Talk:Born again

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Born again (Christianity))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Baptist / Methodism / Charismatic (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Baptist work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Methodism work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.



"(Note that some translators consider "born from above" to be a better translation than "born again".)"

Bad wording. How many translators exactly?

"Few", "Some". None that are born-again, there's your answer. -Eli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

References to Psychosis missing[edit]

It's curious that this article does not mention the widely held view in Europe (and much of the world outside the US) that born-again Christianity is a psychological defect prevalent amongst Americans rather than a belief or religion. Obviously, the US is the home of lunatic religious views and sometimes it can be difficult to separate societal insanity with individual psychosis, but nevertheless an attempt should be made to tackle the topic in this article. Oooompalooompa (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh really, what a helpful and constructive remark... :-\ Poglad (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
If you believe that, then similar additions should also be made to virtually every article about religion on Wikipedia. Impractical, sadly.Gymnophoria (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
American evangelism is a strange thing and most non-Americans regard its adherents as nutcases. (Even British evangelicals see their American counterparts as a bit mad). It's probably better to allow readers to make their own minds up. Wikipedia documents lots of crackpot stuff without being judgmental about it. --Ef80 (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation Needed: Born again and retardation[edit]

This is in the introduction section of this article: "Outside of Christianity, the term "born again" is occasionally used to describe beliefs characterized by renewal, retardation, resurgence or return." I have never heard of 'retardation' being referred to as 'born again.' Somebody either cite sources for this sentence or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

hahahaha who did that? that's awesome


We should probably mention Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus. -- Ed Poor

I agree. I don't have time to go in to it, but this topic should be connected with Baptism, pedobaptism, believers baptism. The phrase as used by evangelicals often refers to believer's baptism; churches with a tradition of pedobaptism look at the passage a bit differently, but of course still affirm being born again, since the phrase itself is scriptural. --Wesley

An anoymous user made a very large edit which was reverted. I have saved their version at Born again/Alternative version. The Anome 12:32 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

This is a POV sermon from an Anon User who has also made a number of other major revisions to articles regarding Christianity User contributions: and created several more that have since been deleted. I don't believe it belongs in Wikipedia. Mintguy

His/her contributions are certainly coherent, if enormous and non-NPOV. I'd like to give this person an opportunity to work with us in the NPOV process, if they want to. Otherwise, if they will not cooperate, we should treat them as a vandal. The Anome

To the author of the deleted material:

We did not delete your material because we disagree with it. We deleted it because it did not fit our neutral point of view policy, where all views are given as opinions, rather than as facts (even if we feel personally that they are facts). This enables people with multiple points of view to write articles that they can all agree on.

Would you like to work with us? The Anome 12:45 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

=====Below removed for work. (shortening) We might already have enough Christian explanation on this. Its entirely possible that the below is repetitious of the other... etc...

Regeneration is the impartation of a new and divine life; a new creation; the production of a new thing. It is Gen. 1:26 over again. It is not the old nature altered, reformed, or re-invigorated, but a new birth from above. This is the teaching of such passages as John 3:3-7; 5:21; Eph. 2:1, 10; 2 Cor. 5:17.

By nature man is dead in sin (Eph. 2:1); the new birth imparts to him new life--the life of God, so that henceforth he is as those that are alive from the dead; he has passed out of death into life (John 5:24).

In the new birth we are made partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). We have put on the new man, which after God is created in holiness and righteousness (Eph. 4:11; Col. 3:10). Christ now lives in the believer (Gal. 2:20). God's seed now abides in him (1 John 3:9). So that henceforth the believer is possessed of two natures (Gal. 5:17).

Thus regeneration is a crisis with a view to a process. A new governing power comes into the regenerate man's life by which he is enabled to become holy in experience: "Old things are passed away; behold all things are become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). See also Acts 16:14, and Ezek. 36:25-27, 1 John 3:6-9.

The necessity is universal[edit]

The need is as far reaching as sin and the human race: "Except a man (lit. anybody) be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3, cf. v. 5). No age, sex, position, condition exempts anyone from this necessity. Not to be born again is to be lost. There is no substitute for the new birth: "Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Gal. 6:15). The absolute necessity is clearly stated by our Lord: whatever is born of the flesh, must be born again of the Spirit (John 3:3-7).

John 3:6 -- "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" -- and it can never, by any human process, become anything else. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil" (Jer. 13:23). "They that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8); in our "flesh dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 7:18). The mind is darkened so that we cannot apprehend spiritual truth; we need a renewing of the mind (Rom. 12:2). The heart is deceitful, and does not welcome God; we need to be pure in heart to see God. There is no thought of God before the eyes of the natural man; we need a change in nature that we may be counted among those "who thought upon His name." No education or culture can bring about such a needed change. God alone can do it.

If without holiness no man shall see the Lord (Heb. 12:14); and if holiness is not to be attained by any natural development or self-effort, then the regeneration of our nature is absolutely necessary. This change, which enables us to be holy, takes place when we are born again.

Man is conscious that he does not have this holiness by nature; he is conscious, too, that he must have it in order to appear before God (Ezra 9:15). The Scriptures corroborate this consciousness in man, and, still further, state the necessity of such a righteousness with which to appear before God. In the new birth alone is the beginning of such a life to be found. To live the life of God we must have the nature of God.

We are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). It was of His own will he begat us (Jas. 1:18): Our regeneration is a creative act on the part of God, not a reforming process on the part of man. It is not brought about by natural descent, for all we get from that is "flesh." It is not by natural choice, for the human will is impotent. Nor is it by self-effort, or any human generative principle. Nor is it by the blood of any ceremonial sacrifices. It is not by pedigree or natural generation. It is altogether and absolutely the work of God. Practically speaking, we have no more to do with our second birth, than we had to do with our first birth.

The Holy Spirit is the Divine Agent in our regeneration. For this reason it is called the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Tit. 3:5). We are "born of the Spirit" (John 3:5).

John 1:12 and 13 bring together these two thoughts--the divine and the human in regeneration: Those who received Him (i. e., Christ)....were born of God. The two great problems connected with regeneration are the efficiency of God and the activity of man.

God begat us by "the word of truth" (James 1:18). We are "born again," says Peter (1 Ep. 1:23), "of incorruptible seed, by the word of God." We are "begotten through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15). These scriptures teach us that regeneration takes place in the heart of man when he reads or hears the Word of God, or the Gospel message, or both, and, because of the Spirit working in the Word as well as in the heart of man, the man opens his heart and receives that message as the Word of life to his soul. The truth is illuminated, as is also the mind, by the Spirit; the man yields to the truth, and is born again. Of course, even here, we must remember that it is the Lord who must open our hearts just as He opened the heart of Lydia (Acts 16:14). But the Word must be believed and received by man. 1 Pet. 1:25.

This is the clear teaching of John 1:12, 13 and Gal. 3:26. We become "children of God by faith in Jesus Christ." When a man, believing in the claims of Jesus Christ receives Him to be all that He claimed to be -- that man is born again.

Man therefore is not wholly passive at the time of his regeneration. He is passive only as to the change of his ruling disposition. With regard to the exercise of this disposition he is active. A dead man cannot assist in his own resurrection, it is true; but he may, and can, like Lazarus, obey Christ's command, and "Come forth!"

Psa. 90:16, 17 illustrates both the divine and human part: "Let thy work appear unto thy servants," and then "the work of our hands establish thou it." God's work appears first, then man's. So Phil. 2:12,13.

====Moved by -Stevert Be well.

The opening paragraph is, I feel, a little disingenuous. The original usage of this phrase was Christian, and the primary usage is still Christian. As far as I am aware other uses to refer to similar experiences, religious or otherwise, are derivative from the Christian usage. No objection to referring to the other usages (which are much wider than implied - e.g. born again Cowboys fan, born-again Democrat, born-again Choccolate lover), but the Christion meaning should get a mention. DJ Clayworth 17:38, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If the article says whether it applies to Orthodox, or to Catholics, or to some of the various denominations, sects, cults, whatever of Protestantism, or who knows, to Monophysites, I sure missed it. This article sounds more like a sermon than a discussion of what different people believe, or do they really all believe the same thing? 04:35, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cut the following text which seems to have little to do with the subject.

These relate to baptism, and of the difference between the realms of the Holy, Immortal Spirit and crude, mortal flesh. Baptism is the ritual revealing of the cleansing power of the word of God.

In Christianity, regeneration is not a natural forward step in man's development; it is a supernatural act of God; it is a spiritual crisis. It is not evolution, but involution -- the communication of a new life. It is a revolution--a change of direction resulting from that life. Herein lies the danger in psychology, and in the statistics regarding the number of conversions during the period of adolescence. The danger lies in the tendency to make regeneration a natural phenomenon, an advanced step in the development of a human life, instead of regarding it as a crisis. Such a psychological view of regeneration denies man's sin, his need of Christ, the necessity of an atonement, and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

DJ Clayworth 05:19, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the reasons apply, that you cite; but, I certainly agree with the removal of the text. Talk about "crude, mortal flesh" smells funny. Mkmcconn 07:44, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Alternative Interpretation[edit]

It is interesting to consider that those who have a Near-death experience often experience the sensation of passing through a tunnel. Some have observed that as the physical act of birth entails passage through a physical "tunnel" — the birth canal — the spiritual act of birth may consist of passage through a spiritual equivalent.

In the Bible passage quoted earlier, Jesus stated that "no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again." If the rules of logic are properly applied to this phrase, it would be possible to be "born again" and not necessarily see the kingdom of God.

A contemporary speaker might say that one cannot see the Eiffel Tower unless one goes to Paris. But, one could go to Paris and never visit the Eiffel Tower. Similarly, Jesus makes it clear that no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again, but does not explicitly state that being born again means that one will see the Kingdom of God (while that might indeed be the case, it cannot be logically inferred from the Bible text).

Therefore, one possible interpretation is that a person is not "born again" by saying a "sinner's prayer" or observing some rite of a church — indeed, there are no specific instructions given in the Bible for entering the state of being "born again" — but that instead, a person is "born again" at the time of death (for most people), or perhaps for a small minority of people, during a near-death experience or an intensely spiritual experience. This would not conflict with what Jesus told Nicodemus in any way.

It's also worth pointing out that Jesus had responded in the way he did after Nicodemus had said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God." Those who believe that being "born again" is synonymous with "salvation" ignore the fact that Nicodemus was not asking was not asking how to obtain forgiveness from sin, but instead was observing that Jesus was doing things that he could only do in the presence of God. Jesus' response, therefore, probably had nothing to do with the modern concept of salvation, but rather was instruction for Nicodemus as to what must happen to him before he could see the kingdom of God in the same way that Jesus did.

Note that Christian fundamentalists would most likely reject this interpretation, not only because they believe that being "born again" and having "salvation" are the same thing, but also because they believe that it is impossible for a person to be saved after the moment of physical death (although it is quite questionable whether anything in the Bible directly supports the latter assertion). Therefore, the idea that for most people, spiritual birth comes after the moment of physical death would disagree with fundamentalist dogma.

