The only Practical Guide on how to Become Born Again is the Book of Acts

[RaymondTheBrave]

In the Book of Acts we see God in action saving people and how they actually did it based on eye witness accounts.
Some Bible scholars would, however, take strong exception to the use of Acts as a source of doctrine. Their objection has taken two forms. The general criticism is that doctrine can only be based on the didactic (teaching) portions of scripture (like the epistles) and must not be built on narratives (like Acts). The particular criticism is that Luke was a historian, but not a theologian. For both these reasons, it is said that we must begin with the epistles, particularly those of Paul (who was a theologian!) and read Acts in the light of his theology. Apart from the difficulties of this approach in relation to initiation (outlined above), there are serious flaws in both objections. It is the ‘genius’ of revelation in scripture that truth is embodied in concrete situations rather than abstract propositions.
The whole Bible is a narrative – from the garden of Eden to the new Jerusalem. The great truths of creation and redemption are wrapped up in the recital of events. Most of the Old Testament and much of the New is in narrative form. The Bible is not so much a book of systematic theology as a history of situational theism. And all this ‘narrative’ was written so we could ‘learn’ from it (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:6). All scripture is useful for teaching, because it is all inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16). We can learn as much from God’s deeds as his words; indeed, they belong together and illuminate each other. The record of happenings is for instruction as well as information. The Bible does not present a comprehensive history of the world, the nation of Israel or the church. It is a selection of significant events accompanied by a prophetic interpretation of those events, both being the work of the Spirit of God. (Acts 15 itself contains a perfect example of resolving a doctrinal dispute by the narrative of divine activity, confirmed by scripture.) Luke is not just a historian, though he claims the integrity of accurate reporting in the first volume of his works (Luke 1:1–4).
He selects the events he records and the details within those events. Then he weaves them into an overall pattern based on his profound insights. If theology means understanding God, Luke was quite a theologian! The idea that it is impossible to extract a ‘theology of Luke’ from his writings as one can with Paul is a myth that needs exploding. (On the issue of Luke as a theologian, readers are recommended to sample Roger Stronstad’s The Charismatic Theology of Luke (Hendrickson, 1984).)
The attempt to drive a wedge between the descriptive narrative of Acts and the didactic nature of the epistles is quite unrealistic. Both were written at the same time about the same situations (remember Paul and Luke were travelling companions). Acts contains ‘didactic’ passages and the epistles contain narrative (compare Acts 15 with Gal 1–2). There is a unity of outlook between them that outweighs the variety of expression. Using Acts as a source for a theology of initiation We may, then, approach Acts with confidence. It has the great advantage of being written ‘on location’, as one writer has put it. These are eyewitness accounts, at both first hand and second hand, of how the apostles set about evangelising the world. What they said and did gives us our basic material for a theology of initiation. Where should we begin within Acts? Surely with those passages containing the most detailed accounts of what happened when people became Christians.

The two that spring most readily to mind are to be found in Acts 8 and 19. Events at Samaria and Ephesus are related in great detail for a reason. In both cases the initiation had been incomplete, causing the concerned apostles to take the necessary steps to make good the omissions. The only real difference between the two groups involved was that the Samaritans were much ‘further on’ than the Ephesians when the apostles came on the scene and therefore needed less ‘supplementary’ ministry. But the basic content and sequence of their initiations was identical: a fourfold pattern of repentance, faith, baptism and reception of the Spirit. Since three key apostles (Peter, John and Paul) were involved, we are entirely warranted in assuming that their ‘technique’ on these occasions reflected their general practice and represents the response to the gospel expected by the early church. It is frequently objected that the circumstances were exceptional in both cases and that the initiation was therefore ‘abnormal’.

Since evangelism today is neither directed to Samaritans nor to disciples of John the Baptist, we are told we cannot use these events as a precedent. Such criticism fails to distinguish between those features which were exceptional and those which were normal. It misses the point that the apostles were concerned to bring an abnormal situation into line with the normal pattern. These converts’ introduction may have been different from others, but their initiation was the same (some readers may find it helpful at this point to refer to the detailed exegesis of the two passages, in chapters 16 and 20).
With this fourfold framework in the back of our minds, we can look at Luke’s record of other ‘conversions’, noting how many elements are mentioned each time:
Acts 2 Peter mentioned repentance, baptism and reception of Spirit but not faith (though this may be implied in the enquirers’ question and deduced from the phrase ‘received the word’). Acts 8 The Ethiopian was only ‘baptised’ according to the best text (some manuscripts add a profession of faith and one adds the reception of the Spirit).
Acts 9 Paul is ‘baptised’ and ‘receives the Spirit’ three days after his Damascus road encounter with the Lord (cf. v. 18 with 22:16). But there is no specific reference to his repentance or faith (though both are clearly implied in his conversation with Jesus and his subsequent comments and actions).
Acts 10 Cornelius clearly ‘repented’ (cf. 10:35 with 11:18) and ‘believed’ (cf. 10:43 with 11:1 and 15:7), but he ‘received the Spirit’ before he was ‘baptised in water’.
Acts 16 The Philippian jailer ‘believed’ (with all his household) and was ‘baptised’ (with all his household), but there is no mention of his ‘repenting’ or ‘receiving’.
Other occasions scattered through the Acts account limit the initiation to ‘believed’. The four elements are not explicitly listed outside the Samaritan and Ephesian cases, though Cornelius and his household come close. Baptism is the one most frequently included; repentance is the one most frequently excluded. What are we to make of all this? Why does Luke not mention all four every time? Apart from any other reason, his literary skill would prevent him from being so boringly repetitious! But there is a rationale behind his selectiveness: in each situation he brought out the most striking or significant features.

