Are you born again ? Then here you are...

[JIM]

That is what I was responding to, 95% of which you ignored in responding back. If you can't keep track then why do I bother? You also say that regeneration, the new birth, comes after we believe. I have been going to the trouble to show you that the Bible, Jesus HImself, says otherwise.

The trouble is that the Bible, Jesus Himself, doesn't show otherwise, no matter that you think it does.

 

[Arial]

The trouble is that the Bible, Jesus Himself, doesn't show otherwise, no matter that you think it does.

Since I laid out my argument in post #388 that is contrary to what you state here, if it is a discussion you want, and not just to say something you don't like or don't understand, or don't believe is not in the Bible, then you need to go back to that post and then put forth your support for disagreeing with it.

If you can't do that then it suggests the reason you can't is because your beliefs on the subject are not based on anything other than what you want to believe, and that there is no biblical support to refute that post with.

 

[JIM]

Since I laid out my argument in post #388 that is contrary to what you state here, if it is a discussion you want, and not just to say something you don't like or don't understand, or don't believe is not in the Bible, then you need to go back to that post and then put forth your support for disagreeing with it.

If you can't do that then it suggests the reason you can't is because your beliefs on the subject are not based on anything other than what you want to believe, and that there is no biblical support to refute that post with.

Okay, I went back and reread Post #388.

Referencing verse 3 you said, "This is likely a reference to OT passages that link "water" and "Spirit" as a single spiritual truth to express the pouring out of God's Spirit in the end times (after the resurrection) and the purification and new life that flow from His arrival. (Is 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:25-27)"
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but at the same time I think that "water and Spirit" might just as well reference the water and Spirit associated with the baptism of Jesus had just experienced, by John the Baptist and more than likely Nicodemus knew about and may have witnessed.

You then said, "Jesus goes on to underscore that this new birth is of the Holy Spirit and not through any actions or will of a man, such as believing. The new birth must come prior to believing".

I agree that Jesus says that being born again is by the Holy Spirit. However, there is nothing there that says that it must come before believing.

You ended with, "And if that were not enough it has already been attested to by John in John 1:12-13 "But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh no of the will of man, but of God."

But those two verse spell out clearly that it is those who received him, who believed in His name that were born again; the order of events there seems clear enough to me. First receive and believe, then comes the right to become children of God. Which is what I answered in Post #391, though perhaps I did not make myself clear enough.

So let me repeat. It is those who received Jesus and who believed in His name that were given the right to become children of God. It is those who receive Jesus and who believe in his name that are born again, by the will of God. It is those who received Jesus and who believed in His name that are regenerated.

Notice that they are contrasted with those who did not receive Jesus (John 1:11).

 

[Eleanor]

They are spiritually alive, born so by Jesus' obedience (Rom 5:18). The become spiritually dead in tresspasses and sins (Eph 2:1),

The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men (Ro 5:18).

All are born condemned, including by the imputation of Adam's sin/guilt (Ro 5:12-15), which was the cause of the death of all mankind between Adam and Moses, even when there was no sin charged to them because there was no law to sin against, but yet they all died because of sin. Whose sin? Adam's sin imputed to them at birth, and for which Adam was the pattern (Ro 5:14) of Christ, whose righteousness is likewise imputed to those born of him (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[JIM]

The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men (Ro 5:18).

Yes but the result of one act of righteousness was the justification and life for all men (Rom 5:18). There is no justification for changing the meaning of the phrase "all men" in the verse.

I would add here that Paul's discussion here is not about the results of our sins. Paul said in verse 15, "the free gift is not like the trespass". It is trespass, not trespasses. This is only addressing Adam's sin. Paul's discussion that deals with our sins in the next chapter, Chapter 6.

Paul is saying in these verses that the results of the one act of righteousness negated the results of the one trespass. The results of Adam's trespass would have been death for all men right from birth. But the results of Jesus one act of righteousness changed that for all men right from birth. What happens after that is up to all men and Paul discusses that in Chapter 6. Actually, he begins that discussion in 5:20,

 

[Eleanor]

Yes but the result of one act of righteousness was the justification and life for all men (Rom 5:18). There is no justification for changing the meaning of the phrase "all men" in the verse.