I removed the above text, as it's really just somebody's speculation.

To the author: we appreciate your desire to contribute, but Encyclopedias in general, including Wikipedia, are not intended as places for personal essays or novel interpretations. Many places on the web will be glad to receive your thoughts on the subject. We are happy to receive any factual information you have of course. DJ Clayworth 15:02, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Response to the above comment from the author:
I had already restored the deleted text before I found this page (I'm still learning my way around), however I disagree that this is a novel interpretation - I have read it, or variations of it, in literature dealing with Near-Death Experiences. It would seem to me that an encyclopedia should not just parrot the traditional viewpoint, but should be willing to allow other views to be presented as long as they are not totally "off the wall."
I would ask, how can anyone present "factual" information dealing with the topic of religion, where one person's absolute fact is another's total fantasy? Again, I based my comments on some of the things that have been reported by people who've had NDE's, a topic I've done considerable research on in the past year or so (just for my own enlightenment, not as academic research, but still...). I'm trying to reduce to four or five paragraphs the essence of what I've read in many paragraphs. If you feel my text is too speculative, I'm open to suggestions for how it might be made less so, but please bear in mind that ALL writings on religious topics are to some degree speculative unless you want to limit text to actual recorded history, or quotes from the writings of others.
I don't know if you are of the fundamentalist persuasion or not; I had assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that a fundamentalist may have disagreed with what I wrote and vandalized it. In any case, this is not a paper and ink encyclopedia; are bytes of storage such a luxury that a reasonable attempt at explaining an alternative interpretation cannot be afforded? Or do you really consider my interpretation so unreasonable, or my writing so crude that it cannot be allowed to co-exist with the more traditional viewpoint?
Anonymous: as a piece of speculation your essay is as valid as any other. But Wikipedia is like any other encyclopedia. It's not there to promote novel understandings of things, but to record what people believe about a subject. As a piece of study, if you wish this theory to be taken seriously you need to show that it was what Jesus actually meant, not just that there was some coincidental resemblance between what he said and some later reserach.
Jesus clearly considered the Kingdom of God to be something attainable on this Earth, not something you get when you die.
The translation of 'Born again' is quite close to 'born from above'. That doesn't seem to tie in with this theory.
The only actual relevance you present of NDE to the John passage is that some reports of NDE are quite like a birth in one particular respect. So are many other experiences. Is there any other evidence?
What you might consider doing is putting all this stuff in an article on Near death experience. It might then be reasonable to link from this article to NDE.
By the way, it's good ettiquette to sign your name after entries on talk pages by putting four tildes in a row, like this ~~~~ DJ Clayworth 15:22, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Response: The problem I'm having with this is that you seem to imply that an encyclopedia must of necessity only advance the most commonly-held belief on a subject. The problem is that this could impede the search for the truth. I'm sure that any reference book of the middle ages would have rejected the notion that the earth revolved around the sun, yet that didn't make it any less true.
Traditional dogma has been around for hundreds of years, yet it is being challenged by new advances in science and medicine (particularly data on near-death experiences, and Dr. Ian Stevenson's research on children who seem to recall past lives), archaeology (the Nag Hammadi library and other recent findings), and the fact that we are getting better at translating the ancient texts (due to being able to use computers to aid in the task). I don't expect that anyone who believes in the tradition dogma to ever take an alternate view seriously, any more than I would have expected a bishop in the middle ages to admit that the sun was the center of the solar system.
What I have tried to record is what some people, particularly those who've had deep spiritual experiences (in many cases as a result of an NDE actually do believe). In the minds of some, they actually are bringing information from beyond.
I agree that "Jesus clearly considered the Kingdom of God to be something attainable on this Earth." I do not agree with the second part of your sentence, "not something you get when you die." What would make you or anyone think that, at least for those who have not attained access to the Kingdom of God during this lifetime, it becomes forever unattainable at the moment of death? Please keep in mind that some Christians (though definitely not the fundamentalists) believe that souls can be reborn in another physical body (reincarnation), indeed that was what the early church father Origen believed. So the question becomes, do we have access to the "Kingdom of God" in the time after death, or between lives (if Origen was correct)?
But then you get into what is the Kingdom of Heaven, which Jesus said was all around us. My belief is that he did want to teach us how to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, and that some of his disciples did manage to do so, and that is how they were able to do some of the same works that Jesus did. But entering into the "Kingdom of Heaven" and being "Born Again" may be two different things, and only traditional dogma has tied the two ideas together as if they are the same event. There is little or no evidence that the very early Christians believed that way.
Even if "born again" meant "born from above" - and that's open to some question - you still get back to asking what "born from above" means. It still suggests an experience that goes far beyond just saying a formula "sinner's prayer."
When you talk about evidence, what evidence is there for the traditional dogma? This is all matters of faith, not evidence.
My personal belief is that if what I have written is appropriate at all, it's more appropriate here than under Near-Death Experiences. Seems like you are saying that since what I have written doesn't agree with your beliefs, it's okay to stick it under NDE, but not here. Again, my question is, is it the job of an encyclopedia to present only a traditional belief, and never any reasonable dissenting view? I think, ultimately, that it should come down to whether the alternative viewpoint is a resonable interpretation, even if an alternative one. If it is reasonable, then it should be appropriate here; if not, then it's no more valid to place it under the NDE entry.
Finally, at this point I have my reasons for wanting to remain semi-anonymous. I realize that may be a negative in some people's eyes, but Wikipedia does permit anonymous users to revise existing entries, and don't believe I have written anything totally outlandish or off-the-wall. If others disagree, I can accept that but I'd really prefer to see a reasonable objection from more than just one or two people before text is arbitrarily removed - and preferably, I'd like to see some reason as to why only traditional dogma would be considered acceptable, if that is truly the case.
Dear Anon
First, and once again, please sign your ID when you post on talk pages. Use four tildes ~~~~ like I describe above.
"not including new ideas that haven't been tested in an encyclopedia might implede the serach for the truth". It's not a question of impeding the search, it's a question of the appropriate place. Encyclopedias have a specific function, and propagating novel, untested ideas is not one of them. Look at [[Wikipedia::What Wikipedia is not]]. There are plenty of places where you can post radical new ideas on the web.
My reading of what you were writing was that you associated being 'born again' with death, or near-death-experience. Obviously, apart from the tiny minority of people who have an NDE, that means you don't see the Kingdom of Heaven until you die. Since it's clear that that was not what Jesus intended, your interpretation doesn't seem to be born out. I didn't mean that Jesus taught that you could only enter the Kingdom of Heaven before death, just that he taught that it could be entered before death, which you interpretation would seem to make virtually impossible. If I misunderstood what you meant to write, I suggest you explain or rewrite to make it clearer.
You are right however that your decision to remain anonymous is not helping your case. Have you ever edited Wiki articles under a login ID?
DJ Clayworth 18:09, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Since you don't seem to answer questions unless someone edits 'your' text, I'm going to rewrite to try to preserve some of what you say while removing the worst excesses. Here are comments about what you wrote.
The first paragraph, the stuff about the near-death experience seems to bear no relation to anything else in the section. Is there any reason to think that there is a 'spiritual birth' experience that looks like this? Has anyone experienced it? Or is it just an idea you came up with.
The paragraphs about Paris and the Eiffel tower are just obvious. I replaced with one sentence.
I've already explained, and you admitted, that Jesus clearly thought of the Kingdom of Heaven as something attainable in this world, so he can't have meant that you are born again at the time of death.
You are right that it is not necessary from the passage that 'born again' means salvation from sins. However the Kingdom of Heaven would be associated in Nicodemus' mind with holiness, closeness to God and God's favour. Nicodemus and Jesus would both agree, from other passages which I can get into, that closeness to God involves absence of sin, so it's likely that the two are at least related. It's not just fundamentalist Christians but almost all Christians who make the association. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have restored the Clayworth version. In my opinion, it is much closer to the "neutral point of view" espoused by Wikipedia. Additionally, our faceless user (or, should I say, abuser) will not identify himself. Mr Clayworth, on the other hand, logs in properly and we all know who he is. Now, to the nameless intruder, unless and until you can write something better than what Mr Clayworth has written, his version is going to stay put. Sorry. Davidcannon 00:38, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Okay, as of right now I am washing my hands of Wikipedia. If you don't want (or respect) anonymous contributions, then you shouldn't allow them in the first place. Unless Mr. Clayworth is known to you personally, you really have no idea who he is, just because he uses a realistic looking name - I could do the same but I chose not to hide the fact that I prefer to remain anonymous. Now that I know otherwise, I will refrain for making any further contributions.
By the way, I didn't object to my text being edited to make it more neutral, I just object to Mr. Clayworth's methods, which seem to me to be nothing more than high-handed censorship of a viewpoint that he disagrees with. I'm not saying my writing couldn't be improved, but he basically gutted it. Anyway, this is an interesting experiment but I guess it just shows that Orwell was right - some are more equal than others.
If he's not a system administrator, I urge you to keep an eye on him (and if he is, that's all the more reason I'm outta here).
P.S. I have also made contributions under several other topics, many related to Christianity. Please feel free to nuke any you find; at this point I'm sorry I contributed anything here.

Dear Anon: your addition claiming the the born again experience is about 'sexual repression' is what we here at Wikipedia call 'POV': i.e. it represents your point of view, and not a neutral or generally accepted point of view. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Also while the movie 'Saved' is indeed about a Christian High School, I don't think it is particularly about the subject of being born again. You might find other articles that it is more relevant to: Christian school for example. You might also start by writing an article about the movie. DJ Clayworth 13:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A Conservative is a member of the Conservative Party, and given a capital, just as Democrat is given a capital when meaning a member of the Democratic Party. DJ Clayworth 01:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Clayworth,

Congratulations on being given the right to speak for all Wikipedians. One normally distrusts people who speak in the imperial 'we' because it is a demogogue's trick. There is no 'we' of course because there is no collective consciousness. That last statement is an example of a philosophical approach called methodological individualism. Speaking in the imperial 'we' is also the kind of verbal ploy used by old ladies at Methodist church coffees who are intent on excluding newcomers.

I do think the movie in question is highly relevant to this article. Thus we disagree about a question that calls for the use of judgment.

Have a nice day. (anon contribution)

Thank you for the congratulations, but I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. DJ Clayworth 01:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Born Again[edit]

Different religions interpret the bible differently. I have friends who tell me they are born again, however, I don't know what that means. As long as you are baptized aren't you born with the spirit? Also, doesn't "...that which is born of the spirit is spirit" mean while the flesh part of us dies, our spirit lives eternally in God's Kingdom, and that is when we are born again?