The sight of three thousand baptisms at one time and in one pool (Bethesda?) or the sound of a whole household receiving a Pentecostal outpouring in the middle of a sermon could understandably crowd other details into the background! What was a perfectly normal experience for Jewish believers becomes ‘news’ when it happens to Samaritans and even Gentiles! It would be erroneous to conclude that the omissions indicate that all four elements are not necessary for every individual.

If Acts were taken that way, it would mean that most converts don’t need to repent, many do not need to believe, some do not need to receive the Spirit and a few don’t need to be baptised! However, it is clear that all four constituted ‘normal’ initiation for Luke, while he selects from them the most relevant for his purpose in recording particular events. The same procedure of selection by relevance occurs in the epistles, as we shall see. One further point needs to be made: the whole process of initiation, from ‘repenting’ to ‘receiving’ took time, sometimes short and sometimes quite long:
for the twelve apostles, it took some years;
for the Ephesian disciples, probably months;
for the Samaritan converts, perhaps weeks;
for the apostle Paul, a few days;
for the Philippian jailer, only hours;
and for the Cornelius household, apparently minutes.
Clearly the speed of the process is irrelevant, but its completion is vital. Luke and the apostles were far more concerned about validity than velocity!
Pawson, David. The Normal Christian Birth: How to Give New Believers a Proper Start in Life (p. 19). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.

Birthing into the kingdom is like a woman giving birth to a baby. There are a number of steps that should be done in order for the baby to be delivered successfully and without any problems. I am sure that Jesus and the Father did not use the term Born Again by accident.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
John 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
1Peter 1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever
This scripture gives an interesting view and becoming a Christian and adds to the overall view of being saved:- John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus is very specific in the above scripture and it is contrary to much teaching that is preached from the pulpit today. Water baptism for example is seen as an add on and not a necessity for salvation and entry into Gods kingdom.
I know that in the Middle East including Pakistan you can be a Christian if you do not get water baptised. Christians who get water baptised are killed. This demonstrates that they see water baptism as something far more than just a symbolic act.

In the gospels disciple is used nearly exclusively and not Christian. Why because we have a Master in the form of Jesus. We are told numerous times to follow and imitate him. That is what a disciple does. He learns from his master. The term Lord in Greek can mean master and is similar to Rabbi. We should really be using the term disciples or saints especially in the world today, because that is what we are as well as being brethren, sons of God and some other descriptions. Christian is not what the Apostles used at all and it started as a term used by the Jews/inhabitants in Antioch. https://relevantmagazine.com/article/wh ... ally-came/

Many will quote scriptures like Romans 10:9. The context of Romans 10:9 is that they were already born again. They had been baptised, repented and recieved the Holy Spirit. Romans was not written to unsaved people, nor was it written to you or me. We cannot read ourselves into any of the Epistles or books. The only way we can see what the early church actually did and said in order to get people born into the Kingdom is seen in the book of Acts which is still being written to this day. Peter made the first salvation call after they were filled with the Holy Spririt and Peter had his first alter call in Acts 2 and the whole crowd said "What must we Do?" So In Acts 2:38 Peter said these powerful but simple words and the relevant actions. This format then was seen to play out in the rest of the book of Acts and is then also supported outside of the bible by the writings of the early church leaders and apologists.

[1213]

In the Book of Acts we see God in action saving people and how they actually did it based on eye witness accounts. ...

I think more important is what Jesus said. According to him, this is how people become born again:

Jesus answered him, “Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can’t see God’s Kingdom.” Nicodemus 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, “Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into God’s Kingdom. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Don’t marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’
John 3:3-7
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

And when person is born anew, it means:

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

And I think it fulfills this:

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days,” says the Lord; “I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be their God, and they will be my people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all will know me, from their least to their greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more.
Heb. 8:10-12 (Jer. 31:31-34)

[RaymondTheBrave]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

So how does that look in reality? Those are good scriptures and very meaningful. The Hebrew people understood that physical things have as we would say "spiritual meaningingful impact". They did not separate the two as we have in the Western World done due to the Greek philosophical belief in that physical things are bad and spiritual is good. It is called dualism, which was taught by Plato. God said in Genesis 1 and 2 that he had created the heavens and the earth and it was ALL good and very good. This included our flesh as Adam and Eve were had now been created. Greeks wanted to escape thier bodies (as Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 15), Jews did not. They understood that after death their hope was for resurrection into an immortal body. This is what is my hope as I am waiting for Jesus the Messiah return when I will hopefully get my immortal body if he returns before I die. Or if I am dead then I am resurrected to live with him.

