My Response to a Friend on "Born-Again" Article.

To understand the conversation, read the bold part at the bottom (the article) and then my response as posted here.
````````````````````````````````````````````

Athosxc said...
I don't know man, I think you're being a just a wee bit overly critical in saying that the translators who used "born-again" misunderstood the very point Jesus was making just as Nicodemus did. I don't think misunderstanding had anything to do with it. In fact, I think the translators specifically used the term again, instead of above, to illustrate the point Jesus was making. By using that word, they conveyed Nicodemus' misunderstanding, but also allowed Jesus' later statements to be be that much more effective when He explains the difference to Nicodemus. Being born above, or of the Spirit, is crystal clear because of the forced explanation.

As for the 75% claiming to be "Christian", but not "born again" Christians, I believe this is a much more serious problem than is being given credence. If I asked you if you are a "born-again-Christian", you may not go by that term by your own descriptions, but you would immediately understand what I am asking, and your mind would surely be thinking "born above" instead, and you would answer in the affirmative yet with an explanation of why you don't use the term "born again".

However, I think the point of the article is that most people are claiming to be Christians WITHOUT understanding of what being a Christian means. They aren't thinking "no I'm not born again, I'm born above" or anything similar to it. They are thinking, "I'm a pretty decent person", or "I'm not as bad as the guy down the street", or "I go to church", or "my parents were Christains and took me to church", or "I believe in God", etc, etc, etc, ....ad nauseum.

The problem is, most people have no idea what it means to be a Christian, yet they understand that being a Christian SUPPOSEDLY means you're a good person, so they equate the two. But it's their own standard of goodness that they judge by, not God's. THAT is the issue I believe the article is pointing out. The church as a whole has dropped the ball on telling folks what the bible actually says about being a Christian, and being considered "good" in God's eyes, and so people think they're ok in God's sight because of any of the above reasons, and they'll die and go to hell because the church didn't do it's job.

"Christian" has become a watered-down term for "halfway-decent-and somewhat religious-human being", instead of someone who claims Christ as their Savior and Lord. This must be corrected. That's our job as preachers of the Word of God. --Athosxc

````````````````````````````````````````````
Beginning of Article to Which I Am Responding
````````````````````````````````````````````
75 % of Americans claiming not to be born-again still believe in the resurrection according to the Center for Missional ResearchWhen this report was made public this past Easter, I observed a friend wondering how it was possible for people who are not “born-again” to still believe in the resurrection and at the startling rate of 75%.

My friend’s question stemmed from a misconception regarding the use of the term and label “born-again” as it is used by the majority of Christians. “Born again” is cultural-religious designation that is used by a certain segment of Evangelical Christianity to describe what God has done in their lives. Other Christians around the country and world may not use the term “born again” but God has done a similar thing in their lives. I myself do not use the term “born again”, mainly because I do not see the term in Scripture.

This is the focus of this post: the term “born-again” as used by Evangelicals, particularly those within the Southern States of America is a mistranslation or misinterpretation of the actual Greek.Though many Evangelical Christians refer to themselves as “born-again Christians”, the actual term as it is found in many Bible translations appears only in two verses, both in John chapter 3.“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:33)“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)This is the extent of the Scriptural basis for the Evangelical self-designation, “born-again Christian”. The Greek word usually translated as “again” is anothen.True, this word can be translated as “again”, but is more often interpreted as meaning “above.”

Indeed, other than these two places, most Bible versions translate the use of anothen in John as “above”.“He that cometh from above (anothen) is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all” (John 3:31)“Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above (anothen): therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin” (John 19:11)“Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top (anothen) throughout.” (John 19:23)The Greek word most commonly translated into English as “again” (and the Greek word which most carries the Evangelical meaning of “born-again” as “renewal” and “anew”) is palin (John 1:35; 4:3, 13, 46, 54; 6:15; 8:2; 9:15; 17, 26f.; 10:7, 17ff., 31, 39f.; 11:7f., 38; 12:22, 28, 39; 13:12; 14:3; 16:16f., 19, 22, 28; 18:7, 27, 33, 38, 40; 19:4, 9, 37; 20:10, 21, 26; 21:1, 16).

There is nothing necessarily wrong with the term “born-again” in so much as it is implied in the text that one must be “born-again from above” to see the Kingdom of God. But while there is the implication of being “born-again”, such an idea misses the point of Jesus’ words. The primary importance of his use of anothen in his teaching to Nicodemus is that one must be born from above. It is the place of the birth that is of importance here and not primarily the fact that one is being birthed again.

Those who originally erred in translating anothen as “again” missed the point of Jesus’ teaching and drew their interpretation from the response of Nicodemus: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” (John 3:4). Ironically, the (mis-)translators of John 3:3 were under the same confusion as Nicodemus. [I’ve found that Christians will often misinterpret a passage in Scripture and assume the very meaning that the Scripture writers are attempting to refute.]Of course, the miscommunication and the inability of the people to understand the teachings of Jesus is a theme which runs throughout the Gospel of John.Thus we get the people’s bewilderment at the teaching that people must “eat the flesh” of Jesus to receive eternal life (John 6).[Thus we get Roman Catholicism which similarly misinterprets Jesus’ teachings.]To receive eternal life one must be born from above (anothen).

Again, it is the place from which the birth occurs that is important for Jesus’ point and not the implication that we are born a second time. Note John the Baptist’s statement regarding Jesus in verse 31:“He that cometh from above (anothen) is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all” (John 3:31)So while the designation “born-again” is not necessarily inaccurate, it is not complete.

Certainly, it is not the point of the passage from which it is derived. Evangelicals would be more authentic to the witness of the Scriptures by referring to themselves as “born-above Christians”. I myself prefer the term “believer”.Therefore, the fact most Christians believe in the resurrection but do not use the term, “born again” should not be surprising.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
End of Article to Which I am Responding
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````