Absolutely right, different denominations do interpret this passage differently. Catholics associate the term with baptism; when a person is baptised, the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in them, revealing to them the truth about God and Jesus, and also providing comfort and encouragement to the Christian, enabling them to live a life pleasing to God. A Protestant believes much the same about the Holy Spirit, though they might believe that being born again occurs at conversion, or at a special experience of the Holy Spirit. Most Christians would agree on who the Holy Spirit is and what he does, but might differ in some of the details. Particularly they would agree that a Christian needs the Holy Spirit to live a Christian life. Many Christians use "Born Again" to mean a powerful experience of the Holy Spirit, which empowers them for God. If you want to know what being Born Again means to your friends, I would recommend asking them. I'm sure they will be willing to talk about it. If you want to ask me, leave a message at my talk page. DJ Clayworth 06:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)



Please don't merge with List of born-again Christian laypeople. That article is messy, and likely to grow overlong. Also it's really about politics. However some of the writing (as opposed to the list) is useful, and could be moved here, leaving the actual list in the list article. DJ Clayworth 13:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't mean to merge the whole article and redirect. Just the paragraphs of discussion at the bottom. The list itself should stay where it is. I've fixed the message to reflect that. -Wiccan Quagga 06:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into a category of self-identified (obviously) category:Born again Christians? Dunc| 2 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)

Technically "born-again Christian" is a tautology. All Christians are born-again, so maybe we should just have a category of Christians. It's going to be a pretty large category though. DJ Clayworth 4 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)

Actually, you must mean that UNtechnically, it's a tautology. As technical terminology, I'm sure that you know that it is not used by everyone. It is used by evangelical Christians in the revivalist tradition. When someone asks whether you are a "born-again Christian", this terminology indicates the intention to ask two questions at once: 1. Do you consider yourself to be a Christian? 2. Have you "asked Jesus into your heart" - have you had a personal experience of conversion "from the death of sin, to new life"? If they didn't mean to distinguish Christians "of the nominal kind" from Christians "of the converted kind", they wouldn't ask you for a double confirmation of your identity, this way. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
Similarly, other people might ask you, "Are you a born-again, spirit-filled Christian?" No Christian should answer "no" to this unless they understand its technical meaning, and realize that the person is asking you whether you share their understanding of the full Christian life. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
What you are pointing out though, I guess, is that this terminology is not NPOV, which needs to be made clear? Mkmcconn (Talk) 4 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

No, I do mean "technically". A good Catholic, who knows their theology, when asked "are you a born again Christian" should answer "yes". There's a reference explaining that in the article. Admittedly the terminology is rarely used in such circles, but if you dig down it should be. I don't know many people who would give a different answer to the questions "are you a Christian" and "are you born-again". Those that do probably would do so because they don't want to be associated with a label that sppears to have been appropriated by one particular group of Christians. DJ Clayworth 4 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)

A difference in what is meant by "technical language", I guess. You are saying that they might not want to be associated with that label, because the label has a technical meaning not shared by all Christians. It has been appropriated by that group for the purposes of making a distinction between the usual, generic use of the terms, and a special, technical use of the terms. Mkmcconn (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)
In other words, a Catholic should say, "I am not an evangelical Protestant, if that's what you mean. But yes, I am a Christian, and I have been given new life through the grace of God, by baptism into Christ". Mkmcconn (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)
That would probably be a good response. DJ Clayworth 4 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)

I removed a 'cleanup' marker because there doesn't seem to be anything the matter with the article. DJ Clayworth 02:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

just added it last night. weird quote marks "ot simply a „I don’t want to sin no more”, but the repentant" bad fmt etc-Omegatron 02:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


Self-described born again Christians are usually extremely enthusiastic and outspoken concerning their new-found beliefs

The above statement strikes me as a stereotype. What's the factual basis for saying that that most born-again Christians are outspoken? As noted in the article, many denominations have a "born-again" element to their theology, but I bet the above generalization doesn't particularly pertain to Roman Catholics, for example. At best, the comment is circular logic. The only born-again Christians people are likely to be aware of are the "outspoken" ones, but that doesn't necessarily mean that most are like that. What do other people think? BrainyBroad 05:47, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Additionally, the statement implies that a "born again Christian" is also a "new" Christian; many "self-described born again Christians" have described themselves as such for decades. I favor an edit. KHM03 11:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I put this sentence in as an intro to the section explaining why 'born again' has passed into general usage meaning 'enthusiastic and devoted'. Someone added 'new-found' without me noticing, and I've removed it. In essence it's the stereotype that has caused the phrase to become generally used, so the section is bound to be somewhat about it. Feel free to tinker. DJ Clayworth 13:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Lulu, my apologies. I changed your 'some' back to 'most' meaning to add a comment here and then didn't. "Most" Christian denominations do in fact consider that it is necessary to be born again to be a Christian, including Catholics. The difference is in the interpretation of what constitutes being born again. Catholics consider that it occurs at baptism (which is stated a few sentence down). Evangelicals and other Protestants believe a wider variety of other things, and they are the ones who use the term most frequently. There is an interesting article from the Catholic Encyclopedia which summarises the Catholic position. DJ Clayworth 15:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess I can live with "most" once the explanation of the hyper-technical meaning (for, e.g. Orthodox Churches) is included later. But the version you restored before also used "agree that" rather than "believe", which seems like POV arguing for the correctness of the Xtain belief. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:46, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
I kind of meant 'agree with each other', but I'm not worried. 'believe' is fine. DJ Clayworth 17:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

How about many?[edit]

I know this is slightly pedantic, but most still seems like an unsupported factual claim. As in: There are 100 Xtian denominations, and the theology of at least 51 of those denominations says... I don't know how, precisely, to count denominations for this numerical claim. Many feels like "more than some" w/o being quite so numerical. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:53, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

Whil I haven't been and counted, we know that Catholics believe this. Most 'sola scriptura' Protestants do because of the bible passage quoted. Anglicans do (from personal knowledge). Orthodox think like Catholics (according to Eastern Orthodox Church). A quick check seems to be turning up sites for most of the main denominations which seem to say something similar [1]. The difference as far as I can tell is not in whether they believe 'being born again' is the mark of a true Christian (it being hard to get away from what Jesus said here) but the difference is in the interpretation of what 'born again' means. DJ Clayworth 16:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of us non-sola scriptura Protestants believe it, too! KHM03 19:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow, it always amazes me how Protestants think they know how other Xtians think, especially Catholics, who have next-to-nothing in common with their views on Baptism, scriptural interpretation, "what Jesus said", etc... And how it's usually stated under the auspices of "well, I know that Catholics think [... etc.]" Well, I "know how Protestants think" and (judging from both this article and the talk page) that is: rarely.
The previous unsigned comment is uncivil, inflammatory, and, in the opinion of one who is neither Catholic nor Protestant, contributes nothing to the discussion. I suggest we remove it. The author may choose to reinstate it; if he or she does, I challenge them to identify themselves and respectfully request them to consider other people's feelings before indulging in needless sarcasm. yoyo (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


What is the point of the "Criticism" section? It is hard to see what it is even a criticism of! Just seems like a completely random comment to me.

Also: theologically can't "born again" be interpreted eschatologically? Perhaps someone more informed than I could comment on this.

CSMR 06:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

If you mean that born again might refer to the Resurrection, it doesn't mean that in any Christian denomination I've ever heard of.
The meaning behind "born again" is typically used by protestants (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherins, ETC) to say that they consider themselves "saved." Being saved can be beter explained by John 3-16 in the Bible. But I won't expand on this further.CharlieP216 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As for the criticism section, I personally don't think it's appropriate here, as the criticism is really about Christianity in politics, but several people thought it did belong here and argued to keep it. DJ Clayworth 13:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Born Again Christian Userbox[edit]

Just to let you all know that you can now place a userbox on your User page with the text "This user is a Born Again Christian.". Simply put the following on your User page:

{{user born again}}

See Wikipedia:Userboxes#Religion (or below) for an example.

<>< This user is a Born Again Christian.

gorgan_almighty 11:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish we didn't do this. If you read the article you will find that all Christians are in fact born-again. Why don't we just have an infobox that says "this user is a Christian"? (posted by User:DJ Clayworth)
I agree; I've always had similar problems with the term "Spirit-filled Christian". All Christians are by definition filled with the Spirit. We aren't very good at using language properly. KHM03 20:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
That one at least is marginally arguable. Christians could be more or less spirit-filled. In several parts of the Bible Chrstians are described as 'full of the spirit', which presumably implies that there can be those that are 'less full'. DJ Clayworth 21:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
But if we believe that Christians receive the Holy Spirit at baptism, then all are "Spirit-filled". KHM03 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Born Again Info" link[edit]

The link in question is NOT spam.

It is not even a new addition to this page.

Indeed it was posted on this very page for well over a year by one of the people who worked on this page. Here for example is the exact same link on this page in February 2004.

Visit this url:

These people, like I do, deem it a valuable addition to this page. Your attempts to smear it as spam betray your sectarian bias.

Please stop your irresponsible behaviour in repeatedly removing it.

The link was on this page long before you came here because it deserves to be here.

--Abeseed 14:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This link, which is repeatedly added by User:Abeseed, seems to me to be little more than spam. It is not from any denominational source nor is it from any authoritative theologian or respected writer(s). In my opinion, it doesn't belong here, howver well intentioned it may be. Thoughts? KHM03 12:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. I guess I don't have a strong opinion either way; however, I DO feel that if it is to be present, it needs to be labelled as "fundamentalist," which is what it is. --Midnite Critic 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually it's pentecostal. I've been browsing it. Pollinator 04:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so it's fundamentalist pentecostal. --Midnite Critic 14:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Not the same thing. Very different approaches to Christianity. If you don't believe it, try labeling someone from Bob Jones U of being pentecostal. Un huh. Pollinator 15:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to post the comments about this from KHM03's Talk page:

The link mentioned is NOT spam, and has been in place on the Wiki site's Born-Again_Christian page for over a year. Since that page was merged with this one here it is essential to prevent the theological and sectarian bias Wiki now gives to visitors on this topic.

The link should remain, or the more popular Wiki page reinstated to give Wiki visitors the right to choose for themselves which is best.

Kindly review the points below:

Please do not remove the link to the Born Again Christian Info site on the [Born-again] Wiki page.

It is NOT spam and highly relevant.

The similar Wiki page [Born-again_Christian] has linked to this site for over a year, but was recently removed and visitors redirected to the 'Born Again' page in Wiki.

The site Born Again Christian Info is an authority site packed with highly relevant resources on precisely this topic. It is non commercial, and hosted by a self-financed missionary.

Its addition is essenial to prevent Wiki presenting a biased sectarian view of what being Born again means.

--Abeseed 00:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Abe: Could you expand on that? IMHO, the "born article" is quite "fair and balanced." What do you find otherwise in the article? --Midnite Critic 02:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC) There must have been some discussion before the Born-again_Christian Wiki page was removed and redirected to the Born-again Wiki page, but I can't find any. Could you direct me to it please.