In light of the first Adam (Ro 5:14) and last Adam being presented in Ro 5:18-19, the imputation of the first Adam's sin to all those born of the first Adam, and the imputation of the second Adam's (Christ) righteousness to all those born of the second Adam (Christ) is clear.

I would add here that Paul's discussion here is not about the results of our sins. Paul said in verse 15, "the free gift is not like the trespass". It is trespass, not trespasses. This is only addressing Adam's sin. Paul's discussion that deals with our sins in the next chapter, Chapter 6.

Paul is saying in these verses that the results of the one act of righteousness negated the results of the one trespass. The results of Adam's trespass would have been death for all men right from birth. But the results of Jesus one act of righteousness changed that for all men right from birth.

There is no change in our condemnation until we are born again by the sovereign act of the Holy Spirit, based on nothing but his sovereign choice to do so, his choice being as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8). You have no more to do with your spiritual rebirth than you did with your natural birth.

What happens after that is up to all men and Paul discusses that in Chapter 6. Actually, he begins that discussion in 5:20,

Not according to the NT. Check out Eph 2:8-9.

 

[JIM]

In light of the first Adam (Ro 5:14) and last Adam being presented in Ro 5:18-19, the imputation of the first Adam's sin to all those born of the first Adam, and the imputation of the second Adam's (Christ) righteousness to all those born of the second Adam (Christ) is clear.

It doesn't say that at all. There is no mention of a "second Adam". Nor is there anything said of any "born of the first Adam" or "born of the second Adam".

 

[Arial]

Okay, I went back and reread Post #388.

Referencing verse 3 you said, "This is likely a reference to OT passages that link "water" and "Spirit" as a single spiritual truth to express the pouring out of God's Spirit in the end times (after the resurrection) and the purification and new life that flow from His arrival. (Is 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:25-27)"
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but at the same time I think that "water and Spirit" might just as well reference the water and Spirit associated with the baptism of Jesus had just experienced, by John the Baptist and more than likely Nicodemus knew about and may have witnessed.

You then said, "Jesus goes on to underscore that this new birth is of the Holy Spirit and not through any actions or will of a man, such as believing. The new birth must come prior to believing".

I agree that Jesus says that being born again is by the Holy Spirit. However, there is nothing there that says that it must come before believing.

You ended with, "And if that were not enough it has already been attested to by John in John 1:12-13 "But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh no of the will of man, but of God."

But those two verse spell out clearly that it is those who received him, who believed in His name that were born again; the order of events there seems clear enough to me. First receive and believe, then comes the right to become children of God. Which is what I answered in Post #391, though perhaps I did not make myself clear enough.

So let me repeat. It is those who received Jesus and who believed in His name that were given the right to become children of God. It is those who receive Jesus and who believe in his name that are born again, by the will of God. It is those who received Jesus and who believed in His name that are regenerated.

Notice that they are contrasted with those who did not receive Jesus (John 1:11).

I will have to respond to this tomorrow as I am going offline for the night. Hopefully I won't forget and if I do, give me a nudge.

 

[Carbon]

If baptism is the way the unsaved are brought into Christ, no wonder Christ spoke of being “born of water and spirit.” Baptism is the instrument of new birth according to the New Testament.

In which way do you mean? Water baptism? If so, scripture does not teach baptismal regeneration.

 

[JIM]

In which way do you mean? Water baptism? If so, scripture does not teach baptismal regeneration.

You are correct. Scripture does not teach baptismal regeneration.

But it does teach baptism for the making of disciples of all nations.

And it does teach baptism for the forgiveness of sin and the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And it does teach that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

And it does teach baptism for washing away sins.

And it does teach baptism for walking in the newness of life.

And it does teach baptism for the "putting on Christ".

And it does teach baptism for the circumcision of Christ to be raised with Him.

