DANIEL WHYTE III, PRESIDENT OF GOSPEL LIGHT SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL (WHO DID NOT LET HIS CHILDREN READ HARRY POTTER,) SAYS AGAIN JK ROWLING HAS SHOWN MORE TESTICULAR FORTITUDE THAN THE POPE AND MOST BISHOPS, PRIESTS, AND PASTORS ACROSS ALL DENOMINATIONS
DANIEL WHYTE III, PRESIDENT OF GOSPEL LIGHT SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL (WHO DID NOT LET HIS CHILDREN READ HARRY POTTER,) SAYS AGAIN JK ROWLING HAS SHOWN MORE TESTICULAR FORTITUDE THAN THE POPE AND MOST BISHOPS, PRIESTS, AND PASTORS ACROSS ALL DENOMINATIONS — CATHOLICS, PROTESTANTS, EVANGELICALS, CHARISMATICS, AND OTHERS. WHYTE SAYS IT IS A SHAME BEFORE GOD THAT WOMEN HAD TO RISE UP AND DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THIS DAMNABLE, NON-SENSICAL FOOLISHNESS AS THE MALE-LED CHURCH SAT ON THE SIDELINES WITH PRESENTLY TWO OF THE BIGGEST EVANGELICAL-CHARISMATIC BISHOPS IN SECULAR COURT RIGHT NOW BEFORE THE WORLD WITH ONE, T.D. JAKES, ACCUSED OF BEING A “POWER BOTTOM” HOMOSEXUAL WHO TRIED TO HOMOSEXUALIZE FELLOW PREACHERS WHO LOOKED UP TO HIM AND THE OTHER, ROBERT MORRIS ACCUSED OF RAPING A GIRL FROM THE AGES OF 12 TO 16. WHYTE SAYS NO WONDER BISHOPS AND PASTORS HAVE BEEN SILENT. MANY ARE A PART OF THE SATANIC, HOMOSEXUAL, PEDOPHILE RING OF PASTORS THAT IS COMING TO LIGHT MORE AND MORE. IN OTHER WORDS, MANY OF THESE SICK PASTORS WERE TOO BUSY TRYING TO BE TREATED LIKE A WOMAN THEMSELVES AND OR RAPING BOYS AND GIRLS TO COME TO THE DEFENCE OF JK ROWLING AND MILLIONS OF OTHER WOMEN. SO BEHIND THE FIERCE LEADERSHIP OF JK ROWLING THEY FOUGHT FOR THEMSELVES AND WON OVER THIS DAMNABLE FOOLISHNESS AND INSANITY! GLORY BE TO GOD! BELOW IS WHAT DANIEL WHYTE III WROTE REGARDING JK ROWLING STANDING UP AGAINST MEN CALLING THEMSELVES WOMEN YEARS AGO WHEN SHE STOOD AGAINST THIS FOOLISHNESS AND WAS PERSECUTED LIKE NO WOMAN SINCE JOAN OF ARC (PUN NOT INTENDED):
Daniel Whyte III, President of Gospel Light Society International and Editor-and-Chief of Blackchristiannews.com, says Here We Go: J.K. Rowling Will Not Be Featured in Harry Potter 20th Anniversary Special After Tweets About a Man Cannot be a Woman – Now People, It Is Demonic and Wrong That This Woman Who Worked So Hard to Write This Series Can’t Even Be Featured at Her Own 20th Anniversary Because She Said That a Man Is a Man and a Woman Is a Woman and a Man Cannot Be a Woman. (November 17, 2021)
Harry Potter Actress Is Praised by Fans for ‘Not Being Like Her Co-stars’ After Saying She ‘owes Everything’ to the Author Despite Transgender Fight (November 19, 2021)
New Warner/Discovery President ‘Un-Cancels’ J.K. Rowling After She Was Sidelined for Defending Women Amid Transgender Craze (May 23, 2022)
JK ROWLING PARTIES IN THE BAHAMAS ON HER $150M SUPERYACHT AFTER VINDICATION FOLLOWING SUPREME COURT RULING ON TRANSGENDER WOMEN
JK Rowling channels the A-team as she parties in the Bahamas on her $150m superyacht with her husband while gleefully celebrating ‘TERF VE Day’ after historic Supreme Court ruling on transgender women
JK Rowling has channelled the A-Team as she continued to celebrate a Supreme Court ruling that trans women are not legally women – posting a picture of herself puffing on a cigar on her $150million superyacht.
