What does BORN AGAIN mean?

[JamesL]

So, you believe the "death" which was "passed" on to all men was merely physical death and not spiritual death??? So physical death is the causation for spiritual death in your opinion? Look at the wording of Romans 5:12 and then Romans 5:15-19 where he repeatedly states over and over that the SINGULAR SIN of ONE MAN is the cause for the consequences of death, judgement, condemnation to ALL MEN! Are you restricting this to only men AFTER Pentecost?

Yes, the death that was passed to all men was merely physical death. Scripture EXPLICITLY tells us that our spirit comes from God, not Adam (Zech 12:1-2, Eccl. 12:7).

Our body comes from Adam, our spirit comes from God. That explicitly debunks the false/heretical view of Traducianism.

The spiritual death view of Romans 5 has Adam corrupting the very breath from God which He hasn't breathed yet.

Also, if spiritual death is passed through physical means, then Christ was born spiritually dead. Not a chance. He died physically, being a physical descendant of Adam.



I'll get to the rest after church...gotta run

 

[JamesL]

I would rather hear evidence than slanderous accusations. I hope we can keep this conversation above that level of conversation. Evidence please?

You had an opinion about those who hold positions 3-5

Are you suggesting I'm not allowed to have an opinion? I did express it as an opinion, which does not amount to slander.

I suppose my alternate opinion would be that those who hold #1 & #2 are altogether ignorant of what regeneration is in the first place.

But I guess I'm still saying the same thing

 

[Revmitchell]

Well it's double talk if you say it yes and no. You cannot say born again does not equal being indwelt by the spirit. Born of spirit or born of flesh.....your eather one or the other no third option.

Actually, The difference is the covenant. Under the OT Covenant there was no internal sealing (Eph 1:13). God did on special occasions move from within men by by and large God acted externally. Examples of this were the Garden, burning bush, Moses, etc.


We no longer see this external moving of God because we are now sealed and indwelt. This promise or indwelling was first given to the NT church (John 16:7) it was never given to OT Saints. It first occurred to man at Pentecost (Acts 2).

It is a sign of the promise of God to believers, it is the earnest of our salvation (Eph 1:13-14), and is only ever promised to the NT church.

So yes the OT Saints were not indwelt with the HG and were saved. No NT church Saints cannot be without the sealing of the HG and be saved.

Two different covenants, two different ways God deals with man.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, the death that was passed to all men was merely physical death. Scripture EXPLICITLY tells us that our spirit comes from God, not Adam (Zech 12:1-2, Eccl. 12:7).

David tells us that our physical bodies come from God also (Psa. 139) and are "fearfully and wonderfully made" by God in the womb, and in the womb he "fashioned" them. However, that does not go along with your interpretation does it? He gives both the body and spirit its individuality in the womb but the whole man is reproduced after its kind not merely PART of man.

So you don't believe that mankind is designed to reproduce after themselves but only PART of themselves? You don't believe the human spirit and soul is not part of reproducing AFTER ITS OWN KIND, but what man actually reproduces is something far different than what God made man to be - spirit, soul and body? Thus he does not reproduce after his own kind but after ANOTHER KIND - merely a PHYSICAL human shell. You have the reproduction of mankind merely a PHYSICAL and PARTIAL reproduction. Tell me, do you believe the same thing about animals, they simply reproduce physical shells and God creates the soul of each animal at birth?

Also, if spiritual death is passed through physical means, then Christ was born spiritually dead. Not a chance. He died physically, being a physical descendant of Adam.

If the whole man is reproduced, then it is not merely and purely a physical reproduction is it?

In regard to Christ, the Bible says that it is by "one MAN" that sin is passed down. However, in regard to Eve, God said that Jesus would be the "seed of the woman" not the "seed" of the man. Until modern times medical science believed only the man had "seed" and the woman was merely an incubator for that seed. Spiritual death is passed down through the male ("by one MAN") and that is precisely why the INCARNATION was required. The humanity of Jesus was acquired from the mother void of the law of indwelling sin. His "Father" is God from the womb. Our Father is God from new birth but that does not mean we had no "spirit" prior to new birth. The human spirit as well as the body was obtained from Mary without the law of indwellng sin passed from the male to the male and female offspring. But is the male alone that can pass it on to the offspring. The female receives it but cannot pass it on, thus the incarnation avoided the law of indwelling sin received from the human father.