Since the original Born-again_Christian page had a link to the authortiy site Born Again Christian Info for over a year, I think it is valid to include this link on the Born-again Wiki page, which has usurped the original.

Please do not remove it, or get a proxy to remove it. I had no part in the construction of either page.

--Abeseed 13:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it was removed because it is 404? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There was no 404 with the link before or after it was replaced. Access is fine.

Actually, the link WAS 404 for a time, but that was apparently temporary. --Midnite Critic 02:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why has there not been any prior discussion about the removal of the Born-again_Christian Wiki page, and its redirection to the Born_again Wiki page.

The former was more popular, and less influenced by theological and sectarian bias.

Why not reinstate the Born-again_Christian page and remove the redirection, to give Wiki visitors a more balanced view of what being Born again means?

I repeat, I had no part in the writing of either Wiki page. I think this is time for some sensible, comments and responsible discussion.

--Abeseed 01:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

--Abeseed 02:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It still qualifies as WP:SPAM and is from a non-authoritative source. KHM03 03:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Born Again Christian Info

As stated the link is NOT spam, it was on the Born-Again_Christian page in Wiki for well over a year. A page which has been removed from Wiki without any apparent discussion. A page carefully created by other Wiki contributors who deemed the link authoritative and useful to Wiki visitors.

The complete original page has now been replaced by this one which has a profound theological and sectarian bias.

Therefore the original Wiki page Born-Again_Christian should be reinstated to give Wiki visitors the opportunity to decide.

Until then the valuable link under discussion should remain on this page.

Born Again Christian Info

Please do NOT remove it again.

If you dispute this, please go through the proper procedure instead of repeatedly removing it and falsely and irresponsibly labelling it spam.

--Abeseed 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about a Born Again Christian article; I can't speak to it. If you feel this article is biased and POV, then, by all means, make some edits. As far as proper procedure, I have followed it and will continue to do so. The link is non-authoritative spam, and needs to be treated as such. Again, if you feel the article can use some help, then by all KHM03 01:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As I explained repeatedly, there were two Wiki pages on this topic, one has been removed and redirected to this page, without apparent discussion, and it bore the link I have placed here for over a year. The link is NOT spam, and is essential to prevent a more balanced description to Wiki users.

The original page should be reinstated as before. It was entitled Born-Again_Christian and was more popular with Wiki vistors than this page.

The addition on a link to the Born Again Christian Info site is also essential here. You're repeated attempts to inappropriately label it as spam prove your sectarian bias. Do NOT remove it again.

--Abeseed 01:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My bias is toward good, authoritative, worthwhile material. Not spam. The link is sectarian spam, pure and simple. Please let me know what denomination supports the site or what authorities support it. It's a private website, it seems to me, with someone's personal opinions. It's spam. Again, please try and improve the accuracy of the article, rather than just adding a spam link. And please drop the bit about an article which doesn't exist anymore...the argument is meaningless. Start an article about Born again Christians or edit this one. Thanks....KHM03 15:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You are in error KHM03, and obviously missed this:

The link in question is NOT spam.

It is not even a new addition to this page.

Indeed it was posted on this very page for well over a year by one of the people who worked on this page. Here for example is the exact same link on this page in February 2004.

Visit this url:

These people, like I do, deem it a valuable addition to this page. Your attempts to smeer it as spam betray your sectarian bias.

Please stop your irresponsible behaviour in repeatedly removing it.

The link was on this page long before you came here because it deserves to be here.

In addition, the site contains material from a wide range of authoritative sources. If you had taken the time to check you would see material from; William Tyndale, John Foxe, Reformers such as John Bradford, Latimer, Ridley, Archbishop Cranmer et al, as well as modern authorities such as Charles Finney, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, William Booth, Catherine Booth, Smith Wigglesworth, and many others.

Equally important are the opinions of other Wiki contributors, such as those who placed the link here originally almost two years ago, and where it deserves to remain.

--Abeseed 22:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Abeseed: The link is indeed spam. Additionally, how long it was on any page doesn't matter. I'm not sure why you've mentioned that. Yes, we've established that I do in fact have a sectarian bias...toward accuracy and against spam. I'll assume good faith on your part, and take it as a compliment...thank you. I do take issue with your charge of irresponsibility; please review WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I'll assume you meant no offense. There are many sites online with materials by Cranmer, etc. -- why is this site in particular so important? Is there a specific article by Cranmer (et al) about the "born again" subject to which you care to link? That would be acceptable, probably. But just a blanket link is spam. Please review the site if it's that important to you and find an article about "born again", and try that link. Thanks...KHM03 00:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
PS - What's so odd about your possible accusations is that I am an evangelical who believes strongly in the new birth; I'm not opposing the theology of being born again, I'm opposing a link which is spam. KHM03 01:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, the link in question is NOT spam.

Born Again Christian Info

Indeed it was posted on this very page for almost two years on merit. To now remove it on the false claim that it is spam is clearly wrong. Many other Wiki contributors, as well as me, have endorsed its placement on this page because the whole site is about being Born again.

You are again also in error: The longevity of it being here without anybody making the precipitate accusation you do, is highly relevant.

Again, I remind people to visit this url as evidence of this link being here since at least Feb 04, an:

It is a valuable addition to this page. Your attempts to smear it as spam betray your efforts to use Wiki to transmit your sectarian bias.

Please stop your irresponsible behaviour in repeatedly removing it.

The link was on this page long before you came here because it deserves to be here.

Now, kindly refrain from your divisive behaviour, and remember Who is the whole point of this page, and honour His instructions not to argue like the world. Instead rather, to set an example of love and unity in The Truth.

--Abeseed 12:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why you keep mentioning the same points which have no relevance...
  1. The longevity of any link or any part of an article does not mean that it cannot be edited or removed. That's basic Wikipedia policy. So, please, if we're going to dialogue, drop this meaningless point. Thanks.
  2. Yes, we've established my bias toward accuracy. No need to go over it and over it. I've accepted your compliment...thanks agin. So, please, if we're going to dialogue, drop this meaningless point. Thanks.
  3. Here's the main point: you haven't established why it's a valuable addition to the page. You're asking for an exception to WP:SPAM; please make your case.
  4. Watch the WP:3RR policy.
Thanks...KHM03 12:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Your remarks are already fully covered by my previous posts here, and your belligerent attitude does you no credit. I have had to replace the link several times already following your false accusations that it is spam, and you have ignored my request to cease. Your actions are divisive and once again, I respectfully ask you to change your attitude, and remember why we are here.

--Abeseed 13:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Abeseed: You have been reported for violation of WP policy. Please cease violation and make your case here as to why the link is so important. Thanks...KHM03 13:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Born Again Info" link, part 2[edit]

Abeseed: What specifically is in that link article which is unique or authoritative that can help shed light on the subject in a way that no other link might do? KHM03 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The blocking was uncalled for, and based on a chronological technicality and your false report that I was not discussing this. If the moderator had bothered to check this Talk page they would have seen my patient and detailed replies to you.

The claim that the link is spam is clearly fatuous, and your repeated assertions that it is spam betray your theological and sectarian bias.

Many prior contributors have found this site to be a valuable additon to this Wiki page because of its depth of coverage of the topic of being Born again, as I stated earlier:

The link was on this page long before you came here because it deserves to be here. In addition, the site contains material from a wide range of authoritative sources. If you had taken the time to check you would see material from; William Tyndale, John Foxe, Reformers such as John Bradford, Latimer, Ridley, Archbishop Cranmer et al, as well as modern authorities such as Charles Finney, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, William Booth, Catherine Booth, Smith Wigglesworth, and many others.

To single out a particular authority would be wrong, it is best to use the landing page in the link to allow Wiki users to see the full depth and extent of what this vital experience includes.

For example, the landing page leads to many articles covering what being born again is, and what it is not. Being born again includes far more than is even hinted at on this Wiki page. It also has numerous links to actual testimonies of individuals, both historical and contemporary, of what it is like to be born again. Of great use to Wiki visitors are the detailed pages showing how to be born again themselves, and the feedback pages show the powerful results. But of most importance is the fact that the Person who graciously gave us this divine experience is given first place throughout the site, and it is His Authority which needs to be honoured far above petty sectarian wrangling and (forgive me) silly allegations of spamming.

If such a valuable site, that has long given Wiki users great benefit, is removed from Wiki because one individual is allowed to dominate the page and impose his own sectarian world view on the topic, there is little credibility in the value of Wiki as an independent or neutral resource. --Abeseed 00:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that I am biased toward accuracy, then why are you worried about my bias? Isn't accuracy what we're after? To what other sectarian bias do you refer? Is there one of which I am not aware?
  1. What article on the "landing site" is so valuable that you feel it must be included?
  2. Why must this specific article be included?
  3. What problem is there with the article as it currently stands that you hope to correct by adding a link to this specific article?
Please be as specific as possible. Thanks...KHM03 01:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, I have no authority to block; if you read the documentation page, you'll see that I requested no action be taken. You were, however, in violation of WP:3RR as attested by two administrators; they made the decision to block, not I...let's be clear. I simply documented your reverts. KHM03 01:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is KHM03 being allowed to persists in removing a legitimate link to a site filled with valuable information on the precise topic of being born again?

Many prior editors of this page have approved and endorsed it for nearly two years. Nobody else has made the ludicrous assertion that the link is 'spam'.

KHM03: Your belligerance and antagonistic attitude is unhelpful to the point of insolence, and merely turns Wiki into another 'arguing arena'.

I repeat that it is wrong to single out any denomination or person's view on the Born Again Christian Info site, but rather keep the link pointing to the main landing page and allow Wiki users to decide which of the many aspects of this experience they wish to investigate further; ie. historical, 'how to', 'what is', or personal experiences, etc.

God's people do not indulge in argument, (or argument masquerading as 'constructive discussion') therefore to resolve this I call for a panel of unbiased Christian arbitrators to decide the matter.

Would moderators reading this kindly arrange that today please?

Thank you.

--Abeseed 01:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to try and work with you and try to reach a mutual understanding. I have asked three reasonable questions, with the intention that we can use your answers as a springboard to dialogue. I'm willing to discuss. Please work with me. Thanks...KHM03 01:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A clear consensus of agreement between unbiased Wiki editors (that this precise link is a valuable and useful addition to this page) has already been obtained and maintained for nearly two years.

For a single divisive individual to come along, remove it, then cause so much friction and dissension over its replacement, displays a serious lack of objectivity on his part.

Let a panel of unbiased Christian arbitrators decide the matter.

Moderators: please facilitate this today.

Thank you.