The Harry Potter author claimed yesterday’s decision, which found the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, as a major victory for ‘the rights of women and girls across the UK’.
The 59-year-old has been a vocal supporter of campaign group For Women Scotland, throwing her cultural and financial clout behind its long-running legal battle against the Scottish government over the definition of a ‘woman’ in Scottish law.
That paid dividends yesterday, when the judges unanimously ruled that the words ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the Equality Act must mean ‘biological sex’, sparking jubilant scenes outside the Supreme Court in London.
It means the legal definition of ‘woman’ only applies to those who were born female, and trans women do not have the right to use single-sex women-only spaces such as toilets or changing rooms.
While trans activists reacted with fury to the decision, branding it ‘evil’ and calling it a set back for transgender rights, Rowling and others took to social media to celebrate it as a victory for women ad common sense.
And after sharing a post on X, formerly Twitter, suggesting she and her husband were clinking glasses of Champagne after the ruling, she has now followed up with a selfie of her smoking on her boat which online trackers record as being near the Bahamas.
She accompanied it with the words: ‘I love it when a plan comes together. #SupremeCourt #WomensRights.’
That was the catchphrase of the A-Team character and leader George ‘Hannibal’ Smith, played in the 1980s TV series by the late George Peppard.
Rowling is believed to have bought the superyacht in 2023, renaming it Samsara after it was previously completed in 2015 with the title Infinity before later being called Cloud 9.
‘Samsara’ is a Sanskrit word that translates as ‘wandering’ and is also used as a reference to death and rebirth in the ancient Indian tradition of karma.
The boat is 88.5 metres long, can accommodate 12 guests and a crew of 26, while also featuring a 5m circular pool, a beach club and a ‘state of the art’ cinema.
Rowling also hit back at suggestions she was smoking a ‘blunt’, associated with cannabis use, in the picture she shared.
She posted: ‘To those celebrating the fact that I’m smoking a blunt: it’s a cigar. Even if it decided to identify as a blunt for the purposes of this celebration, it would remain objectively, provably and demonstratively a cigar.’
She also told in replies how the photo was taken by one of her daughters and the drink she was sipping was an ‘Old Fashioned’ cocktail.
Earlier in the evening, Rowling had shared a photo on X of what appeared to be two glasses of prosecco under a sunny canopy, as she toasted the decision with her husband Neil Murray.
Alongside the image, she wrote: ‘We toasted you @ForWomenScot. Neil says it’s TERF VE Day [laughing emoji] #SupremeCourt #WomensRights.’
The term ‘TERF’ is used to describe people whose views on gender identity are seen as hostile towards transgender people.
The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be protected from discrimination as a woman under the Equality Act.
The Scottish government had argued that such people were entitled to sex-based protections, meaning a transgender person with a GRC certificate identifying them as female would count towards women’s quota – but campaign group For Women Scotland claimed they only applied to people born female.
JK Rowling’s cigar post has prompted praise from followers on social media, including mentions of 1980s TV series The A-Team and former UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill
The judgment was celebrated by women’s rights groups who opened a bottle of champagne. Pictured: Susan Smith (centre left), Marion Calder (centre right) and Helen Joyce (right)
Alongside the image, she wrote: ‘ We toasted you @ForWomenScot. Neil says it’s TERF VE Day [laughing emoji] #SupremeCourt #WomensRights’
Harry Potter author JK Rowling, pictured in April 2018, welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling
The Supreme Court has announced that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex in a landmark ruling. Pictured: Campaign group For Women Scotland celebrating the judgement
Lord Hodge said that five Supreme Court justices had unanimously decided that ‘the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act refer to a ‘biological woman and biological sex’
Marion Calder (centre), Helen Joyce (centre left) and Maya Forstater (left) celebrate outside the Supreme Court in London
The ruling comes after years of campaigning by gender-critical figures including Harry Potter author Rowling, who reacted on Wednesday by posting on X: ‘It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK. @ForWomenScot, I’m so proud to know you.’