Nowhere can it be found that by the woman the principle of indwelling death is "passed" to others. Paul does not say "By Adam AND Eve" sin entered or death was passed but by "one MAN's sin" the indwelling principle of death was "passed" to "many" and to "all".

Moreover, we have five children and eleven grandchildren, and not a single one of them had to be trained to do those things described as "works of the flesh" but every one of them was naturally inclined toward those things from birth? Why is that? In addition, every single one had to be trained not only to distinguish between good and evil but to do good which required discipline to enforce it? Why is there natural inclination against good? Does your theory explain that?

 

[The Biblicist]

You had an opinion about those who hold positions 3-5

Are you suggesting I'm not allowed to have an opinion? I did express it as an opinion, which does not amount to slander.

I suppose my alternate opinion would be that those who hold #1 & #2 are altogether ignorant of what regeneration is in the first place.

But I guess I'm still saying the same thing

alright. However, the difference is I dissed a view whereas you dissed the person holding that view calling them "ignorant". However, putting that aside, can we agree to keep our conversation civil and if we want to attack something can it be non-personal and just a view?

 

[The Biblicist]

David tells us that our physical bodies come from God also (Psa. 139) and are "fearfully and wonderfully made" by God in the womb, and in the womb he "fashioned" them. However, that does not go along with your interpretation does it? He gives both the body and spirit its individuality in the womb but the whole man is reproduced after its kind not merely PART of man.

So you don't believe that mankind is designed to reproduce after themselves but only PART of themselves? You don't believe the human spirit and soul is not part of reproducing AFTER ITS OWN KIND, but what man actually reproduces is something far different than what God made man to be - spirit, soul and body? Thus he does not reproduce after his own kind but after ANOTHER KIND - merely a PHYSICAL human shell. You have the reproduction of mankind merely a PHYSICAL and PARTIAL reproduction. Tell me, do you believe the same thing about animals, they simply reproduce physical shells and God creates the soul of each animal at birth?







If the whole man is reproduced, then it is not merely and purely a physical reproduction is it?

In regard to Christ, the Bible says that it is by "one MAN" that sin is passed down. However, in regard to Eve, God said that Jesus would be the "seed of the woman" not the "seed" of the man. Until modern times medical science believed only the man had "seed" and the woman was merely an incubator for that seed. Spiritual death is passed down through the male ("by one MAN") and that is precisely why the INCARNATION was required. The humanity of Jesus was acquired from the mother void of the law of indwelling sin. His "Father" is God from the womb. Our Father is God from new birth but that does not mean we had no "spirit" prior to new birth. The human spirit as well as the body was obtained from Mary without the law of indwellng sin passed from the male to the male and female offspring. But is the male alone that can pass it on to the offspring. The female receives it but cannot pass it on, thus the incarnation avoided the law of indwelling sin received from the human father.

Nowhere can it be found that by the woman the principle of indwelling death is "passed" to others. Paul does not say "By Adam AND Eve" sin entered or death was passed but by "one MAN's sin" the indwelling principle of death was "passed" to "many" and to "all".

Moreover, we have five children and eleven grandchildren, and not a single one of them had to be trained to do those things described as "works of the flesh" but every one of them was naturally inclined toward those things from birth? Why is that? In addition, every single one had to be trained not only to distinguish between good and evil but to do good which required discipline to enforce it? Why is there natural inclination against good? Does your theory explain that?

Paul provides only two possible alternatives in Romans 8:8-9. Notice that being "in the Spirit" is equal to being indwelt by the Spirit (v. 9). Can one be "in the Spirit" but not in spiritual union with the Spirit? How would that be possible? And if being "in the Spirit" is equal to being indwelt by the Spirit, and Paul says it is equal, then would not being in union with the Spirit ("in the Spirit) be equal to being indwelt by the Spirit??? If not, why not? If not, where is the third option listed by Paul???

