new light, then your entire life will be transformed. For when your reason is changed, your will follows soon after. And when your will is changed, what you love and desire changes as well. In order to become new, you must crawl into the gospel with your whole self. You must shed off the old skin, as a snake does. When its skin becomes old, a snake looks for a narrow hole in the rock. It crawls through it and sheds its skin, leaving it outside in front of the hole. Similarly, you also must go into the gospel and God’s Word. You must confidently believe its promise that God does not lie. So you shed off your old skin, leaving behind your old light, arrogance, will, love, desires, and what you say and do. You become a new and different person who views everything differently than before.
Powered by Qumana
They are working in cooperation with God in their sanctification.
Interestingly I read a short essay today by Dr. Richard A. Muller in which he essentially denies individual cooperation with God on most any level in favor of a corporate or “churchly” relationship. Dr. Muller goes on to argue the Reformed view of soteriology over against what he calls the American evangelical style soteriology whose adherents he derides for – among other things – professing to have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” and for using the term “born-again”.
To put it mildly I was aghast and blogged on the subject tonight. I hope you’ll have time to read my post and follow the related links as I’d truly appreciate your opinion on the matter.
I was born into a Christian family and therefore grew up knowing the Bible somewhat and never questioned it’s message never faied to pray at least once a day ,now that I am old and grey (71) I must say that I never experienced a socalled” new birth” mainly because I always felt I was saved , I read Bible often have attended Church for many years but lately there is no real church to go to around here because it has gone the way of so many (PDL), what is wrong with me never having felt the “new birth”?
A new person? And with this “regeneration” doesn’t one desire the kingdom of God more than this world? I am born-again, and with this, I have Christian friends that are telling me that I am not appreciating this life, and that we were made for this world. I am so misunderstood! I do appreciate the life God has bestowed on me by His grace…but I long for His kingdom! Am I wrong? By longing to be with Him, am I in return not appreciating His blessing of this life? I think not! Were we really made for this world? I recently had a friend tell me that because I do not treasure my life here, that I am saying God made a mistake with my birth. What? This is crazy!
Right? Please tell me this is crazy!
I do appreciate what God has blessed me with in this life, but I value the life to come more!
Sherry
The sins which he once committed,
the objects which he once loved,
the tastes which he once cultivated,
the sensualities in which he once indulged,
have lost their power . . .
to fascinate,
to please,
to enthrall
“If your old, arrogant light of reason grows dark, becomes dead, and is replaced by a new light, then your entire life will be transformed.”
The most comprehesive book on the subject I’ve found is MacArthur’s book “The Gospel According to Jesus”. This is where the covenant relationship is so misunderstood. Some teach that the only responsibility for the covenant is on God’s side. While it is true that salvation is born of God alone, God has sovereignly invested a responsibility to the believer himself. Now this is a sacred subject about which only the Godhead has full knowledge, but it is evident that not just any mental acquiescence will result in the new birth or as James points out the demons would be saved.
The oximoron is that it takes just a mustard seed and yet it takes committed faith. From my perspective it is the greatest of all deceptions that Satan has convinced people who are lost that they are saved. It is so sacred to God that Paul tells us that one day those who have did not receive the truth will be deceived by God Himself so they must believe a lie rather than be saved. No one will enter heaven unless they are born again on earth.
Interesting. A friend of mine recently ran across an old friend of hers. He esentially told her that having a one-on-one relationship with God was pointless. He emphasized the neccesity of a communal relationship with God. This was the first I heard of this, but I assumed it had its roots in the charismatic camp.
We’ve been talking about the OT people and their relationship with God…Abraham etc, and how they went to heaven, but only through Christ which means they would have had to have the Holy Spirit in them. I asked a few people this and most disagreed with me except for my pastor. I’ll have to do a study on it. But there is a Scripture that says no one can call Jesus Lord except through the Holy Spirit.
Coram Deo and Russell,
I confess that I have never read anything about this communal relationship being how we worship God. Our personal relationship with God is pointless? Good grief. I suppose all of those admonitions and commads for us individually in Bible are meant for corporate groups alone? Nonsense!
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Gerry,
Being born again is not something that is manifest in our hearts by “feelings.” Upon what are you basing your faith?
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Sherry,
No, you are not wrong to long for the Kingdom to come. We need to pray for that everyday. I beleive that when we are Spirit-led, our focus will be on the Kingdom rather than on this mess here.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Amen Cristina!
