Being "born again" in the sense that one has a personal revelation about Jesus Christ is unique to evangelical churches. In all other forms of Christianity, the term "born again" refers to baptism,
If this is correct - and I know too little about 'all other forms of Christianity' to confirm or deny it - then maybe one of us is using the term 'born again' wrongly. (Unless, of course, the new birth and baptism, though different, are more closely linked that we realise.)
We know the answer to this question.
But even if your usage is right and it refers to baptism, surely you must have some way of referring to that moment, or experience, or process, or quiet inward event unrecognised at the time but known later by its effect, when a man turns to the Lord?
Sure. Conversion/repentance. And it is repeated (unlike baptism) over and over and over again.
When he is aware the he is united to Christ, is 'in Christ'? that God has forgiven his past - glorious release!
- and given him a new start and a new direction? that he now consciously believes? When he can say (someone said I am always citing Wesley!):
I know, I feel, my sins forgiven,
Blessed with this antepast of heaven.
If we are mistaken in using the phrase being 'born again', or 'the new birth' for this, then what should we call it? and what do you call it?
Now you are always citing Ignatius, so what about this?
I have observed that ye are perfected in an immovable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ... and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded in every truth.
the Holy Spirit "who is the Author of saving knowledge" (Smyrnaeans, Philadelphians)
The experience of being 'born again', of assurance of salvation, runs from Ignatius to the present day,
You don't finish the letter:
I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this....Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return
to [a true belief in] Christ's passion, which is our resurrection.
among all sorts and conditions of men, of many tribes, nations and tongues.
Yes. It's called the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I do not think its reality can easily be denied.
It's not. Not by us at least.
If entering into it is not rightly called the new birth (as we call it), then what do you call it?
I often think it is ironic that we pay so much attention to getting the form of baptism right, and give far too little thought to its meaning; whilst you give a lot of thought to its meaning, and - dare I say it? - have got the form all wrong by applying it to infants
Whoever does not become as a child will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Who is more like a child, than a child? Christ seems to answer that by bringing the child (by tradition/legend St. Ignatius) to demonstrate His point. The meaning of baptism determines that "form" of baptism.
and not to believers only
No one calls Christ "Lord" but by the Holy Spirit. Since adults can't believe without grace, why would we deny that grace to infants?
(and - I'm not sure of your practice here - of not using total immersion)?
Actually total immersion is (and should be) the norm. I have a serious of photos of people watching my son before, during and after the baptism. You can tell the "during" photos from the look of shock on their faces.
Again, ought we not to approach each other more nearly?
You mean bring our meaning of baptism closer? Now, what did St. Ignatius just say about that?
Of course, this isn't a thread about baptism - and I am surprised that there doesn't seem to be one, unless I'm missing it.
You can always start one.