She later added: ‘Trans people have lost zero rights today, although I don’t doubt some (not all) will be furious that the Supreme Court upheld women’s sex-based rights.’
In an 88-page ruling, the justices said: ‘The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.’
They stated: ‘A person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the female gender does not come within the definition of a ‘woman’ under the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory guidance issued by the Scottish ministers is incorrect.’
High-profile cases which have caused controversy in recent years include that of a transgender double rapist who was jailed for eight years in February 2023 after raping two women in West Dunbartonshire and Glasgow.
The sex attacker was charged with the offences as Adam Graham, but changed gender while waiting to stand trial and took the name Isla Bryson.
The case sparked public outcry, including from JK Rowling, after Bryson was sent to the all-female Cornton Vale prison outside Stirling, before later being transferred to a male prison.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has praised yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling as a ‘victory’ for women and said it meant the ‘era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end’.
JK Rowling has been posting on X, formerly Twitter, about today’s Supreme Court verdict
For Women Scotland directors Susan Smith (left) and Marion Calder (right) celebrate the landmark ruling
The case of transgender double rapist Isla Bryson (pictured), who was jailed for eight years in February, sparked controversy after the attacker was initially sent to a women’s prison
Transgender double rapist Isla Bryson (pictured)
In handing down the court’s judgement, Lord Hodge said he recognised ‘the strength of feeling on both sides’ and cautioned against seeing the judgment as a triumph for one side over another, stressing that the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
He said: ‘The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological woman and biological sex.
‘In a judgement written by Lady Rose, Lady Simler and myself, with whom Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones agree, we unanimously allow the appeal.’
Lord Hodge added: ‘But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.
‘The Equality Act gives transgender people protection not only against discrimination through the protected characteristics of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and harassment, in substance in their acquired gender.’
He recognised the ‘strength of feeling on all sides’ which lies behind the case, adding: ‘On the one hand women, who make up one half of the population, have campaigned for over 150 years to have equality with men and to combat discrimination based on their sex. That work still continues.
‘On the other hand, a vulnerable and often harassed minority, the trans community, struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity.’
The judgment was celebrated by women’s rights groups, who cheered outside the court, opened a bottle of champagne and broke into song after the ruling was handed down.
But a furious protester shouted, ‘Trans rights are human rights’ at those gathered, adding: ‘Even if you kill every last one of us another will be born tomorrow.’
Marion Calder, co-director of FSW which successfully challenged the Scottish Government, told the Daily Mail that she was ‘absolutely’ delighted by the judgment – ‘as I’m sure the vast majority of women across Great Britain feel’, she added.
‘Even today we had absolutely no idea which way this was going to go.
‘We’re just a grass routes organisation that started up in my living room ten years ago with absolutely nothing but a plan to fight back to maintain women’s rights.
‘We actually thought that if we just spoke to governments either here in Westminster or up in Scotland that they would listen, but we were unfortunately mistaken.’
She said that she ‘certainly hopes’ it draws a line under the gender debate, adding: ‘In day to day life, you can go around and it doesn’t really matter what your sex is.
‘But in certain circumstances it is very important, such as prisons or women’s sport, changing rooms or rape crisis centres. This is where it’s actually important.
‘Especially for the lesbians who intervened in this case, if they hadn’t actually won today it would have been illegal for lesbians, or gay men, to have a group of more than 25 people if they didn’t admit the opposite sex and we’d have the ridiculous notion of a lesbian with a penis.’
Maya Forstater, chief executive of human rights charity Sex Matters which intervened in the case, also said she was ‘delighted’ by the outcome.
She added: ‘We are delighted that the Supreme Court has accepted the arguments of For Women Scotland and rejected the position of the Scottish Government.
‘The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not to paperwork.’
Conservative party leader MrsBadenoch praised campaign group FWS.
‘Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in law either,’ she said.
‘This is a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
‘The era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end. Well done to For Women Scotland!’
Mims Davies, the shadow minister for women, hailed it as a ‘clear victory for common sense’.