Rick,
The Gospel According to Jesus was the book God used to start the process of driving my false views of the gospel from me. I really appreciate John MacArthur writing it.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Sarah,
Count me in with you and your pastor.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Good deal! I’ve asked my pastor to give me more evidence than what I have, but he is so so busy that I don’t know if he has the time. Do you have anything for me concerning this? I’m sure it’s a HUGE study but I would be curious on where you would start etc.
Sarah,
I have nothing on this subject except that when God drew me out of the Dispensationalism into a more balanced view of the Bible and doctrine that I saw that everyone is saved exactly the same way and always have. We are commanded to believe God and repent. All that means is that when we see what God requires we listen and obey. Abraham did that so he is the one the New Testament points back to as our Father of Faith. Old Testament beleivers were saved by looking forward to the promise of Christ’s redememption on the cross and we do so by looking back to it. I find it ludricous that God would expect fallen people to be obedient and walk by faith without the Holy Spirit. The church is definitly unique in history, but we are all saved individually. I, like you, am still dealing with this and studying it so I am no expert.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
I have nothing on this subject except that when God drew me out of the Dispensationalism into a more balanced view of the Bible and doctrine that I saw that everyone is saved exactly the same way and always have.
Mike,
If you have a spare moment I’d be interested in better understanding your view of eschatology, particularly a contrast between the “dispensational” viewpoint you previously held and the “more balanced view” you now profess.
Please understand that it’s not my intent to lay some sort of trap for you to walk into, I’m just genuinely curious. Perhaps you could explain here or send me an e-mail?
Thanks in advance.
Coram Deo,
I was stunned a couple of years ago at the resistance in my former church to the truths God was revealing to my heart during my renewal/revival. One of those was the absolutely unbiblical way that Dispensationalism treats scripture for it is nothing more than a filter that forces an interprestation of scripture that has different rules for the New Testament and Old Testament.
From that I studied the history of the Dispensationalism and found it to be a very new view that came from a one person in Scotland in the lat 19th Century. Schofield, not a godly man at all, took what he learned from this man and created his Schofield Bible which is Dispensational to the core. All Dispensational views since have their roots in the notes in that Bible.
However, the main reason I abandoned it was that it was not the veiw of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Augustine, Bunyan, Owen, et cetera. What was their view? It was either Post Millenial or Amillenial. These two views are very similar, but with some important differences pertaining to a literal 1000 Earthly kingdom. Then I made freinds with Kim Riddlbarger. I read his two books on this subject: The Man of Sin and A Case for Amillinialism.
From my study of these two books I abandonded Dispensatinalism. However, I am still not really sure whether I am a Premillinalist like John MacArthur, or an Amillinialist like Kim Riddlebarger, or a Post-Millinalinalist like John Piper. Note: None of these men are Dispensationalists. They all view that Old Testament saints were saved the same way New Testament saints are. Why? The Bible teaches this when it isn’t tainted with an unbiblical filter like Dispensationalism.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
However, I am still not really sure whether I am a Premillinalist like John MacArthur, or an Amillinialist like Kim Riddlebarger, or a Post-Millinalinalist like John Piper. Note: None of these men are Dispensationalists.
Actually MacArthur caused quite a stir at this year’s Shepherd’s conference wherein he authoritatively laid out the case for why he’s a dispensationalist.
This is part of the reason I asked my initial question, noting that you had made mention of MacArthur’s book ““The Gospel According to Jesus” in your comments above.
I blogged on this subject a couple of days ago if you’re interested in learning more (see “Tempest in a Teapot“). But please allow me to warn you that I sort of unloaded on Riddlebarger in a separate post since it was he who linked to the ghastly essay “How Many Points” by Dr. Richard A. Muller which decried, among other things, professing “a personal relationship with Jesus” and the use of the term “born-again”.
At any rate, thanks for taking the time to respond!
Coram Deo
I have read the Gospel According to Jesus. I read it over ten years ago. John MacArthur is not a Dispensationlist with a Capital “D”. He believes in dispensationalism, but not to the insane level of coming up with various forms of means of salvation. He is preMillenial as he stated in that conference, but not from the view of “Dispensationlism.” I’m sorry if this seems confusing. There is a huge difference. Extreme Dispensationalism actually says that many of the teaching found in the New Testament are for the Apostles only or for the Jews only and only some of them are for the Church. That is what I have a problem with. I should have been more clear. Please forgive me.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Thanks for the clarification Mike and may I emphsaize that it certainly wasn’t my intention to misconstrue your position on your very own blog.
Please accept my apologies to both you and your readersship for any confusion that may have been caused by my misunderstanding!
“readership”; egads!
Coram Deo,
Not a problem. I have been agonizing over my “too quick” response earlier. This is why the comment section on a blog is a very poor way to communicate in detail.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Thank You