A Theological Question

[OBW]

I came across this quote in a personal testimony of someone that I have known since my earliest days in the LC. I will not identify the person or where I read it, but here is the quote:

I had been a believer since I was an early teenager, but I can’t say with certainty that I was born-again at that time

I read that sentence (well, part of a sentence — the rest of it did not clarify anything) and had to stop and go back and read it again.

Yep. It still said what I thought it did the first time around.

So, the questions that come to mind are:

1. Is this a theologically sound consideration about salvation?

2. Is there belief that does not qualify as belief and therefore leaves you unsaved?

3. Is being "born again" something more than being saved?

4. Is this possibly something that unwittingly becomes part of the LC theology in which saved people can be considered unsaved, with the follow-on question: is this how they manage to denigrate so much of Christianity?

I realize that this one sentence does not define how it is that a believer can not be born again. Or if it can be so, how it is that there is belief that does not result in salvation (or being born again). Or is being born again a less Pentecostal equivalent of adding the need for the infilling of the Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues?

I sure don't think this particular brother meant anything sinister by the statement. But I wonder what kind of teaching leads someone to think in this manner. I think this brother is someone who has been sort of on the side but not fully connected for some period of time of late. Not in but not out. (But fully in Christ at all times)

And maybe this is all his own thinking and he might not even agree with himself if he had thought about it a little before committing it to writing.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

I came across this quote in a personal testimony of someone that I have known since my earliest days in the LC. I will not identify the person or where I read it, but here is the quote:

I read that sentence (well, part of a sentence — the rest of it did not clarify anything) and had to stop and go back and read it again.

Yep. It still said what I thought it did the first time around.

So, the questions that come to mind are:

1. Is this a theologically sound consideration about salvation?

2. Is there belief that does not qualify as belief and therefore leaves you unsaved?

3. Is being "born again" something more than being saved?

4. Is this possibly something that unwittingly becomes part of the LC theology in which saved people can be considered unsaved, with the follow-on question: is this how they manage to denigrate so much of Christianity?

I realize that this one sentence does not define how it is that a believer can not be born again. Or if it can be so, how it is that there is belief that does not result in salvation (or being born again). Or is being born again a less Pentecostal equivalent of adding the need for the infilling of the Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues?

I sure don't think this particular brother meant anything sinister by the statement. But I wonder what kind of teaching leads someone to think in this manner. I think this brother is someone who has been sort of on the side but not fully connected for some period of time of late. Not in but not out. (But fully in Christ at all times)

And maybe this is all his own thinking and he might not even agree with himself if he had thought about it a little before committing it to writing.

OBW,

I assume you are not in a position to ask him directly what he meant?

Nell

[Zezima]

1. Is this a theologically sound consideration about salvation?
Yes, “even the demons believe there is one God”

2. Is there belief that does not qualify as belief and therefore leaves you unsaved?
I think so, the middle of John 6 comes to mind. A group from the thousands Jesus fed gets in a boat to search for Jesus. They find him, and Jesus points out they went to search for him because of the material items (food) they received.

Also, Gnosticism.

3. Is being "born again" something more than being saved?
No, but it’s more than believing.

4. Is this possibly something that unwittingly becomes part of the LC theology in which saved people can be considered unsaved, with the follow-on question: is this how they manage to denigrate so much of Christianity?

Nowhere in LC theology does it state saved people can be considered unsaved. However, in the Lord’s Recovery there is SO much emphasis on the man-child and/or being an overcomer that’s it’s easy to equate failure to be an overcomer as losing one’s salvation. Being an overcomer in their eyes is something you can lose.

[Ohio]

I have asked myself the same question forever.

The entire Bible, starting from Genesis, indicates that God’s demand is that we believe. In the OT they believed looking forward to the coming Messiah. We now believe looking back to Calvary. And I’m not talking about bogus-demon-faith, but genuine faith that God recognizes.

Yet Jesus told Nicodemus, “you must be born again.” Do we automatically become born again when we genuinely believe in God? Nicodemus believed God according to the Old Covenant, but now the Messiah has arrived in Israel. Is your faith real?

I think both regeneration and baptism are required so that we can know that our own faith is genuine. I would include life’s trials also because God has determined that genuine faith needs to be tested in order to be proven. To Nicodemus and others, Jesus was a Stone of Stumbling to prove their faith, and make their faith “come alive.”
—————————————————————
Hey OBW good to see you. Every time I see you post, the old line “Blasting billowing bursting forth with the power of ten billion butterfly sneezes” comes to mind. Happy New Year!

[Nell]

There is a remarkable biography by Amy Carmichael, of a young Indian girl named Mimosa. Here's a brief description of her story:

"The child of an Indian village, from a Hindu family, heard one afternoon of a God who loved her, and she lived from then on under His influence."

Mimosa "heard" of a God who loved her and lived the remainder of her life under His influence because of what she "heard" that day.

We human Christians can discuss what we believe might be true about this or that, the heart and ways of God and the doctrines we believe to be true or not, or the "maybe's". Based on Mimosa's story, was she saved?

Though her salvation was not "by the book", who can say she was "not" saved? Another question: compared to man's theology, how big is God?

Nell

[Bible-believer]

I have doubted recently that not all church members are saints in the sense of the Bible. When I said this, I meant not all baptized members are saved (or say, born again.) Who they believed in, and what gospel they believed unto salvation. Do they believe in the God of the Bible or the God in Lee's concept? Do they believe in the Triune God or Lee's four-in-one God?
Do they know what the good news is according to the scriptures?
I once asked a member (whose son is a queer) whether she preached the gospel to him, and she answered as long as he was well-cared in this lifetime was good enough. Who knew about the life to come?

I am not saying she is not saved, just doubt if she really knows the gospel and the destination of an unsaved. If she knows, she should know well of it, doesn't she?
LR is so proud of its teachings and training. Even I heard lots of church members outside of LR say things like that as compliments. But if you asked them their salvation's foundation and what is the gospel...this kind of basics, they stutter.

Sorry if I've gone off the topic.