None of those are baptismal regeneration. So yes, you are correct, Scripture does not teach baptismal regeneration.

 

[Carbon]

You are correct. Scripture does not teach baptismal regeneration.

But it does teach baptism for the making of disciples of all nations.

And it does teach baptism for the forgiveness of sin and the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And it does teach that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

And it does teach baptism for washing away sins.

And it does teach baptism for walking in the newness of life.

And it does teach baptism for the "putting on Christ".

And it does teach baptism for the circumcision of Christ to be raised with Him.

None of those are baptismal regeneration. So yes, you are correct, Scripture does not teach baptismal regeneration.

Thank you so much

 

[Arial]

Referencing verse 3 you said, "This is likely a reference to OT passages that link "water" and "Spirit" as a single spiritual truth to express the pouring out of God's Spirit in the end times (after the resurrection) and the purification and new life that flow from His arrival. (Is 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:25-27)"
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but at the same time I think that "water and Spirit" might just as well reference the water and Spirit associated with the baptism of Jesus had just experienced, by John the Baptist and more than likely Nicodemus knew about and may have witnessed.

The point is whether or not the new birth must occur before belief, not what "water and Spirit" mean. But if Jesus was making a reference to Is 32:15;44:3; Ezek 36:25-27, they say nothing about baptism and it could not refer to Christ's baptism by John because Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus how one enters the kingdom of God. By being born again of God. Jesus was already the King of that kingdom and He did not need to be reborn. And notice what it says in Ezek 35:25-27. 'I (God) will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.---And I will deliver you from all your uncleanness.'

So if these passages were a reference to the OT verses listed, that is the reason Jesus was chastising Nicodemus in verse 10. Being a teacher of the Jews, he should have known what Jesus meant when He said one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. And then He went on to explain that it was an action of the Holy Spirit and He was that King of Righteousness in Is 32.

I agree that Jesus says that being born again is by the Holy Spirit. However, there is nothing there that says that it must come before believing.

It is an argument from silence in this case, though it is further revealed by the apostles after His resurrection as it could only be fully comprehended until then. The "silence" is that it says nothing about believing in those passages. If believing came first, that would be the place for Jesus to say that and remove all doubt and confusion on the matter, but instead He says "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." And no place in scripture is the word "choose" or "decide" attached to "believe," "receive," "repent" or any form of those words. Ever.

You ended with, "And if that were not enough it has already been attested to by John in John 1:12-13 "But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh no of the will of man, but of God."

But those two verse spell out clearly that it is those who received him, who believed in His name that were born again; the order of events there seems clear enough to me. First receive and believe, then comes the right to become children of God. Which is what I answered in Post #391, though perhaps I did not make myself clear enough.

But Jesus has told us in John 3 already that one can't receive Him, or believe Him, until they are born again. (See above) So you do not take John 3 into consideration when you read John 6. Instead, you assume something is there that is not, Otherwise John contradicted Jesus. It was perfectly clear what you were saying about John 6. However it was incorrect.

So let me repeat. It is those who received Jesus and who believed in His name that were given the right to become children of God. It is those who receive Jesus and who believe in his name that are born again, by the will of God. It is those who received Jesus and who believed in His name that are regenerated.

They receive and believe because they have been born again. If that is not the case someone is lying. Either Jesus or John. The other option is that you use eisegesis to interpret John 6, not taking John 3 into consideration, and are not at all disturbed that you have made a contradiction in the Bible. And will continue interpreting the meaning of various scriptures with the contradiction firmly in place. If you are measuring a board lets say, and your first measurement is off by a tiny fraction, by the time you go to place that board was intended to be placed, the ending measurement is off by much more that a tiny fraction. So it is with a premise. Off at one point and everything that follows is off.

 

[Eleanor]

It doesn't say that at all. There is no mention of a "second Adam". Nor is there anything said of any "born of the first Adam" or "born of the second Adam".

Same can be said for "Trinity."