The UK Supreme Court decision is a ‘victory for women across the United Kingdom’, the leader of the Scottish Tories has said.
What does the Supreme Court gender ruling mean?
Crowds of people cheered and broke into song after the ruling was handed down
Activists celebrate after hearing the outcome of the Supreme Court’s judgment on how to define a ‘woman’, in London on Wednesday
The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) stipulating their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Equality Act
Marion Calder (centre), co-director of FSW which successfully challenged the Scottish Government, told the Daily Mail that she was ‘absolutely’ delighted by the judgement
The outcome is set to have implications across England, Scotland and Wales
Fiona McAnena, Maya Forstater, Pam Ghosal and Helen Joyce stand outside the Supreme Court after the ruling
Susan Smith and Marion Calder celebrate as they leave the Supreme Court after the verdict
Russell Findlay hailed the decision, which confirmed that the definition of woman in the 2010 Equality Act refers to biological women, as an ‘abject humiliation for the SNP’.
Kate Barker, chief executive of campaign group LGB Alliance which intervened in the case, described the judgment as a ‘profound relief’.
She said it marked a watershed moment in the fight for lesbian rights following years of mounting attacks, in particular from proponents of gender identity ideology.
‘The ruling confirms that the words “gay” and “lesbian” refer to same-sex sexual orientation and makes it absolutely clear that lesbians wishing to form associations of any size are lawfully entitled to exclude men – whether or not they possess a GRC,’ she said.
‘It is difficult to express the significance of this ruling – it marks a watershed for women and, in particular, lesbians who have seen their rights and identities steadily stolen from them over the last decade.’
Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: ‘Today the Supreme Court ruled that a gender recognition certificate does not change a person’s legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.
‘We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the Court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.
‘As we did not receive the judgment in advance, we will make a more detailed statement once we have had time to consider its implications in full.’
The United Nation’s special rapporteur on violence against women and girls praised the ruling as a ‘triumph of reason and facts’.
Reem Alsalem said: ‘I welcome this decision by the UK Supreme Court holding that the term “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act of 2010 refers to biological sex.
‘It represents the triumph of reason and facts based deliberations and the return of common sense.
‘Congratulations to For Women Scotland and all their allies that have supported them in their quest to uphold the rights of women to equality and non-discrimination.
‘The ruling is a recognition that the erasure of the ordinary meaning of sex in law and in policies has rendered it impossible to upholding the protection [of] women, including lesbians on the basis of the characteristic of sex. Beyond the UK, I hope other jurisdictions are paying attention to this groundbreaking ruling.’
Lara Brown, thinktank Policy Exchange’s senior research fellow for culture and identity, said: ‘By confirming that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means “biological sex”, the Supreme Court has secured women’s sex-based rights – rights to which they have always been entitled as a matter of law.
‘While this is a welcome victory, it should never have been left to the courts to answer the question of “what is a woman?”
‘Had the Government used their statutory powers to clarify that sex in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, when Policy Exchange called for them to do in 2023, the Scottish ministers would never have been able to issue unlawful advice on the subject.’
Activists celebrate after hearing the outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling on how to define a ‘woman’
Ceri Williams, from Labour Women’s Declaration, told the Mail: ‘The Labour Government has repeatedly stated its commitment to the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act for biological women. It was in their manifesto.
‘The work starts today to make sure that all governments departments and public bodies review and revise all their policies to bring them in line with this common sense judgement from the Supreme Court.’
Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry said former Scotland First Minister Nicola Sturgeon owed her an apology.
She said: ‘I’m a long-term feminist. I’m a lesbian who came out in the Eighties and campaigned against Section 28.
‘I’ve had to put up with my own party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, calling me a bigot and a transphobe for sticking up for the rights of women and lesbians.
‘I think she owes all of us, not just me, and more importantly the women of Scotland, an apology.’
TV writer Graham Linehan, who was outside court following the decision, said: ‘I think for 10 years we’ve had two things fighting each other, which is women’s rights and the desire of some men to be considered women in all circumstances.
‘And today that that is no longer tenable. I think that people have been harassed out of their jobs have been put in prison cells, dragged through tribunals or have had to launch tribunals themselves. I think that’s all over – so I couldn’t be happier.’
