Why is New Birth necessary?

Jn. 3:6 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.

Notice that in the context being born of God is directly contrasted to being "born of the flesh" (Jn. 3:6). Since all mankind since Adam have been "born of the flesh" what PRACTICAL value in relationship to natural birth does being born of God have since many believe that for the past 4000 years it was non-existent and for all PRACTICAL purposes unncessary for God to have close relationships with fallen man? Why is it all of a sudden a "must" with regard to being "born of the flesh" if there is no PRACTICAL value with regard to being born of the flesh for the past 4000 years and God had no problems fellowshipping with those merely "born of the flesh" without being "born again"?

What PRACTICAL necessity does it accomplish that makes it a "must" now and not then?

Is there really anyone who doubts this was stated long before Pentecost according to its historical context? If this was not a "must" for Nicodemus at the moment Jesus said it, then why tell this man he "must" be born again if it were impossible for another three years or more? Moreover why scold him for not understanding something that had no existence yet or was never a "must" up to this time?

Jn. 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

How could God justly scold Israel through Ezekiel for allowing the uncircumcised in heart for entering into the ministry in the present house of God if being circumcised in heart was unknown or non-existent? Moreover, how could Israel be scolded for something invisible and unseen as the human heart unless it was required as a matter of profession that their hearts had been circumcised by God?

Ezek. 44:5 And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary.
6 And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations,
7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
8 And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.
9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Does not Paul interpret circumcision of the flesh to symbolize the new birth and thus the circumcision of the heart the act of Christ and equal to the new birth?

Col. 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

What PRACTICAL value is the new birth if the uncircumcised fallen nature of man could be dealt with PRACTICALLY apart from new birth for the past 4000 years? Why is it all of a sudden a "must" with regard to being "born of the flesh"?

Furthermore, is there a third option in addition to being "in the flesh" versus "in the Spirit"? Becoming "in the flesh" is by being "born of the flesh" and becoming "in the Spirit" is by being "born of the Spirit." How does one become in a third option?

Finally, does not Paul define "in the flesh" with the enmity of the fallen nature toward God in Romans 8:7-8 and the only other alternative to that unalterable condition of enmity is to be "in the Spirit" in Romans 8:9? How is a third option possible since all mankind from Adam forward are "in the flesh" in the sense that Paul defines it in Romans 8:7-8 and the only other alternative provided by Paul than to be "in the Spirit" is to be "NONE OF HIS"? Are all pre-Pentecost people "none of his" since all of them have been born "of the flesh" and have the fallen nature described as being "in the flesh"?

Rom. 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Some may claim my position has some harmonizational problems with a few other passages, however, every truth has interpretational issues with a few passages but when the alternative is to have serious problems with fundamental and vital truths of scripture then my position is by far the better option. Especially is my position the better option when I can provide reasonable answers for the few problems while the opposing system cannot provide PRACTICAL APPLICATIONAL reasons for denying my position.

I don't want your theoretical interpretational reasons based upon a few passages for rejecting new birth for 4000 years prior to Pentecost but your PRACTICAL APPLICATIONAL reasons why the new birth was unnecessary and not a "must" for those 4000 years but now is a "must".

I don't understand. What are you saying was non-existent?

Revmitchell said:

I don't understand. What are you saying was non-existent?

Click to expand...

There are those of the forum who Deny existence of the new birth prior to the cross

The Biblicist said:

There are those of the forum who Deny existence of the new birth prior to the cross

Click to expand...

There are also those who show that without controversy men were not born again before Pentecost.

The Biblicist said:

Either deal with 0P our stay off the thread

Click to expand...

This...

Darrell C said:

So when are infants that die in the womb born again?

Click to expand...

...deals with the OP.

Dismantles it, in fact.

The Biblicist said:

Notice that in the context being born of God is directly contrasted to being "born of the flesh" (Jn. 3:6). Since all mankind since Adam have been "born of the flesh" what PRACTICAL value in relationship to natural birth does being born of God have since many believe that for the past 4000 years it was non-existent and for all PRACTICAL purposes unncessary for God to have close relationships with fallen man?

Click to expand...

...assumes there was no "close relationship with God" prior to the coming of the Comforter Who fulfills the Promise of God (and the teaching of Christ) concerning the coming of the Spirit, the Promise of the Father (Acts 1:4-5).

