Are we born Spiritually "alive" or "dead"?

[glfredrick]

False dichotomy...and since I am not in that camp, apology accepted

Which "camp" would you identify with? Just trying to see how and where you fit into the continuum between Pelagianism to hyper-Calvinism. It will help me to stop making assumptions based on a handful of words shared back and forth in these posts.

 

[webdog]

Which "camp" would you identify with? Just trying to see how and where you fit into the continuum between Pelagianism to hyper-Calvinism. It will help me to stop making assumptions based on a handful of words shared back and forth in these posts.

On this matter, I'm neither in Augustine's nor Pelagius'. I'm in that camp, but first and foremost I strive to be in God's camp.

 

[glfredrick]

Have you read the OT? Do you believe it is God's word?

God had sacrifices for sins of ignorance. Christ is that sacrifice.

Christ's sacrifice (once for all sins) covers the sins of ignorance by those who cannot discern right from wrong.

I agree that Christ is the "perfect" and "all sufficient" sacrifice, made once for all time and all people. The OT was a type or shadow of the coming Messiah, predicted in Genesis 3 in God's revelation of the proto-evangelum and lived out in the salvation history of Israel.

But you are in error if you think that God makes exceptions for sins of ignorance. That a sacrifice was needed for those sins indicates that you are incorrect in your assumption.

Are you now turning toward a universalist position, where all are saved? That seems to be the direction that you are headed in all of this. After all, you have made a special class for persons who do not or can not accept Christ and written off their sins in a sense, by the actions of Jesus, even if they cannot materially participate in belief. Yet, you also indicate that persons must come to Christ based on their own freedom of will (am I correct?). Somehow, your arguments get tangled between an intentional human action and a universal salvific action by Christ, where no human participation is required.

Just trying (like with webdog) to figure out what it is that you do believe so that I can approach these discussions from a position other than assumption. Like I said above, I'm not here to beat anyone up. That would be an intentional sin and I'm not trying to go there, but I also wish to "contend for the faith once delivered for the saints..."

 

[glfredrick]

On this matter, I'm neither in Augustine's nor Pelagius'. I'm in that camp, but first and foremost I strive to be in God's camp.

I'll not accept that, for you are all over the place, and you should be able to fit somewhere into that continuum, even if you do not accept the labels (nor do I, but I know where I stand).

 

[webdog]

But you are in error if you think that God makes exceptions for sins of ignorance. That a sacrifice was needed for those sins indicates that you are incorrect in your assumption.

He didn't make an exception, He made atonement for those sins! Ignorance and unintentional are the same thing. We are not held accountable for them, per Jesus.

If you think it's turning "universal", you are not following along too well. In fact, it is your camp that needs a special dispensation of salvation beyond "by grace THROUGH faith" or a science fiction approach that a zygote can understand the Gospel.

 

[webdog]

I'll not accept that, for you are all over the place, and you should be able to fit somewhere into that continuum, even if you do not accept the labels (nor do I, but I know where I stand).

I don't care if you accept that, I don't answer to you. I answer to God. Because you will only accept an "either / or" scenario doesn't make you the authority nor right on the matter.

You hold to the trinity, and so does the Church of Christ and Roman Catholics. This is like me telling you you must be one or the other if you hold to that view.

 

[Amy.G]

He didn't make an exception, He made atonement for those sins! Ignorance and unintentional are the same thing. We are not held accountable for them, per Jesus.

If you think it's turning "universal", you are not following along too well. In fact, it is your camp that needs a special dispensation of salvation beyond "by grace THROUGH faith" or a science fiction approach that a zygote can understand the Gospel.

:thumbsup: You saved me a lot of typing.

 

[glfredrick]

Part 1:

Do you understand what hyperbole is?

Of course, but as long as we're tossing Bible around... :thumbs:

But, do you doubt that God could or would do what He says? :smilewinkgrin:

I heartily disagree. I think it is Augustine's position that takes linguistic, judicial, logical and theological gymnastics to arrive at said position.

The irony is this is what you have in essence done...taken justice, understanding of simple definitions a child can understands, not to mention poetic / figurative language and completely turned them on their heads to arrive at a presupposition which is needed to make the whole of a particular doctrine work. I allow Scripture to define words, define justice and explain spiritual life and spiritual death and how one arrives at both.