But a pro-transgender group has claimed that the gender-critical campaigners have ‘links to the global far-Right’.
Activists celebrate after hearing the outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling on how to define a ‘woman’
Women celebrate the verdict and hug one another. A placard reads: ‘I will not call the man who raped me ‘she’ your honour
Campaign group Labour for Trans Rights said: ‘The Supreme Court’s decision is hugely disappointing, and a result of ceaseless lobbying from a well-funded anti-trans network with links to the global far-Right.
‘We will continue to fight against all attempts to strip trans people of their rights, and will use all levers within the Labour Party to make trans voices heard.’
In their 88-page judgment, Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler said that while the word ‘biological’ does not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, ‘the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman’.
The justices added that interpreting biological sex with GRCs would ‘cut across the definition of the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way’.
They continued: ‘We can identify no good reason why the legislature should have intended that sex-based rights and protections under the EA 2010 should apply to these complex, heterogenous groupings, rather than to the distinct group of, biological, women and girls, or men and boys, with their shared biology leading to shared disadvantage and discrimination faced by them as a distinct group.’
The justices said that transgender people are still protected from discrimination, but that ‘gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and inequality’.
They said: ‘This conclusion does not remove or diminish the important protections available under the Equality Act 2010 for trans people with a GRC as we have explained.
‘To the contrary, this potentially vulnerable group remains protected in the ways we have described.’
The judgement could have far-reaching implications on how sex-based rights apply, including how women-only spaces are allowed to operate
Their ruling also deemed that the certificated sex interpretation would have ‘rendered meaningless’ a section of the 2010 Equalities Act dealing with protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
This interpretation would mean ‘a trans woman (a biological male) with a GRC (so legally female) who remains sexually oriented to other females would become a same-sex attracted female, in other words, a lesbian’ and would lead to an ‘inevitable loss of autonomy and dignity for lesbians’ as well as impacting lesbian clubs and associations.
The judgment continues: ‘Read fairly, references to sex in this provision can only mean biological sex. People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate.’
A Government spokesman said: ‘We have always supported the protection of single sex spaces based on biological sex.
‘This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
‘Single sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.’
The Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 is a piece of legislation intended to increase the proportion of women on public boards in Scotland.
In 2022, FWS successfully challenged the original act over its inclusion of trans women in its definition of women.
Maya Forstater, chief executive of human rights charity Sex Matters which intervened in the case, also said she is ‘delighted’ by the outcome
The Court of Session ruled that changing the definition of a woman in the act was unlawful, as it dealt with matters falling outside the Scottish Parliament’s legal competence.
Following the challenge, the Scottish Government dropped the definition from the act and issued revised statutory guidance – essentially, advice on how to comply with the law.
This stated that under the 2018 Act the definition of a woman was the same as that set out in the Equality Act 2010, and also that a person with a GRC recognising their gender as female had the sex of a woman.
FWS challenged this revised guidance on the grounds sex under the Equality Act referred to its biological meaning and said the Government was overstepping its powers by effectively redefining the meaning of ‘woman’.
However, their challenge was rejected by the Court of Session’s Outer House on December 13, 2022.
The Inner House upheld that decision on November 1, 2023 – but did grant FWS permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
The appeal at the Supreme Court before Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Rose and Lady Simler was heard last November and, after the two-day hearing, the judges said they would ‘take time to consider very carefully’ before issuing the judgment on April 16.
During the hearing, Aidan O’Neill KC, for FWS, told justices the Scottish ministers’ position that sex, man and woman in the Equality Act refer to ‘certificated sex’- as the sex on a person’s birth certificate which could be amended by a GRC – is ‘just wrong and should be rejected by the court’.
But Ruth Crawford KC, for the Scottish Government, said a person who becomes a woman ‘in consequence of a GRC’ is entitled to those protections ‘just as much as others enjoy those protections who are recorded as a woman at birth’.
She also said the ‘inevitable conclusion’ of the FWS challenge is that trans women with GRCs would ‘remain men until death for the purposes of the Equality Act’.
The court was also told that since the Gender Recognition Act was passed in 2004, 8,464 people in the UK had obtained a GRC.