 

[Jedi Knight]

.

So yes the OT Saints were not indwelt with the HG and were saved. No NT church Saints cannot be without the sealing of the HG and be saved.

Two different covenants, two different ways God deals with man.

I respectfully disagree because I use to believe it was like that. Some would point out the HS came UPON the at certain times "and He did" but that's like at Pentecost....came UPON them with power. It wasn't as if God said can't touch you till the NT covenant work it's way through.....nope the Lords spirit dwelt in them as well. 1 Peter 1:11 "They wondered what time or situation the Spirit of Christ within them was talking about when he told them in advance about Christ's suffering and his great glory afterward."

 

[kyredneck]

Actually, The difference is the covenant. Under the OT Covenant there was no internal sealing (Eph 1:13). God did on special occasions move from within men by by and large God acted externally. Examples of this were the Garden, burning bush, Moses, etc.


We no longer see this external moving of God because we are now sealed and indwelt. This promise or indwelling was first given to the NT church (John 16:7) it was never given to OT Saints. It first occurred to man at Pentecost (Acts 2).

It is a sign of the promise of God to believers, it is the earnest of our salvation (Eph 1:13-14), and is only ever promised to the NT church.

So yes the OT Saints were not indwelt with the HG and were saved. No NT church Saints cannot be without the sealing of the HG and be saved.

Two different covenants, two different ways God deals with man.

So says the Rev: God DOES change and Jesus Christ IS NOT the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Actually, The difference is the covenant. Under the OT Covenant there was no internal sealing (Eph 1:13).

So God has more than one covenant of salvation? Ephesians 1:13 is describing the work of the Holy Spirit in those "chosen in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4-12). So no pre-pentecost believer was chosen "in him" before the world Began? Is it possible there is salvation, redemption OUTSIDE of him at any time for anyone????

We no longer see this external moving of God because we are now sealed and indwelt.

This is simply false as Acts 8:16 explicitly says of baptized believers that the Spirit had not yet come "UPON" them. The contextual evidence is that he is referring to the POWER of the Spirit in the form of spiritual gifts because (1) Simon visible saw manifested power he wanted to purchase; (2) the power of the Spirit in visible manifested spiritual gifts. God still comes and goes in regard to POWER upon both saved and lost to empower them to accomplish his will.

 

[Jedi Knight]

I would rather hear evidence than slanderous accusations. I hope we can keep this conversation above that level of conversation.

Amen!:wavey:

 

[JamesL]

I respectfully disagree because I use to believe it was like that. Some would point out the HS came UPON the at certain time "and He did" but thats like at Pentecost....came UPON them with power. I wasn't as if God said can't touch you till the NT covenant work it's way through.....nope the Lords spirit dwelt in them as well. 1 Peter 1:11 "They wondered what time or situation the Spirit of Christ within them was talking about when he told them in advance about Christ's suffering and his great glory afterward."

I agree with the Rev and his view of the indwelling. HOWEVER, Indwelling is not regeneration

Regeneration is a washing, a cleansing. Read Lev 16 and Heb 9-10. Read the significance of the goats. One as a scapegoat to REMOVE the sins of the people, and the other as a sin offering to ATONE for the sins of the people.

These were symbolic in the animals, which could never make perfect those who draw near (Heb 10:1, 4, 11).

But the blood of Christ cleanses all sins (Heb 10:18-22). He has forever perfected those who draw near (Heb 10:14). Read Heb 9:11-14 while you're at it.

If this were only a "symbolic" or figurative washing and cleansing, then why did Christ die? There was already a symbolic system of sacrifice. And if it had been faultless, there would have been no need to seek a second (Heb 8:7)


Do you get a load of the emphatic wording employed by the write of Hebrews?

The first was not faultless, meaning the second is
The first could never remove sin, and the second does
The first could never perfect the worshiper, but the second does.

There is a literal, objective difference between the first covenant and the second. If anyone thinks their sins are "covered" by the blood of Christ, that person is WOEFULLY ignorant of the difference between these two covenants.