How so? I find God's election EVERYWHERE in Scripture, both expressed in clear language and inferred in the means that God used to choose persons, family lines, a nation of people, a place for their residence, prophets, priests, kings, and finally the family of Messiah, and even after that, those who would come to Him by grace through faith.

Is the thought that God choses our eternal destiny so distasteful that you have a need to disavow that doctrine? If so, then are you yet in rebellion against the utter Lordship of God?

Paul already answered this in Romans 6 and 7. He emphatically states apart from the law (knowledge) he was alive, and when he understood, "sin sprang to life and I died". Not he considered himself dead, or hypothetically speaking he was dead. He states point blank "I died".

I disagree, and you have stated a point counter-factual to Paul's premise that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Just for grins, how was it that Paul himself came to be an apostle of Christ? Did he go looking for Christ and make a willful decision to become a believer? What mission was Paul on, willfully, when he came to know Christ as Lord and Savior?

As Paul starts in Romans, he says this to the congregation in Rome:

Rom 1:6-7 ... including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, 7 To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Who "called" these believers to faith?

As Paul works through his thoughts, he says this:

Rom 1:13 I want you to know, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.
It was Paul's "will" to come to Rome, but he was prevented. Who prevented him? What of this:

Act 16:6-10 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. 7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. 8 So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." 10 And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

It would seem that God knew what would happen to Paul once he arrived in Rome, and from what we read in Acts after chapter 16, we know that Paul made it to Rome, but likely not in the way he thought that he would.

Who orchestrated all of Paul's travels?

Back to Romans, Paul launches his argument, that is extended through chapters 6-7 here:

Rom 1:18-22 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools...

It would seem that Paul is removing any excuse (including ignorance) from the line of reasoning concerning the fact that he would make in chapter 3 that "all have sinned..."

In chapter 2, Paul takes on those who feel somehow qualified to judge between groups of men (and we remember that earlier in ch. 1, he mentioned Jew and Greek):

Rom 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.

To make it sure what he was talking about, and specifically noting that the claim of the Jews to be "secure in their salvation because they had the law," Paul writes:

Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

Clearly, the law is no savior, but neither is lack of the law. There is a real dilemma here, in that those who do not have the law of God do not know how to walk with God in the ways God proscribes, and so they are damned (ch. 1), and those who do have the law and cannot follow it (and who can?) are also damned (the balance of ch. 2)

In the beginning parts of ch. 3, Paul lays out a case that all have sinned, with or without the law, then picking up on the thought I expressed above (who can be saved?) he says:

Rom 3:21-28 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

It is God who "gifts" us with His grace, and with faith that leads to repentance, which we "receive by faith". He is the "just and the justifier."

Nowhere do we see any language that suggests that we humans have within us the capacity to come to Christ on any merit or wisdom of our own. Nor, do we see any mention of previnient grace that awakens us to where we might make a "good choice" in favor of faith. No, rather, Paul cites the OT when he says, Rom 3"10b-12 "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

See next post...

 

[glfredrick]

Part 2:


In chapter 4, Paul recapitulates the story of Abraham and Abraham's faith. Again, we need to ask a question or two. How was it that Abraham came to know God? Ur of the Chaldees was not known as a center of orthodox godliness, nor were there "Scriptures" that Abraham could read, that being left for much later when Moses would finally tell the story of creation, exile, exodus, and entry into the promised land, including the revelation of God's laws.

Did Abraham "seek after God" and find God? Or, did God elect Abraham (Abram) and reveal Himself?

In Ch. 5, Paul sums up his argument to that point and notes that we are made right because of Christ:

Rom 5:2 Through him [Christ] we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Again, we have obtained something "by God's actions" not by our human efforts. Our "hope" stems from Christ! God "poured into us" the Holy Spirit and salvation. We did not reach out and grasp it.

Rom 5:5 ...and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

Rom 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

What comes next in chapter 5 requires an entire book unto itself, but I will simply highlight a few texts and let the Scripture talk.

Rom 5:12-19 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. I guess that some might "cherry pick" this verse and make a case about the law or absence (as you have seemingly done):

5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

But Paul does not let us rest in that single verse. He goes on to make clear that we are GIVEN a "free gift" that is centered in Jesus Christ alone.

We are all sinners. We are all dead. It is through Christ alone that we are made alive.

And, finally, we come to chapter 6. Paul starts off with this:

Rom 6:6-11 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

We are not merely joining up with Christ through some assent on our part, or even through "faith" by human will. We are CRUCIFIED with Christ and made a new creation when we are justified from our sin. Death is the only escape from slavery to sin, and if we were once slaves to sin, we were not truly free (see Rom 1-2) and now, we are not our own, but we were "bought with a price."