--Abeseed 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, my opinion is that this link has no place here. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and this link is just one of thousands of 'born again' sites on the internet. It has no special authority, and nothing particularly relavent to an encyclopedia article. You are calling for a 'panel of unbiased Christian arbitrators' - sorry, wikipedia doesn't do that. It is not a Christian encyclopedia - but a neutral encyclopedia see WP:NPOV. We work by consensus - and as it stands there is a consensus here that this link doesn't belong. So unless you can persuade other editors otherwise, please do not reinsert the link. It will be reverted - and if you continue to revert, you may well be blocked for a longer period. --Doc ask? 01:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Abeseed, I think that calling it "spam" may not be communicating well. The reason the word is used is not because it's sending out lots of unsolicited advertisements, but because that site is not defined to inform as much as it is to persuade; consequently, including a link to it appears to be an attempt to proseletize readers, promoting one narrow view of the Christian experience, rather than to inform and educate them. Looking at the edit history, I see that KHM03 is not the only one to have removed it in the last few days; he isn't acting alone in this. That the link was overlooked for two years does not by itself vouch for its quality; wikipedia has large backlog of articles that are flagged as needing various kinds of attention, and doubtless many more that should be flagged as such. We get to those areas as we can, and this happened to be caught at this time. And while this might seem like anti-Christian bias, believe me, it's not. Wesley 03:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I entirely concur with the above comments from Doc and Wesley. The link in question has no value for our readers other than as an example of proselytizing and inspirational articles by and/or for born-again Christians. The Born again article currently has links to sermons and theological essays that discuss the theological concept of being born again as such. If Abeseed or one of our other editors wishes to review all the articles included on Born Again Christian Info to see if there are articles similar to those currently linked, then then these can be linked directly. Wesley's criterion is exactly on point: linked articles should inform, not persuade. KHM03 was right to remove it, and it should not be reinserted. JHCC (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Does Mormonism have a form of belief of "Born again"?[edit]

I'd like to knew if they do or not, recordly.Thanks.And do they pratice this type of belief?

  • I've never heard a Mormon refer to themselves as "Born Again." Indeed, there's a bit of animosity between Mormons and born-again Christians, as regularly Utah is visited by born-again protesters who go out in front of the temple and tell everybody they're going to hell, that sort of thing. -- MisterHand 17:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I suspect they wouldn't shrink from calling themselves "born again," although they may not use the term as actively as others. Best to ask them though, just ask the question at Talk:Mormonism or a related page. Wesley 03:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In my five or six years as a Mormon, I never heard any apply the terms to themselves; indeed, there is often some friction between Mormons and the self-defined "born again" group as described by MisterHand. In my experience, when confronted with the question, most Mormons would generally refer to John 3:5, indicating that, through baptism, they were "born again" and just chose not to use the term as such. Deadsalmon 03:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Someone added 'Pentecostalism' to the places where we describe the branches of Christainity where 'born again' is most used. I would consider Pentecostalism to be part of Evangelicalism in general terms. I would certainly consider most pentecostals fall under the heading of 'Evanglical Protestantism'. No? DJ Clayworth 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would consider Pentecostalism a subset of Evangelicalism, yes. User:Pollinator, a good editor (have you ever worked with him?), seems to know more about it than I do, though, so you may want to follow up with him. KHM03 16:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well there's a range of each, so it's hard to speak in absolutes. Some pentecostals would fit quite well under the evangelical umbrella, but others would not, including those who are non-trinitarian and those who believe in special revelation. Pentecostalism also places a lot of emphasis (indeed delight) on "signs and wonders" which evangelicals tend to view with skepticism, or at least greatly de-emphasize. That's why I thought it better to list them separately. Pollinator 04:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's leave it. However I want to keep lists like this as short os apossible to maximise readability. DJ Clayworth 15:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"It is not unusual for a convert to this religion to have a history of vice, crime, violence, or even heresy prior to joining; it is believed by this sect that as the person leaves those elements of his life behind he is then "born again" as a new spiritual being."

That isn't really a very helpful statement, for several reasons. 1) histories of crime and violence are unusual in converts to Christianity, because histories of crime and violence are unusual in the general population. 2) You can't be guilty of heresy unless you are a member of the religion you are heretical against. 3) The general view is not "if you leave your previous life of crime you are born again". The two are not necessarily related. 'Born again' is a spiritual change, which should (of course) beaccompanied by an improvement in morlity. However the improvement in morality does not necessarily indicate a spiritual change. I've removed the sentence. DJ Clayworth 18:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean Chuck Colson started this?[edit]

I had no idea that Chuck Colson, Nixon's "dirty tricks" guy and a convicted felon, was behind the "born again" movement. That's great info. --John Nagle 20:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't behind it but brought it to peoples attention as mentioned. CharlieP216

Born Again? or is it Born again Conservative?[edit]

I used to associate the phrase "Born Again" with conservative Christians. I now know that many Christians, whether conservative, mainline or liberal/progressive, have had born again experiences, whether or not they grew up in religious families. Would it be useful to add this to the article?

Dawn22 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not just conservatives but it is usually associated with Evangelicals and Mormons, both very conservative religious groups, arguably even more conservative than the Catholic church itself. I mean many so-called born again Christians are for the death penalty, that not in league with Jesus Christ. To me, when I hear people say they're born again, it's like hearing the boogie man talking.

axlzx 12:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


As a casual reader, I was redirected to this article from "regenerate," but found no mention of this term in the article. I see what it means from this talk page (and from a dictionary), but I feel like this terminology should be in the article somewhere for people like me who are ignorant on the subject. Coppelia 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Dawn22 06:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Midnite Critic 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern Culture[edit]

I'd like to know how Nicko McBrain's or Kerry Livgren's conversions have had any effect on modern culture.

WildBadger (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Has a cat ever been attempted to catalogue 'Born Again Christians'? --Shuki (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe not. Because cats seldom make catalogues. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that the concept of being born again is a modern version of NT metanoia. If this is the case, IMHO this article should mention this. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are the links at the end red!?[edit]

only a few of them, but its REALLY annoying, I tried to edit them to fix it but it didnt seem to work. Its not a lighter red like non-existent articles, its a dark red! GRRRR TrevorLSciAct (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Born again sinners[edit]

I hoped to find something in the article or the discussions to say what happens if a born again Christian sins. Is it impossible for them to sin? Or, after sinning, do they have to be born again again in order to get into Heaven? Myrvin (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lewis and Tolkien???[edit]

Why are Tolkien and Lewis refered to as being "born again"? To my knowledge Tolkien was a devout roman catholic and Lewis joined the Church of England later in his life. I doubt they would have called themselves born again christian. Can somebody please explain? -- (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent Social Usage[edit]

The citation for the statement "Based on most exit polls of the 2004 US presidential election, born again Christians were a major factor in the re-election of George W. Bush." actually refers to the exit poll question "Would you describe yourself as a born-again or evangelical Christian?". Surely this does not completely support the contention. Myrvin (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pyschological Study - Born Again Christians and Prior Drug / Alcohol Addictions[edit]

A significant number of Born Again Christians suffered from long term or severe battles with drug and/or alcohol addictions. Being "Born Again" offers a type of addiction (the cult of religion) to replace the physical addiction to drugs or alcohol.

Religion has played this role throughout human history, converting those in dire physical and / or mental need through replacing it with religious belief.

In fact, one can argue that Jesus Christ's "dying for your sins" is the foundation of this religious concept for Christians in replacing an addition with another form of addiction (religious cult) (talk) UV —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

Yes "one can". Go find your sources, so we might consider adding it. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?[edit]

What does the following unsourced sentence mean, at the end of the article: Another phenonemum of recent years is the followers of born again Christianity describing themselves as simply Christian to emphasise that they believe mainstream Christians are not Christian. There needs to at least be quotation marks around the descriptor (it's unclear which words are meant as the descriptor), and dates and sources given, and the statement explained in full. Otherwise, it's just a random, meaningless, misspelled, unclear opinion, and should be deleted. UPDATE: Never mind, I deleted it -- apparent recent vandalism. Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Born again (Christianity) into Regeneration (theology)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this section.
  • The result was keep. --Knobbly (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Proposed article to be merged
Born again (Christianity)
Target article
Regeneration (theology)