 

[donadams]

Although "Protestants", in many cases, do just as much, if not MORE violence to the Biblical texts as Catholics (Roman and otherwise) do.

"Protestant", in reality, means nothing more than: "Ain't Catholic".

You mean it’s a pride based rebellion of Jesus Christ and His church and His revealed truth?

Really?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

You mean it’s a pride based rebellion of Jesus Christ and His church and His revealed truth?

Really?

Nope it's just a simple stating of the facts.

The "Holy Roman Catholic religious system" is nothing more than just another collection of denominations, claiming to be the "one True Church". Since the Catholic religious system contradicts the Bible over and over with it's phony "Interpretations", We want nothing to do with it.

 

[Augustin56]

History would seriously disagree with you.

The Catholic Church is the original (and only) Church founded by Jesus Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, the Apostle, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about.
It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

The Orthodox broke off in 1154 A.D. See the background history on this here:

And Protetantism didn't begin until the 16th century, started by an ex-Catholic monk, Martin Luther, on his own, self-appointed authority. And it has continually splintered ever since, into literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations, all based on individual personal interpretation of Scripture, which St. Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20-21.

BTW, the term "Roman" Catholic Church is not the official name of Christ's Church. It is simply the Catholic Church. The "Roman" part was a pejorative used by Anglicans to attack the Catholic Church when they broke off because the Pope wouldn't sanction King Henry VIIIth's divorce and remarriage.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

History would seriously disagree with you.

The Catholic Church is the original (and only) Church founded by Jesus Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, the Apostle, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about.
It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

The Orthodox broke off in 1154 A.D. See the background history on this here:

And Protetantism didn't begin until the 16th century, started by an ex-Catholic monk, Martin Luther, on his own, self-appointed authority. And it has continually splintered ever since, into literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations, all based on individual personal interpretation of Scripture, which St. Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20-21.

BTW, the term "Roman" Catholic Church is not the official name of Christ's Church. It is simply the Catholic Church. The "Roman" part was a pejorative used by Anglicans to attack the Catholic Church when they broke off because the Pope wouldn't sanction King Henry VIIIth's divorce and remarriage.

Jesus didn't use the word "Catholic" ever, so how could he have founded the "catholic church"?

Besides, why did the Protestant Reformation even happen? Do you know the reasons for it? It's easy to dismiss Protestantism because you BELIEVE the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church but assertions without reasons are easily dismissed. You would have to tell us why the Reformers broke away from Rome. It might have something to do with all that extra Biblical revelation that came centuries after the canon was closed?

 

[donadams]

The fullness of truth was revealed by Christ to His apostolic church
Eph 4:5 Jude 1:3
Just cos it was defined and explained centuries later don’t make it new doctrine or new revelation

Thanks

 

[donadams]

According to scripture Christ is the only reformer, the new covenant church the only reformation!
Heb 9:10

Thanks

 

[donadams]

Christ and His church are one inseparable unity! Acts 9:4 Jn 15:5 acts 1:8 eph 5:24 eph 5:32

Only Christ has authority to establish the church! Matt 16:18-19
One church! Jn 10:16 All others are sects “full of errors” “the tradition of men”! The new covenant Church is the eternal city of God! Household of faith! The pillar and ground of TRUTH! 1 Tim 3:15 Founded by Christ alone! Matt 16:18 on Peter and the apostles! Eph 2:20

The church is of divine origin and cannot be corrupted or reformed by the tradition of men! Truth is immutable!

The church the only ark of salvation, the household of faith and is not spiritual to the exclusion of the physical or invisible to the exclusion of the visible but, visible, invisible, spiritual, physical, and supernatural of divine origin and therefore divine preservation! Matt 16:18-19 Jn 8:32 Jn 16:13 Jn 10:16

A city set on a hill: Matt 5:14
Light of the world: Matt 5:14
Pillar of truth: 1 Tim 3:15
Teach and sanctify all men: Matt 28:19

Unity of faith!

Four Marks of the True Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter, the apostles, and their successors!

One, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic (succeeding from Christ, Peter and the apostles)