The Court of Session ruled that changing the definition of a woman in the act was unlawful, as it dealt with matters falling outside the Scottish Parliament’s legal competence.
Following the challenge, the Scottish Government dropped the definition from the act and issued revised statutory guidance – essentially, advice on how to comply with the law.
This stated that under the 2018 Act the definition of a woman was the same as that set out in the Equality Act 2010, and also that a person with a GRC recognising their gender as female had the sex of a woman.
FWS challenged this revised guidance on the grounds sex under the Equality Act referred to its biological meaning and said the Government was overstepping its powers by effectively redefining the meaning of ‘woman’.
However, their challenge was rejected by the Court of Session’s Outer House on December 13, 2022.
The Inner House upheld that decision on November 1, 2023 – but did grant FWS permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
The appeal at the Supreme Court before Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Rose and Lady Simler was heard last November and, after the two-day hearing, the judges said they would ‘take time to consider very carefully’ before issuing the judgment on April 16.
During the hearing, Aidan O’Neill KC, for FWS, told justices the Scottish ministers’ position that sex, man and woman in the Equality Act refer to ‘certificated sex’- as the sex on a person’s birth certificate which could be amended by a GRC – is ‘just wrong and should be rejected by the court’.
But Ruth Crawford KC, for the Scottish Government, said a person who becomes a woman ‘in consequence of a GRC’ is entitled to those protections ‘just as much as others enjoy those protections who are recorded as a woman at birth’.
She also said the ‘inevitable conclusion’ of the FWS challenge is that trans women with GRCs would ‘remain men until death for the purposes of the Equality Act’.
The court was also told that since the Gender Recognition Act was passed in 2004, 8,464 people in the UK had obtained a GRC.
SOURCE:
______________________
- My husband, but I didn’t want to hear it from him
- Other Christian women speakers
- Other preachers
- Books and other materials, but I would not take heed
GOSPEL LIGHT MINUTE X #447 WITH DANIEL WHYTE III
The question is not “Have you joined a church?” or “Are you trying to do your best?” or “Do you have religion?” but “Are you twice-born?” Jesus Christ said in John 3:3, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”.
We enter the physical world by birth. Spiritual life likewise is entered with a birth. We become members of a human family by birth; we become members of the family of God by birth, by being “born again.” There is no other way to get into the human family except by birth, and there is no other way to get into God’s family except by the new birth. Neither education, nor cultivation, nor reformation, nor “turning over a new leaf,” will accomplish this. What is needed is not a new “leaf” but a new “life”! “Ye must be born again” (John 3:7).
By physical birth we become partakers of human nature; by being born again we become “partakers of the divine nature”. A Christian is the product of a divine “begetting”. The second birth is not an improvement of the old nature; it is the imparting of an entirely new nature. The old nature is hopelessly corrupt and incapable of ever being made fit for His presence. The new birth requires a creative act of the Holy Spirit. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature”.
Simply “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”. The Bible says in 1 John 5:1, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God”. The Bible states in John 1:12,13, “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”.
You are born again, you become a Christian by trusting a Person—receiving a Person. The very moment you do this, the Lord Jesus Christ comes in and life begins!
To “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” means more than simply believing the historic facts concerning Him. Intellectual belief about Christ is not sufficient. The belief that brings salvation must be “with the heart,” that is, with the whole being. This belief also includes repentance: “Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ”. The Bible states in Acts 17:30, “God … now commandeth all men every where to repent”.
This is an important question. We know that we are born again by the testimony of God’s Word. God says in John 5:24, “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life”. Have you believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as explained by God’s Word? If so, then you are saved, you are “born again,” you have “passed from death unto life.” God says so! Take God at His Word, and go on your way rejoicing!
You may “belong to a church,” you may be “trying to do the best you can,” you may be “striving to live right.” Your outward life may be the model of moral correctness, and you may be looked up to, honored, revered, and respected. Yet, if you have not been “born again” you are just as lost as if you had never heard of Christ. Yes, you may teach in the Sunday school, read the Bible, sing, shout, “feel happy,” and all the rest—but if you have never been “born again” you are still in your sins and a stranger to the Lord Jesus Christ!.