Wikipedia naming conventions state that adjectives should redirect to nouns. Regeneration is the theological concept, while "born again" is a descriptor of those who have undergone regeneration (in the same way that "regenerated" is a descriptor rather than a concept). Born again (Christianity) should be merged into this article. Neelix (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  • No. No one I've ever heard of publicly talks about or uses the word "regeneration." Whereas, countless people talk about being "born again" as Christians, or "born-again Christians," or "born again in Christ." There definitely needs to be an article on Born-again Christians, so those not of that persuasion can understand exactly what their beliefs and tenets are. "Spiritual regeneration" can occur in any faith and any denomination -- Catholic, Jewish, Theosophical, Hindu, Buddhist, Sufi, Muslim, etc. "Born again" is, on the other hand, generally only applied these days to born-again Christians, to the point where the term is avoided when someone is NOT a Christian. If anything warrants changing, it's that "Born again (Christianity)" could possibly be renamed "Born again Christian." Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No. I agree with Softlavender. This article is about the doctrine of regeneration, which exists in every Christian theological system in some form and not all of these qualify as born-again Christianity (e.g., Roman Catholicism). And I'm a member of the mergist Wikipedians. :-) --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No. To move this topic into "regeneration" theology would be a disservice to the general application that the term "Born Again" Christianity has. This is a general term that crosses denominationaly boundries and so should have a stand along topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No. The previous three posters are correct in that the entry on "Born Again" should not be merged into the entry on "Regeneration." Based on the comments linking the concept of regeneration with Calvinism, it would seem to me that if a merge needs to occur, perhaps "Regeneration" would be better merged into "Born Again" as it seems to be a more specifically defined sub-category of the Born Again principle that applies to virtually all Protestant Christian denominations. Additionally, in order to be compliant with Wikipedia naming conventions, I agree with Softlavender that "Born Again" should be renamed "Born Again Christians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. Being spiritually born means being given a new life in Christ: Jeremiah's "heart of flesh", being under God's grace, being saved; salvation. Since salvation is equated with being born again, then regeneration is exactly the theological concept for that state. Frankly, if any person trusts in Christ -- if Jesus is her Lord -- then she is regenerated, or a believer, or a Christian, or born again, or saved, regardless of which term, if any, she uses to define her new position. It is upon the definition of salvation that the churches tend to differ, and that discussion usually depends on the ordinances. The "born again" person would argue that any who does not trust in Christ is not regenerate; in other words, the argument is not over nomenclature but over what salvation is.
I quote the statement of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention:
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. (IV. Salvation).
Among their supporting versus includes John 3:3-21,36.
Washi (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No. A BIG NO. If we regard to someone as being regenerated,we need to put this, and likewise be faithful WITH what the biblical perspective meant. The bible long ago had written this, and Jesus so has said this (JOHN 3:3), probably in order to deter from anyone adding a new experssion (Calvinisim, Catholic, etc etc.). And, to be exact in what LORD JESUS CHRIST SAID, and in BEING FAITHFUL TO WHAT THE BIBLE, HIS WORD, SAYS:
(Let us look at what the Bible has to say, shall we?)
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever BELIEVES in him SHALL not perish but HAVE ETERNAL LIFE."
Jesus has given us salvation. It is so freely given, then we are only required to BELIEVE IN HIM to accept this free gift and be saved from eternal dustruction. He did not even force this on us(thus many fall to hell) From this point of believing in him, we are are SAVED.
Romans 3:23-25 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and (we) are JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE through the redemption that came by CHRIST JESUS. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through FAITH IN HIS BLOOD."
Acts 16:30: "He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Acts 16:31: "They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."
No human offering or human works are enough to/or can save us from our own sins. And so, the verses above explains that WE are JUSTIFIED(and thus saved) FREELY by beliving in Jesus Christ who, by His Blood was the lone sacrifce more than enough, and more than every human offering/sacrifice, to atone for our sins and gave us redemtion. And being free from sin---> gives us Renewal.
And by accepting Jesus christ, we allow his perfect love, character, and holiness to be in our daily lives. This therefore, is the relationship in JESUS CHRIST
Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
It is refreshing to know that God has given us the free gift of salvation and allows us to be guided and to walk in Christ Jesus.
(But remember, we are in very corruptible bodies, and we err, so we must always repent, read his holy word, and live according to his perfect will, the FAITH IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST IS NOT A LICENSE TO SIN!)
So, to those who believe in Jesus Christ that are cleansed from their sins and learn to walk and live in Christ--> ARE RENEWED
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
(This gift is so freely given to us undeservingly on our part. However this is not an quick or instant spiritual miracle, it is a long process of change in character. It is a process that involves a lifetime of getting to know him and breaking down your character slowly, bit by bit according to His Will. It is a "walk." That is why we must always get to know him more, by reading the Bible more. And, by feeding ourselves with the Word of God, we grow in spiritual maturity, over time.)
Finally, this renewal in 2 Cor 5:17 is given a name by Christ Jesus himself:
JOHN 3:3 says "Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Jesus himself has said it, and His words are true and sovereign.
That the only way to the kingdom of God is by, through Christ Jesus, Be BORN AGAIN!!
And thus Jesus names those people: BORN AGAIN! (in Him)
So to conclude, Born Again is not only in its own unique kind of Christianity, IT IS THE TRUE CHRISTIANITY, which is derived from the words of Jesus himself.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was undecided; this dioscussion has been open for a fortnight. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Born again (Christianity)Born-again Christian — Wikipedia naming conventions state that adjectives should redirect to nouns, therefore "Born-again Christian" is a more appropriate title for this article. Neelix (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support per Wikipedia naming conventions. Also, just a plain better title because it's the most obvious first choice for a search term. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Following the suggested rename would seriously refocus the article from the concept of born again and instead focus on people. Rebirth is a noun. I think the the first choice for a search term would be born again which takes you to the first line of the disambiguation page "Born again": a Christian term for spiritual rebirth and salvation. --Bejnar (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
"Born again" is a verb phrase, the adjectival form for which is "Born-again". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Move to Born again. Move Born Again to Born Again (disambiguation). Every single one of them appears to be a derivative of this article which has to be the primary topic for born again. I have never seen it spelled as born-again, so I would rule that out, although I do see that there is a "Born-Again Boards" surfboard company. I doubt that the two words "born" and "again" ever appear in juxtaposition with each other unless it refers to the subject of this article. But don't bother to give a counter example. (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • How often is the expression "born again" used in its Christian meaning, rather than in its other uses? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other uses[edit]

In answer to the question above, how often is "born again" used other than its Christian meaning, I can't think of any other uses. For example, I am fairly certain that the surf board maker had the Christian meaning in mind, although it is possible that they were just referring to a Phoenix type of re-birth - the company could have failed and then been restarted, but by using born again in the title they are clearly giving a Christian connotation. (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC) born again is and how to be born again of water and the Spirit in strict accordance with the Bible. The water symbolizes the baptism of Jesus at the Jordan and the Bible says that all our sins were passed on to Jesus when He was baptized by John the Baptist. John was the representative of all mankind and a descendant of Aaron the High priest. Aaron laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat and passed all the yearly sins of the Israelites on the Day of Atonement. It is a shadow of the good things to come. The baptism of Jesus is the antitype of the laying on of hands. Jesus was baptized in the form of the laying on of hands at the Jordan. So He took away all the sins of the world through His baptism and was crucified to pay for the sins. But most Christians don't know why Jesus baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan. Jesus' baptism is the keyword of this book, and the indispensable part of the Gospel of Water and the Spirit. We can be born again only by believing in the baptism of Jesus and His Cross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"These terms"[edit]

The opening now has: "These terms are frequently used by Evangelical, Fundamentalist and Pentecostal branches of Protestant Christianity. It is sometimes associated with ...". To what does 'These' refer? If to 'born again', then that's one term. Also the section continues with: "It is sometimes associated" - a reference to a single term. Myrvin (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Is it ok for parents to tell their young children that there is a Santa Clause or an Easter bunny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Implications for converts to Christianity[edit]

I don't see what is so wrong about this new passage that it has to be completely deleted as "theological rant". I raised the question of what happens to 'born again sinners' above, and I think this passage is a contribution to answering that question. Maybe it has worried someone who thought they could do what they liked after they had claimed to be born again. Perhaps it could do with tweeking, but I am reinstating it. Myrvin (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"born again" vs "born-again"[edit]

Hyphenated, or not? Together, the words form and adjectival unit and "born" isn't an adverb, so perhaps "born-again" is most correct. I see both versions in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

David Berkowitz[edit]

Isn't David Berkowitz one of the most prominent born again Christians? (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Secular uses[edit]

There do not appear to be any sources to support the secular claims (w/ a hint of POV) that Born again is a commonly used term outside of Christianity, so I moved some text and deleted the unsourced statements. If someone finds a source, then undo it I guess.AxiomOfFaith (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed on Reformers use of "born again"[edit]

The article seems to imply that the earliest Reformers as a group used the term "born again" in the same fashion as modern Evangelicals. I think it is more likely that the term has developed over time and that the modern usage has a lineage with beginning with revivalists like Billy Sunday, and D. L. Moody in the early 1900's. If one reads a stack of commentaries from any seminary library on John 3 you will see the diversity of interpretations even among Evanglicals. I would lke to know which commentator was the first to give this passage a non-sacramental interpretation? I seriously doubt it was either Luther or Calvin who both continued the practice of infant baptism. In order to be taken seriously--citations needed. Dscotus44 (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)dscotus

Yeah, I had the same thought as far as the paucity of sources here. Unfortunately, while there's no shortage of books/sites willing to spout their own definitions, I didn't get very far in my search (Google or my own books) for sources that specifically address the historical uses of the term "born again" and John 3:3. It's rather surprising; seems like such a commonly used term would get a bit more historical analysis. I'm gonna try again next time I get to a good library.
-- Joren (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Public stances etc[edit]

This article is becoming odder and odder. The newest uncited edit reads like one of those tracts they push through your door - complete with excessive capital letters. The sentence: "By the mid 1970s, born again Christians were increasingly referred to in the mainstream media as part of the born again movement." suggests that some of the 'born again movement' is not christian. Perhaps it means "individuals" or "some people in the public eye" rather than "born again Christians".

Colson appears here and in the next section - he seems to be the only one worth quoting. The huge quote from this convict does not include the words 'born again' and reads like an evangelical advert. Is there no quotation from his book that describes what 'born again' is? That's what the article is meant to be about. Assuming that the whole book describes it, is not good enough. Myrvin (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagged for now, hopefully it can be addressed later. While the book is called "Born Again" and it's a fair enough (if longish) quote, I don't really get Colson being given such prominence here. Reading the article as it is now, one could be forgiven for thinking Colson invented the term. I'm certain we can give a broader (and better cited) overview, and hopefully one of us will eventually have time to do that. I'll check my bookshelf...
-- Joren (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A new set of edits looks like own research, by an anonymous editor, quoting only biblical references. We need some citable sources that agree with these assertions. I think there must be some. It also looks like it ought to be in a Criticisms section - which wouldn't be a bad idea. Myrvin (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the edits do not seem to make sense at all. Why does an atheist becoming a christian not fit in with the John quote? Perhaps I am befuddled because it all seems so silly. Myrvin (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

These edits seem... autobiographical, they tell us more about the editor than about this topic. Perhaps the editor felt discriminated against due to being a Christian by birth and not having had a dramatic conversion experience? I think what the editor was trying to say is that there is no difference between a person living an "athiestic lifestyle" becoming a Christian and a person having grown up into the faith, in either case they must be born again. ("athiestic lifestyle" is Christianese for someone who does not have God in their life, very different from someone actually professing athiesm; it just means someone who is living as though God did not exist). There also seems to be a sore spot for charismatic beliefs...? Anyway, it's all very, very original research, which doesn't really belong here. I'll take care of time feel free to remove it yourself.
-- Joren (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I always feel free to do that, but I thought I'd give the editor a chance. Anyway, I still feel there ought to be a Criticisms section. Maybe I'll have a go myself. Myrvin (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


I am worried about several parts of the lead. I don't know the Good Word Guide reference, so I don't know if that is the way it describes the topic. However, Ezekial cannot actually mention Jesus, we need someone who says that he foresaw Jesus and what he would say. The quote is:

26And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

It seems to refer directly to the Jewish people; not born again people.

Also, the Matthew reference actually mostly talks about false prophets

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16You will recognize them by their fruits.

The only reference to 'good' people is "17So, every healthy tree bears good fruit", and this does not obviously refer to born again people. Nor does it say anyone has:

an intense aversion to sin and passion for obedience to the commandments of Jesus Christ, as outlined in the Christian scriptures.

I suspect the interpretations to born again come from somewhere, we need to know what that source is.

Furthermore, I am struggling to find what the text says from Britannica. There is certainly no mention of born again there. Myrvin (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How to be Born Again, the Lord's way[edit]

I have no problem with the phrase "born again Christian". After all, when one is born again, he/she is a Christian, and in order to be a Christian, one must be born again. However, I do have a problem with Chuck Colson's book, Born Again, though I have never read it, and didn't know of its existence until a little while ago. In it, he wrote that, and I quote, "There is no formula for what to say nor certain experience to be anticipated. It is one's own way of professing faith in Christ as "savior", placing the whole of one's trust in Christ for eternal salvation." How wrong he is! All through the book of the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament are several examples of how people came to be Christians, members of the only church that is found in the Bible. They all did the same thing, and were added into the same church. Acts 2:37-47 (3,000 souls); Acts 8:11-13 (Simon the sorcerer); Acts 8:26-39 (Ethiopian eunuch); Acts 9:1-18 (Saul, later the Apostle Paul); Acts 10 (Gentiles were introduced to Christ); Acts 16:14-15 (Lydia); Acts 16:25-33 (Philippian Jailer and his family); Acts 18:8 (Crispus and his family); Acts 19:1-5 (certain disciples in Ephesus). Jesus Himself was baptized by John the Baptist, as an example for us to follow. Those who decide to follow Mr. Colson will hear the Lord say on the last day, "Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you," Matthew 7:23. Jesus also said, "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven." Matthew 7:21-27. This means that too many people who call on the Lord are foreign to Him. He is not aware of them. Many people every Sunday go to a church somewhere to worship God, but if they are worshipping Him in a way that He did not authorize, their worship is in vain, Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7. This means that you cannot worship God any old way you want to. Worshipping God is to be done "in spirit and in truth," John 4:23-24.