Rom 6:16-18 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

And, finally, chapter 7, where Paul says this, the center part of your argument...

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

But, did not Paul earlier make a point that we are all sinners, with or apart from the Law? Indeed, he did just that. So why does Paul make this statement (that I believe you are cherry picking from his entire argument)?

Well, Paul explains:

Rom 7:13 Did that which is good, [the Law] then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

Paul returns to his argument started in ch.1, where he states very clearly that SIN is the cause of death (or separation from God if you like). We see that Paul was making a statement, rather tongue in cheek about how the law condemned him to death, for so it seems, but here as his argument continues, he comes right back to the real cause -- sin -- with or apart from the law, the actual bringer of spiritual death.

Of course, if we stop at the end of ch, 7, we don't resolve the issue fully, so we'll turn briefly to ch. 8 for some resolution:

Rom 8:1-2 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

Again, it is Christ who sets us free.

Paul drives this home:

Rom 8:8-11 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

I recall mentioning somewhere that we were dead, but made alive in Christ... :thumbsup:

See Next Post:

 

[glfredrick]

Part 3:

This coincides perfectly with what Jesus told the Pharisees in John 9:41 "Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." Notice Jesus' use of "remains". They were not innocent while not guilty. They were not innocent of unintentional sin they had committed without knowledge, and they were not guilty of another's sin (Adam).

I agree that we are not "guilty" of Adam's sin. No one has said that, though you and Amy G have both argued that we who suggest other than your positions must hold that as truth. We each sin and that is enough to find us guilty, but the Bible is very clear, "by one man sin entered the world..." So we inherit the culpability of Adam and cannot be born otherwise. The "sin nature that Luke (board member, not gospel writer) speaks of is correct, though his way of illustrating that point seems to have broken down somewhat.

In the passage in John, when Jesus used the term "remains" He seems to be indicating something that the Pharisees wish to disavow. That they were sinners -- always, which is what Paul just said above as well. In a sense, Jesus here argues the same thing that Paul does later in Romans 1; that we are not blind, and that there is plenty of evidence for God, even in the natural world.

So, at the end of this discourse, I find that you have seriously mis-represented both Paul and Jesus with your arguments, and that you are cherry picking a few verses based on a word or two, not looking to the general context of the passages in question, nor following the arguments made in each case, just so that you can somehow bring to bear biblical evidence for your theology.

I'll chide you just a bit, because we are expressly commanded to not do that in Scripture, but I'll also (as above) respect the fact that at least you are in the Word.

I'll also add my thanks, you've cause me to be in the Word a ton today as well. I always appreciate that, even if I don't get a thing done at work... :saint:


End... :sleeping_2:

 

[glfredrick]

He didn't make an exception, He made atonement for those sins! Ignorance and unintentional are the same thing. We are not held accountable for them, per Jesus.

If you think it's turning "universal", you are not following along too well. In fact, it is your camp that needs a special dispensation of salvation beyond "by grace THROUGH faith" or a science fiction approach that a zygote can understand the Gospel.

Did you not see the verses I published that indicate that God has some action in the womb?

 

[glfredrick]

I don't care if you accept that, I don't answer to you. I answer to God. Because you will only accept an "either / or" scenario doesn't make you the authority nor right on the matter.

You hold to the trinity, and so does the Church of Christ and Roman Catholics. This is like me telling you you must be one or the other if you hold to that view.

Nope, you are equivocating.

I am only asking you where you fall along the continuum between utter man-centered Pelagianism and the uber-deterministic God (i.e., akin to Allah of Islam) of Hyper Calvinism.

You do not have to identify with any of the terms, and I do not either, but as I said, I know where I stand along that continuum.

Your failure to identify your position means that you either do not know it (which I doubt) or you fear that if revealed it may harm your cause.

 

[Amy.G]

What does it mean to be born again? How can you be born again if you never had life to begin with?

 

[Iconoclast]

What does it mean to be born again? How can you be born again if you never had life to begin with?

Sorry to point this out......but it is born from above

Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'

 

[jbh28]

What does it mean to be born again? How can you be born again if you never had life to begin with?

Sorry to point this out......but it is born from above

What Iconoclas said...

