On Sunday morning I was Baptised in my local church. It was a full emersion and it was wonderful though cold! I got thinking now I have been baptised does this mean I'm a Born Again Christian? If not what is actually meant by this as I've heard and read so many different answers to this question.
Full immersion in an Anglican church? Now that's unusual. Being born again is also uncommon in Anglicanism (not to mention Roman Catholicism). From what I can gather it seems to be when someone has a great spiritual experience and things change completely. But, as a Rector I knew recounted, he was once asked if he had been "saved", to which he replied that he hoped that he "was in the process of being saved". In my own case I was baptised and confirmed CofE, and then spent thirty years as an Agnostic. Looking back on the spiritual journey by which I drifted back into the Church, there was no one event which made me return, but a series of them. A very slow birth, perhaps.
In my experience the phrase was used in the non-denominational Evangelical context about the first moment of faith making a person, by their theology, a Christian from then on. In truth the idea applies to all Christians since we all believe in regeneration. Congratulations!
George Whitefield, an Anglican minister and leading figure in the American Great Awakening was most notable for preaching on the subject of the new birth. It's a biblical concept given to us by Our Lord: "Ye must be born again"
The catholic position is that we have been born again in baptism. The second conversion is an uninterrupted task. Article XV says that we are "baptised and born again in Christ". George Whitfield was indeed an Anglican minister, but in effect he was also a founding father of Methodism. I do not deny that one off spiritual experiences have also led people to turn to Christ. Bishop Hugh Montefiore is a well known example. I have also met three women who had this experience. One is now a CofE priest.
Methodism was initially an anglican movement. Both Whitefield and John Wesley remained Anglican priests. Both Whitefield and Wesley were parish priests at my old church in Savannah, which remains a TEC parish...more's the pity.
I am aware of this. But the concept of being born again is not one of great import in modern Anglicanism (at least not in the CofE).
As I mentioned in my post wouldn't it apply at baptism? The terminology is from an evangelical context yet we too have it.
There is no escaping that a 'second birth' is a theme of the Bible, and as far as I am aware, all denominations and traditions affirm it, but what they mean by it is largely determined by their sacramental theology. Basically, if they believe that Baptism is actually regenerative, then Baptism is being born-again, but if (like my dear grandmother) one believes that baptism is merely a declarative sign, then it is in the first moment of genuine faith that one is 're-born' as a Christian. There is of course a story in Acts where I think, some of the apostles find people who have been baptised but haven't had hands laid upon them, and so have not received the gift of the Holy Spirit (traditionally to the two ritual distinctions between Baptism and confirmation of course), so some Charismatics would say that faith in Christ is not enough, one has to be a red-hot spirit-filled Christian and only when that happens can one be 'born again'. Although to me, that seems like being Born again again.
Nice to hear from you again, Alcibiades, and not for the first time your "uncertain" postings are very sensible. (But then of course many an Anglican is uncertain: as I am). Anyhow, there is an interesting parallel with Confirmation. Many more people are baptised than confirmed, the latter at least in theory implying a degree of faith, and being accompanied by a laying on of hands. But there the parallel ends. When I was confirmed (in 1962) it didn't signify spiritual regeneration. Merely a confirmation of my faith.
Please consider the Church Catechism and Beveridge's Commentary on the Catechism on this point: http://www.anglican.net/doctrines/church-catechism/ http://www.anglican.net/works/william-beveridge-the-church-catechism-explained-1720/
The 'born again' theme is part of American culture where it has particular emphasis. I never heard of it in Canada until sometime in the late 1970s, though it was probably present in some places. I found myself adverse to it initially because it contained the meme* of having fallen pretty well to hell and then being reborn and elevated pretty well to heaven. It was the extremes of the story: total depravity, and almost a need to have misbehaved, cf the AA 12-step types of program where "hitting bottom" is discussed. I would tend to view the historical Anglican view as having moved away from the Puritan streak that seems to be foundational to the born again idea, but it is still useful in if it's put forth in less extreme ways. The English moved away from this following the events of the 17th century: the Revolution of 1642-1651, Protectorate under Cromwell, The Restoration, and Glorious Revolution of 1688, though it took well into the 18th century to have found the Middle Way that traditional Anglicans have since seen themselves as inhabiting. We see, I think, within the current tendencies to 'return to traditional values' some interesting threads: exceptionalism of a particular cultural world view. a desire to maintain political and economic ascendency, and a concern for changes wrought by the movements of humanism, mass communications technology, human rights, etc. Some of the current pursuit of 'traditional values' in Anglicanism seem to me to be a resurrection of things from the difficult 17th century, typical neither of things before nor after. I think we must always be cautious to accept metaphors as literal truths and use them responsibly, also not assuming that all of us will find all memes and ideas equally beneficial. The focus of Christianity being on Christ, and Anglicanism being a pathway to Christ. * meme: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meme
A man has to be born again in order to believe in Christ and be saved. Our Lord said as much (John 3:5 et seq.), there can be no doubt about it. As to whether this necessary spiritual regeneration is actually equated with the action of baptism itself, there are different views on the matter. I hold to the Reformed view that baptism is merely a declarative sign of entrance into the New Covenant and does not necessarily bring about, ex opere operato or ex opere operantis, the actual spiritual regeneration that is wrought by the Holy Spirit alone. Not all baptised individuals are truly regenerated: "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." (Romans 9:6) "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8) Regeneration cannot be pinpointed to an action performed by us or by others to us, but to the sovereign and invisible action of the Holy Spirit.