All I'm saying is, if you don't do it the Lord's way, you're following the devil, whether you believe it or not. Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me," Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellygirlaj (talkcontribs) 01:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple definition is missing[edit]

I came to this page trying to understand what it means when someone says they are a born-again Christian. After looking through this long and detailed article, I am still puzzled. There is a lot of background information and philosophical/biblical discussion here, but the simple explanation of the term is nowhere to be found. Selerian (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC) It could be helpful to input into a search engine the words born again and evenly yoked which will reveal a common term website which explains all in greater detail for the unbeliever. Central to understanding the term born again is to place the importance upon the term "eternal life" which is captured by being born again and that eternal life is in heaven not hell. The born again are also referred to as saved, which again means being saved from going to hell. Hope this helps. (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, how does this branch of christianity differ from others, and how do you become a member of the church? Can someone familiar with the church help.Millertime246 (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

TINY little problem with the article[edit]

Namely, that I, a reader honestly wondering what the term meant, could not for all my attempts glean ANY sense out of the article. It ranted something about some dude named Ezekiel, which I'm sure is meaningful to somebody out there in the religious community, but doesn't mean zip-nada-anything to non-Christians. Now, I do get the sense that this here article has degraded into some stupid little who's who factional turf war between you religious folk, but can you appreciate that an atheist reader trying to figure out who these born-agains the TV is talking about CANNOT, despite his abnormally understanding brain, IQ 168, perfect scores on English proficiency testing back in school, linguistic career, etc., etc., make heads or tails of this article? What gives?! (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be understandable if you were very young and hadn't read that much yet or were brought up in some country far from Christianity. However, you seem to be in California and not that young, so I don't think it's because of a lack of contact with the Judeo-Christian ambience. As I understand it, Christianity is very big and loud over there. But maybe you are just joshing with us eh? Never to have even heard of Ezekial, with such a large cortex and all, suggests you have been kept sequestered all of your life. Never mind, there'll be lots of smiling, cross-wearing friends to tell you all about it. Myrvin (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Myrvin makes unanswered point to previously noted self-exclaimed atheist yet the atheist may still really be lacking in understanding. It could be helpful to the atheist to input into a search engine the words born again and evenly yoked which will reveal a common term website which explains all in greater detail for the unbeliever. Central to understanding the term born again is to place the importance upon the term "eternal life" which is captured by being born again and that eternal life is in heaven not hell. The born again are also referred to as saved, which again means being saved from going to hell. Hope this helps. (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That still does not help with making the article more clear. Could you add your insights into the article?Millertime246 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism and Being Born Again without Assurance[edit]

In good faith without personal attack this page does not address the issue of how can a Catholic be born again if they do not allow for congregational members to have an assurance of salvation. Protestant Evangelists go out and do door to door evangelism, practice evangelism as for example Billy Grahams Campus Crusades, Evangelism Explosion etc. etc. wherein they present the gospel and offer up the possibility of making a profession of faith wherein if applicable the person becomes born again and are explained that they are now born again. Within that prayer of profession an emphasis is placed on a prayer of a assurance of that salvation to the Holy Spirit. This is never done by the Roman Catholic Church as they only allow for an assurance of a salvation to a very small number who are noted to be Saints per the Vatican based on miracles. Being Born Again as Jesus explains in the book of John = being saved = salvation assured. So except in the case of dead saints how can a Catholic be born again if they cannot have an assurance of salvation. See wikipedia page on Assurance of Salvation. (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Catholics are born again.

:"Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew,[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicode′mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:3-5"

Saxophilist (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Lutheranism, etc[edit]

There is definitely a born again tradition within historical Lutheranism, mostly associated with the Pietist movements beginning with Spener and Francke. There should definitely be a section--or at least a few good sentences--on Lutheran Pietism. The Pietists (in contrast to their "Orthodox" Lutheran detractors) insisted on a conversion experience understood as a New Birth. Spener wrote often of the Gemeinde der Weidergeboren, or the Church of the Reborn, as the true church of Christian believers who live among and witness to the broader institutional church. The Lutheran Pietist movement in late 17th and early 18th century Germany contributed much to the early evangelical movements in the English-speaking Protestant world, directly and via the Moravian offshoot of the Pietist movement (e.g. Wesley's own conversion experience was among the Moravian community in London). Even early colonial American evangelicalism drew from Pietist inspiration via Cotton Mather, George Whitefield and others directly influenced by Pietism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues[edit]

While the article is slanting vaguely towards positive POV, I think the main issues are the normal with old religious stubs:

I marked it with template:Multiple issues. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

After a lot of work on this, I have removed the tag. Did I corect enough of it? Myrvin (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

New Section: Hate group[edit]

An IP editor( has just made a series of edits. Their major impact is the inclusion of the following new subsection

====Hate group====

Critics have described it as a hate group.[1][2][3][4][5]

  1. ^ Excitable Boy (2006-05-04). "Born Again Christians actually Satanists!, page 1". Above Top Secret. Retrieved 2012-08-11. 
  2. ^ Chatillion (2009-10-02). "BORN AGAIN Christians... and why I have such a low opinion of them". Match Doctor. Retrieved 2012-08-11. 
  3. ^ Deacon, Michael (2010-01-08). "Born-again Christian Stephen Baldwin: great fun for atheists – Telegraph Blogs". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2012-08-11. 
  4. ^ Parker, Timothy J. (2012-07-24). "Why do Republicans and born-again Christians hate the poor?". The Citizen. Retrieved 2012-08-11. 
  5. ^ "I Hate Born Again Christians | Group with Personal Stories, Forums and Chat". Experience Project. Retrieved 2012-08-11. 

In my opinion none of these sources can be considered WP:RS and the addition in its present form comes near to being technically WP:OR. I favour deleting it, but would like to do so with some sort of consensus rather than the action of a single editor. Jpacobb (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Christianity noticeboard

Nuke it ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete. There's a difference between an encyclopaedic discussion of criticism based on academic analysis and meritless polemics by idiot bloggers. This content violates policies regarding POV, reliable sources, and is not analysis worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. In fact, it's rather incendiary and culturally insensitive. Wikipedia shouldn't be a forum from one hate group proclaiming that another group (from whom they see the world differently) is a hate groups. This is name-calling for no more a reason than because they can. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This discussion must take place on the article's talk page --Guerillero |My Talk 04:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Section deleted as per above comments. Jpacobb (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not RS, not NPOV, very much UNDUE, cut it out, roots and all. (That is to say, strong delete). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 23:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Postscript: The same IP included the above references as external links without any explanation. ColonelHenry's comments above explain why they are not within Wikipedia's criteria and justify the repeated deletion. Jpacobb (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A grave misinterpretation[edit]

The "Denominational positions" section of the article gives an impression of a concensus among denominations. This cannot be further from reality. Catholic (and I'm sure the Orthodox) Christians, that is - most Christians - regard being "born from above/again" as being baptized. I have removed the entire "Catholic" subsection of the mentioned section, and made it (for starters) a reference to [2]. Please improve. --Paxcoder (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at it. I would not like to lose the Council of Trent view. Myrvin (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Explaining AGF deletion[edit]

This article is one which can easily cause friction and debate. Shommer inserted a short paragraph

John 1:12-13 and other parts of John chapter 3 use related phrases without specifically saying "born again". These similar phrases include "born of the Spirit", "Spirit gives birth to spirit", "become children of God", and "born of God", as opposed to being "born of natural descent", "of human decision or of a husband's will".

I was sorry to have to delete it but this is a sensitive article where any unsourced paragraph is likely to be challenged, if only on the grounds that as it stands the paragraph is original research. Wikipedia requires that information of this nature be supported by a reliable source. I'll try and find a source that covers this or similar ground and then will edit accordingly.Jpacobb (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Public stances[edit]


in the "Public stances" section there are some suspicious people listed, eg Kanye West. I propose removing all that are unsourced or no reliable sources may be found. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is this part of a series on Methodism?[edit]

Flags in the talk header include methodism, baptism, charismatic christianity... this article is clearly supposed to denote current day evangelical, proselytizing Christians, yet the entire article serves to befuddle the reader and make religious arguments about how all Christians are born again... this is not true. Catholics, most Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are all Christian yet do not refer to themselves nor are referred to by others as reborn in faith nor do they profess a personal relationship with God or Jesus Christ. This article needs a serious edit to avoid conflict of interest problems -already several others on the talk page have noted how this article is not truly reflective of the general consensus on what it means in lay terms to be "born again." I am flagging this for conflict of interest. (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I am too stupid to figure out how to flag an article for WP:COI or WP:NPOV, but this article surely qualifies. (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is certainly in need of improvement as to content and references. However its subject is the use of "born again" in Christianity and as such should cover the varied uses of the whole gamut of christian churches. To fail to do so would be WP:NPOV Jpacobb (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Catholics are born again, as being born again happens in baptism. Mainline Protestants may also believe this. Also, I have heard the priest at the Catholic parish I go to say that we need to have a personal relationship with Jesus. So, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Saxophilist (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No devout Catholic would ever describe themselves as "born again" - and that is what I find so befuddling about this article. To a North American Christian - including ALL Christians on the North American continent - "Born again" means something utterly and entirely different from what this article - dare I say - proselytizes. (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Further, the use of the phrase "born again" to most means a conscious decision to accept Christ in your heart - that doesn't happen in Catholic baptism at the ripe old age of 2 months. References 23 and 24 speak of Baptism as a necessary Sacrament for every Catholic at any age - this article twists those words to define the Catholic position going back to the Council of Trent as supporting a Protestant view on rebirth in new faith, and the RCC catechism most certainly does not outside of RCC sanctioned missions. (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Being born again happens in baptism. Here, this is a pretty good article to explain it:

Also, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian. Saxophilist (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes they both are. Mormons are "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" and [Witnesses] are also Christians, in a very old world sort of way. (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian. They do not believe in the Trinity. To be a Christian, you need to have a valid baptism. Saxophilist (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Catholics and Protestants[edit]

This part of a cited quotation has been removed as being "tangential":

Catholics should ask Protestants, "Are you born again—the way the Bible understands that concept?" If the Evangelical has not been properly water baptized, he has not been born again "the Bible way," regardless of what he may think.