The term Jesus used means both again and above. Very possibly Jesus is using a play on words. Being born again means that you have a second birth(physical 1st, and spiritual the 2nd) It doesn't mean that you were ever alive spiritually. It also means born from above. Jesus isn't talking about a 2nd physical birth, but a spiritual birth(second birth)

 

[glfredrick]

For that, you need to argue with Jesus...

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus, the Sanhedrin member who came to Jesus with questions asked this, which prompted Jesus' response above:

Jhn 3:1-2 ¶ There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Jesus responded, and Nicodemus had your question:

Jhn 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jhn 3:5-8 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Jhn 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

Jhn 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
So, are you asking "how" one can be born again, or how one can be "born again?"

The answer will change based on the emphasis of your question. One is "born again" when God performs the act of salvation in the spiritually dead person. We cannot "birth" ourselves. That is true. That sort of throws a damper on any human-based concept of salvation, i.e., "we come to Christ in faith." Merely knowing or claiming the name of Christ is not salvific if God does not cause one to be "born again."

Earlier in his gospel, John said this, which ties in:

Jhn 1:12-13 But as many as received him [Jesus], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Peter agrees:

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Again, we see clearly that it is not the will of man, nor one's birth that causes a salvific relationship with God through Jesus Christ, but in fact, a re-birth.

2Cr 5:17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

What I have seen over the years is a distinct mis-application, misunderstanding, or even a deliberate mis-guiding concerning these texts concerning a spiritual re-birth.

I came out of the Lutheran tradition, and not once do I recall (in almost 20 years of church life, including instruction in both Luther's and Kurth's Catechism) hearing a single word about being born again. I switched to a Wesleyan tradition when I joined the United Methodist church. Same there. I studied their catechism and was accepted for membership in the church, and married there, but nary a word about being "born again."

Since then, I've become "born again" myself, not through my efforts, but because God came seeking me out while I hated Him. I've mentioned loosing our son, what I haven't said (at least I don't think I did) was that we cursed God and died during that event. We told the pastor (and God) to stuff his church right up his blankety-blank-blank, in no uncertain terms and walked away from "religion" and God, and His church, and His Bible, seemingly forever.

It was while I was hardened in that state that God came to me, and I praise Him every day for what He did!

You see, we can come to God -- of course we can come to God. Millions do! We can take His Word and learn it. We can build huge or small churches, fill them with congregations, who have all came to God. We can wrap our lives around coming to God. We can sing hymns, write songs, speak prayers, read Scripture, follow the church calendar, and start new congregations, all by "coming to God." All this is very religiously zealous and appears to be the work of authentic Christian faith.

But...

But, unless God comes to us, and we are born again from above, we are nothing more than zealously religious. Unless God comes and makes what was dead, alive, we are just coming to God under our own power and our own works. And, I greatly expect that a bunch of people on this board are in exactly that place. Just like I was once in my life! Unless or until God elects us, calls us, justifies us, regenerates us, adopts us, seals us, indwells us, gives us faith and the power to repent, and works discipline in us through sanctification, ultimately leading to glorification, we are not born again from above, we are merely "religious."


I fully believe that Paul was writing about just these sort of "religious" teachers when he penned:

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

 

[psalms109:31]

Repent or perish

It isn't about the babies it is about us and what we do with the message. We will see God being just with these little one's and we will make a claim God is Just in His Judgement and He will wipe all our tears away.

Do not be side tracked by something that can't be changed but lift them up in prayers and petitions to God.

Luke 13
Repent or Perish
1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

 

[webdog]

Nope, you are equivocating.

Bologna. The truth is not found in either and I'm quite comfortable in not holding to either.

I am only asking you where you fall along the continuum between utter man-centered Pelagianism and the uber-deterministic God (i.e., akin to Allah of Islam) of Hyper Calvinism.

You do not have to identify with any of the terms, and I do not either, but as I said, I know where I stand along that continuum.

Your failure to identify your position means that you either do not know it (which I doubt) or you fear that if revealed it may harm your cause.

No, it is your perception I have failed to identify my position. If you have been following along in this thread you can see my position quite clear. Your "fear" comments are comical.

 

[Fred's Wife]

Born once...die twice

Born twice...die once

 

[Amy.G]

Sorry to point this out......but it is born from above

John 3:3-4 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?


Even though Nicodemus didn't understand the spiritual application of what Jesus said, he did understand that Jesus was talking about a SECOND birth.


Born again is the correct term and the Holy Spirit knew what He was talking about when the biblical authors wrote it down.