The blood of animals already covered sins. The blood of Christ REMOVES sins and forever perfects the worshiper. It's the WASHING of regeneration. a cleansing. It's a reality now, whereas it was a symbol in times past.

Draw near with confidence.

 

[JamesL]

alright. However, the difference is I dissed a view whereas you dissed the person holding that view calling them "ignorant". However, putting that aside, can we agree to keep our conversation civil and if we want to attack something can it be non-personal and just a view?

There's nothing uncivil about calling someone ignorant. You spend so much time trying to dissect the preciseness of Greek, yet you don't care about preciseness in English?

Ignorant is unknowledgeable through ignoring. There's culpability in ignorance. People are ignorant by their own laziness.

Take the Reformation idea of Covenant Theology, diminish the difference between the blood of goats and the blood of Christ, diminish the washing of regeneration, relegating the new birth to puny and subjective elements of "changed disposition", then teach it to lazy people who have no interest in challenging anything they're taught...

And you have a bunch of ignorant people running around talking about their sins being covered by Christ, who apparently couldn't do any better with our sins than an animal.

 

[Jedi Knight]

I agree with the Rev and his view of the indwelling. HOWEVER, Indwelling is not regeneration

It's Synonymous!
In or out......saved or unsaved.....regenerate or unregenerate.

 

[Jedi Knight]

There's nothing uncivil about calling someone ignorant.

Ignorant is unknowledgeable through ignoring. There's culpability in ignorance. People are ignorant by their own laziness.

Ask a moderator if you are being rude with it here....can I get a witness?

 

[JamesL]

Ask a moderator if you are being rude with it here....can I get a witness?

Maybe it's high time somebody got rude about this issue.

It makes me want to puke when supposed "scholars" and teachers talk about the blood of Christ covering sins, when scripture says otherwise

Then to have lazy people gobble it up and spread it around without any care to check it out,

Like you. You keep making assertions which are contrary to scripture, probably because you were taught that drivel without using a critical ear. Then you've simply rolled with it and probably never have tested the teaching in light of scripture

I can tell by the knee-jerk responses and repetitive assertions in the face of the many scriptures I've quoted

 

[JamesL]

It's Synonymous!
In or out......saved or unsaved.....regenerate or unregenerate.

You keep saying it, but I don't see anything to support the assertions

Saying something over and over may convince you, but it does nothing to change reality

 

[Jedi Knight]

Maybe it's high time somebody got rude about this issue.

It makes me want to puke when supposed "scholars" and teachers talk about the blood of Christ covering sins, when scripture says otherwise

Then to have lazy people gobble it up and spread it around without any care to check it out,

Like you. You keep making assertions which are contrary to scripture, probably because you were taught that drivel without using a critical ear. Then you've simply rolled with it and probably never have tested the teaching in light of scripture

I can tell by the knee-jerk responses and repetitive assertions in the face of the many scriptures I've quoted

You seem to shed more heat than light...... you are saying so far in the Poll 5 "ignorant" people and 2 "scriptural"......thanks for your contribution.

 

[The Biblicist]

Take the Reformation idea of Covenant Theology,

I do not embrace Reformation Covenant theology for many reasons other than what you listed.

Remission of sins was received prior to the cross by faith in the coming Christ (Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:11) just as it is received by faith after the coming of Christ (Heb. 4:2).

Sacrifices prior to Moses forward to the Christ were simply gospel ordinances that NEVER removed sin as sin was already removed by faith in the coming Christ (Heb. 11:4; 13:20; Acts 10:43), just as the Lord's Supper and baptism are gospel ordinances that NEVER remove literal sin but are declarative of sins removed already by faith in Christ (Heb. 4:2).

 

[The Biblicist]

Maybe it's high time somebody got rude about this issue.

It makes me want to puke when supposed "scholars" and teachers talk about the blood of Christ covering sins, when scripture says otherwise

Sins were remitted actually and literally by faith in Christ prior to the cross as Acts 10:43 and Romans 4:6-11 explicitly states so.