However we are digressing from the whole point of my original post on baptism and where can we get practical information and knowledge about how the Apostles and other leaders helped people come to faith in the living God or Israel and be free from the powwer of sin.

Blessings Raymond

[onewithhim]

In the Book of Acts we see God in action saving people and how they actually did it based on eye witness accounts. ...

I think more important is what Jesus said. According to him, this is how people become born again:

Jesus answered him, “Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can’t see God’s Kingdom.” Nicodemus 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, “Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into God’s Kingdom. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Don’t marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’
John 3:3-7
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

And when person is born anew, it means:

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

And I think it fulfills this:

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days,” says the Lord; “I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be their God, and they will be my people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all will know me, from their least to their greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more.
Heb. 8:10-12 (Jer. 31:31-34)

To be "born again" and to be "saved" are two different things. Those born again will be in heaven with Christ. The vast majority of mankind will be living on the earth in paradise conditions forever.

"For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth....The meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace....The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein forever." (Psalm 37:9,11,29, KJV)

To be saved, one has to stop doing what he knows God forbids and accept the sacrifice that Jesus made, then walk in his footsteps (I Peter 2:21), whether or not we have the heavenly hope or the earthly hope. Go to www.jw.org to find out more.

[RaymondTheBrave]

Hi,

Thanks your reply.

In your own scripture quote Jesus stated the below:-
Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into God’s Kingdom.

How are you born of water and spirit. He could not be talking about when you are born naturally when the amneotic fluid comes on when you are born from your mothers womb. As we are all born that way. No Jesus was talking about baptism or better still immersion.

Baptism is covered in detail in Romans 6 and it is about dying to self, taking up the cross and following what Jesus taught us to do and how to act and respond. Just like Jesus was resurrected one day we who are "In Christ" will be resurrected into immortal bodies. That was the hope of all Jews and is my hope now.

Salvation is a process which starts by repenting of our sin and turning to God as an act of faith believing that what He has stated in the scriptures he will do for us all, just like he did for His Son Jesus.

Do you speak in tongues as covered in 1 Corinthians 14?

Blessings Raymond

[1213]

Hi,

Thanks your reply.

In your own scripture quote Jesus stated the below:-
Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into God’s Kingdom.

How are you born of water and spirit....

I believe Jesus means with the water the "living water":

Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water." The woman said to him, "Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. From where then have you that living water? Are you greater than our father, Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself, as did his children, and his cattle?" Jesus answered her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst again; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life."
John 4:10-14

[onewithhim]

Hi,

Thanks your reply.

In your own scripture quote Jesus stated the below:-
Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into God’s Kingdom.

How are you born of water and spirit. He could not be talking about when you are born naturally when the amneotic fluid comes on when you are born from your mothers womb. As we are all born that way. No Jesus was talking about baptism or better still immersion.

Baptism is covered in detail in Romans 6 and it is about dying to self, taking up the cross and following what Jesus taught us to do and how to act and respond. Just like Jesus was resurrected one day we who are "In Christ" will be resurrected into immortal bodies. That was the hope of all Jews and is my hope now.

Salvation is a process which starts by repenting of our sin and turning to God as an act of faith believing that what He has stated in the scriptures he will do for us all, just like he did for His Son Jesus.

Do you speak in tongues as covered in 1 Corinthians 14?

Blessings Raymond

The hope of all Jews in and before Jesus' day was not going to heaven in immortal bodies. They all had an earthly hope, as can be seen by referring to the Scriptures in the Old Testament. One of my favorite passages is Isaiah 11:1-9. In the earthly Paradise there are children and animals, all getting along together. David wrote in the Psalms:

"For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth....But the meek ones shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace....The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever." (Psalm 37:9,11,29, KJV)

There was no heavenly hope until Jesus came. He brought the message of the Kingdom, to be realized on earth, and God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. (Matthew 6:9,10)

Lastly, Christians don't speak in tongues today, for the gift of tongues is actually suddenly speaking in a foreign language like the disciples did at Pentecost 33AD. It was so that the crowds around the temple at that time could know the great things about Christ and God. "Let the one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may translate....If you offer praise with a gift of the spirit, how will the man occupying the seat of the ordinary person say 'Amen' to your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?" (I Corinthians 14:13,16) Paul continues: "I speak in more tongues than all of you do. Nevertheless, in a congregation I would rather speak five words with my mind, that I might instruct others orally, than ten thousand words in a tongue....And if someone speaks in a tongue, let it be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns; and let someone translate." (I Cor. 14:18,19,27) Is this the way it is done in your church, even though speaking in foreign languages is not necessary to a Christian today? It was done back then so that the crowds would take the message with them when they returned to their homes far away.

More scrutiny is needed.
onewithhim