It seems to me to be important that the article says that Catholics believe that (some) Protestants are not born again, no matter what they say. We should not water down the distict differences in this concept between denominations. There are probably similar accusations from Protestants to Catholics. Myrvin (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Myrvin, I disagree with the inclusion of the sentence. Wikipedia is not a manual for suggestions to instigate religious debate. The first part of the paragraph is fine because it discusses the Catholic view of the concept. However, I do not think the second part is necessary. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems from the quote that the Catholic view is that only Catholics can be born again - or, at least that Evangelicals are not. I also suspect that Evangelicals think that only they can be born again and Catholics are not - but I need citations for that assertion. It is part of the article that denominations disagree what it means to be born again. If they are diametrically opposed,then some of them are wrong (or they are both wrong). There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia reporting religious debates. Not do so would seem odd. It is the denominations that instigate them. Myrvin (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have started a new section on denominational disagreements. Myrvin (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Those who are validly baptized are born again. Saxophilist (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
If that simple idea were true, then the question would turn on what it is to be "validly" baptised. I doubt if Catholics think that anyone - other than a Catholic - CAN be validly baptised. It seems that Evangelists want more than a splashing of water over someone's head for the person to be born again. They seem to claim that Catholics have only that in babyhood, and it is not enough. Still there is now a section in which these disagreements can be described. Myrvin (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The Catholic Church accepts most Protestant baptisms as valid. Saxophilist (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - I missed your response Saxophilist. I would like to be directed to a Catholic reference that says this. Never being a Catholic - and not now a Christian - I assumed that the Catholic Church sees all other churches as not actually Christian, and so incapable of performing 'valid' rites. Perhaps a simplistic view. Myrvin (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Aha! I found this [3]. It suggests that

as long as someone is baptized "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" and the person who is baptizing you speaks of the the Father, Son and Spirit in the sense that they are three persons of the triune God, then the baptism is valid. (thus a baptism by Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons is not valid as they do not have the same understanding of the Trinity, nor even of God, as we do.

Some of which you said above. My view was too simplistic. Myrvin (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The blockquote is correct: see Council of Florence "Decree concerning the Armenians" - 22/11/1439 AD and Vatican II "Unitatis Reditegratio" sect 14,22. Jpacobb (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

History - removed text.[edit]

I have removed the following as uncited and doubtful.

Following an interpretation of, for instance, Ezekiel 36:26,"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh" adherents of the Born again concept believe that when a person accepts Jesus as the Messiah and receives the Holy Spirit, a radical "change of heart" occurs.[citation needed] This change is marked by an aversion to sin and a passion for obedience to the commandments of Jesus Christ, as outlined in the Christian scriptures. Many[who?] associate the term "born again" with the revelation of a new concept, or an experience of conversion, defined as mental assent to the acceptance of Jesus Christ as one's personal Savior; though some believe that this experience or mental assent (See Gnosticism) is not alone sufficient to merit Christian salvation. Rather, in addition, this is brought about by repentance, the aforementioned "new birth" of the Holy Spirit, and faith in Jesus Christ's propitiation for sins.fundamentalism. (2010). In ''Encyclopædia Britannica.'' Retrieved 17 September 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online

Myrvin (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Born Again[edit]

Being born again is a spiritual experience. Jesus said born again of spirit. A Christian gains eternal life when they are born again, and experiences immortality. Their spirit cries out father, abba. There are two groups of Christians that will be born again...the 144,000 and the great crowd. When a person is born again...their spirit and their body is literally born again. Along with this is experienced immortality. The key to being born again is to be chaste, and to give up your desire for this world. Those who are born again...will not experience death. There is no relationship with jesus except those who talk to him in their prayer life. There is a relationship with the spirit of God. There is a relationship with God. A great crowd of Christians will survive the great triubluation as well as the 144,000. The 144,000 will form the nucleus of the new government. Being born again..often is an intense spiritual experience where a person goes through the motions of obeying god. Death is swallowed up and conquered forever. All through out scripture the goal is eternal life, immortality, whom god gives to whom he wants to. It says they shall hunger no more, nor thirst any more, the sun shall not beat down on them, they shall not tire out. The 144,000 will from the nucleus of the new government, as those who sing the new song....rule with Christ. Christians now can be led by the holy spirit, as a communication link to God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi! In most Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, many Protestant) born again means simply baptized. It must be included in the lead. In fact, the expressions be born of water and of the Spirit and he cannot enter into the kingdom of God show clearly that this text is about this specific sacrament. Best regards, Propositum (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not known that to be the case. The Roman Rite does not consider them to be synonymous. They consider baptism to be an infusion of grace but do not equate it with being born again. This grace must be continually infused. They do not, in fact, focus on the term. I have attended Lutheran, Presbyterian and Anglican (Episcopalian) congregations and know that they also downplay the term as one co-opted by Evangelicals and don't focus on the term. Without reliable sources, there's unlikely to be a change to the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Walter. Catholics seem only to have equated 'born again' with baptism after the Evangelicals and/or Methodists got all excited by the term. Still, if there are Catholic etc. sources that precede these. it could be looked at. There is an argument for CofE, since its in the 39 Articles. This Catholic book says the term is strange [4]. This [5] seems to suggest that 19th century Catholics argued about it. The article talks about the Council of Trent demanding a second conversion after baptism. This article is about adults who claim to be born again. Myrvin (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
This [6] is interesting too. Myrvin (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have a sentence in the lead that says for some Christians this is an adult experience while for others it occurs at infant baptism. Myrvin (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The links You have given indeed say that born again for Catholics means baptized. Council of Trent teaches about something else (the confession as remission of sins). This passage probably should be changed. Of course, for Evangelical Christians BA means converted, but we talk here about the Biblical term, which is not appropriated only by one branch of Christianity. Propositum (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that is the big question. Although you are the only one to have raised it in this way since I've been editing the article. The article was meant to be mainly about the Evangelical use of the term. I (and I think other people) did not turn to this article to see that BA means baptized as an infant. We want to know what the Evangelicals are on about, and what the other denominations have to say about what they mean by it. So this article is mainly about what you call converted. Myrvin (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think the article is/should be about the evangelical use of the term. We also have Regeneration (theology), of course. StAnselm (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I much appreciate User:StAnselm's contributions, but in this case must respectfully disagree with his last comment. The article is headed "Born again (Christianity)"; this seems to say that it deals with all uses of the term within Christianity. If the usage by evangelicals is of sufficient interest to merit its own page (and I suspect it is) then that page (a new one) should be entitled something like "Born again (evangelical thought)" cross-referenced back to this one as its 'main page' edited down to a balanced overview. Jpacobb (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for disagreeing so respectfully. But we could easily move the article to Born again (evangelical term). The thing is, Catholics don't usually talk about being "born again". The phrase is almost unique to evangelicalism. Of course, the article would still have to have a critique from Catholic and other perspectives. I don't think we disagree that much - but I would say Regeneration (theology) should be the main page. StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Catholics and other non-Evangelicals use Bible non-stop and the term born again as well. Their theologians have thoroughly researched this passage and elaborated its clear explanation. Evangelicals stress it the most (and give different meaning), but their point of view is decidedly not the only one. Anyway, that is a good idea to merge this article with Regeneration (theology), as it is de facto about the same (re-generatio means in Latin being born again). And one more thing: even on the page about Evangelical understanding of born again, the traditional (mainstream Christian) meaning should be mentioned. Propositum (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Having looked at the article Regeneration (theology) it is (quite rightly) concerned only with the theological aspects of the question. "Born again" goes wider than pure theology; sociological and psychological factors deserve a mention. My preference would be either to keep the present article title and have a wide-ranging page or to split off the bulk of the evangelical material into its own page. It would be misleading to rename the current page as "Born again (evangelical term)" since this would leave the non-evangelical material homeless.

In any case, even in the article about the Evangelical understanding of the term, the mainstream meaning should be clearly mentioned. And I repeat: the passage from the Council of Trent is about something else (namely, the sacrament of confession). Propositum (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


The Article seems to imply that the term 'born-again' as referring to the self was created, or at least most widely used by the movement within the hippies known as the 'Jesus people', somewhat backslidden Christians who were honestly trying to convert hippies from heir lifestyle to Christ, by adopting their hippie ways and journeying with them. And yet I have recorded sermons from Bob Jones, from the 40s, where he used the term often, and in the same manner as we do today, likewise Spurgeon, Moody and Bud Robinson did the same in the 1800s, in fact near-all the orthodox preachers I've ever come acquainted to use the term just exactly as it's used today.

This modernistic 'reinterpretation' and re-writing of history is debunkable at even a cursory glance.

I'd like to suggest that whoever has the power here on Wikipedia just go right ahead and delete, or at least merge this article elsewhere, elsewise it will just continue to be hijacked by catholics to say what they want it to say, as with the Word. -Eli — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Explain deletion[edit]

I have just deleted the following material from the section "Methodism and other Evangelicals":

Evangelical Protestants employ the KJV translation of John 3:3 as "born again" rather than "born from above". (Note, only the [Catholic] New Revised version, various paraphrase bibles and a few other obscure versions render John 3:3 as "born from above, all others, including the ESV, KJV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, ASV, RSV, NLT, NLV, etc. as "born-again" or occasionally "born anew".)

My reasoning is as follows: (i) No sources are given; (ii) It is extremely difficult to see how the claim as to the translation used by Evangelical Protestants could be reliably sourced — wide-ranging statistical claims like this one are notoriously hard to substantiate; (iii) The recent addition which mentions "other obscure versions" contains a value judgement and ignores the Jerusalem Bible which can hardly be called obscure; (iv) This list of versions which render anothen again/anew fails to indicate that some at least give "from above" as an alternative and may even indicate that the Greek is ambiguous (¿deliberately so?) Jpacobb (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

I copy this from my User Talk about some recent edits. I reverted Jeffro77's deletions:

I have undone your reversion at Born again (Christianity). Not only did the previous text go beyond simply stating their belief, but it was also inaccurate. The text claimed that they 'prefer the translation: "should be born from above"'; that claim is not supported by the source. Actually, the other text was from a different translation, that the Watch Tower Society once quoted to indicate an idea that the verse may convey. They do not state that it is their preferred translation, and it isn't the rendering found in their translation of the Bible. The bulk of the second paragaph was essentially a preachy collection of quotes claiming to provide "evidence" for their interpretation, which is not Wikipedia's purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Myrvin (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Born again (Christianity). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The Chuck Colson section needs a sentence to be re-written and it needs a reference to support it[edit]

The sentence that says: "Watergate conspirator Chuck Colson describes his path to faith in conjunction with his criminal imprisonment and played a significant role in solidifying the "born again" identity as a cultural construct in the US." seems to be missing something. What "played a significant role"? Was it "Colson" or "the book" or "his path" or "his prosecution"? DagTruffle (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It was Colson. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Born again. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Catholicism section not encyclopaedic[edit]

I'm a convinced Catholic myself, so no negative intentions. Just obvious that the section must be revised and made neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Born again. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)