God has always ministered within the hearts of men, and has held relationships with men prior to Pentecost, but, we can see those relationships fail to meet that which we have in the New Covenant relationship we enjoy in Christ in this Age. The Spirit is in us, not with us, for example.

So just like another thread seeking to deny that men were not born again before Pentecost, because they were not Eternally Redeemed through Christ, even so this thread is going to need to deal with infants that die in the womb, who must be reconciled to God at some point.

So is that before death, or after death?


God bless.

Darrell C said:

There are also those who show that without controversy men were not born again before Pentecost.




This...



...deals with the OP.

Dismantles it, in fact.



...assumes there was no "close relationship with God" prior to the coming of the Comforter Who fulfills the Promise of God (and the teaching of Christ) concerning the coming of the Spirit, the Promise of the Father (Acts 1:4-5).

God has always ministered within the hearts of men, and has held relationships with men prior to Pentecost, but, we can see those relationships fail to meet that which we have in the New Covenant relationship we enjoy in Christ in this Age. The Spirit is in us, not with us, for example.

So just like another thread seeking to deny that men were not born again before Pentecost, because they were not Eternally Redeemed through Christ, even so this thread is going to need to deal with infants that die in the womb, who must be reconciled to God at some point.

So is that before death, or after death?


God bless.

Click to expand...

So says Darrell But as usual does not address any of the biblical evidence just gives his own opinion pathetic

The Biblicist said:

So says Darrell But as usual does not address any of the biblical evidence just gives his own opinion pathetic

Click to expand...

Its not my burden, Biblicist. Your thread, your doctrine, my question.

Do you think you have no burden to answer questions that challenge your doctrine?

Here it is again:

So when are infants that die in the womb born again?

You're the one claiming to know what you're talking about, so educate me.

When are infants that die in the womb born again?

Surely you have an opinion on this? If not, I can supply quite a few quotes from several threads.




God bless.

Good post, Biblicist.
The concept of the circumcision of the heart goes back to Moses (Deuteronomy 10:16) and appears in Jeremiah 9:25-26 in connection with judgement on Israel, because despite their following of the ceremonial law (circumcision of the flesh), they were no better than the surrounding nations because they did not have what circumcision depicted- a renewed heart.

The Biblicist said:

Jn. 3:6 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.

Notice that in the context being born of God is directly contrasted to being "born of the flesh" (Jn. 3:6). Since all mankind since Adam have been "born of the flesh" what PRACTICAL value in relationship to natural birth does being born of God have since many believe that for the past 4000 years it was non-existent and for all PRACTICAL purposes unncessary for God to have close relationships with fallen man? Why is it all of a sudden a "must" with regard to being "born of the flesh" if there is no PRACTICAL value with regard to being born of the flesh for the past 4000 years and God had no problems fellowshipping with those merely "born of the flesh" without being "born again"?

What PRACTICAL necessity does it accomplish that makes it a "must" now and not then?

Click to expand...

And the contrast addresses Nicodemus' error, for he gives this answer to Christ's statement:


John 3

King James Version (KJV)


1 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.

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.

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?

5 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.


There is no endorsement of Nicodemus' answer, the Lord rebukes him for being in error.

The argument that men must have been born again "because Christ would not have told him he had to" is...

...probably the best argument those who teach men have always been born again have.

And it still doesn't negate the positive arguments that show men were not born again, which to date you have not even bothered to respond to. Nor anyone trying to teach new birth prior to Pentecost.

Here is one: how can you claim the disciples looked forward to the cross when I have shown you several times they were unbelieving after the Lord's Resurrection and knew not the Scriptures that He must rise again?

They were in relationship to Christ, were they not?

Now, for your argument that new birth must have been possible, let's take a look at this:

First, the Lord's response deals within that which was revealed to Nicodemus' and His reference to the Kingdom would have had to fit within that understanding. IT is quite clear that Israel expected a physical Messiah and were not aware of the promises of God from the eternal perspective as we are. The Kingdom in all probability deals with the physical Kingdom they awaited.

Secondly, the relation of the flesh to being born again (from above) is non-existent, as you try to incorporate it. Nothing in what Christ demands for entrance to the Kingdom of God has to do with physical man. Not the water, nor Nicodemus' erroneous implication with his question, which, to be fair to Nicodemus, may have been a euphemism for "starting over," as I have heard it said by some commentators (and which I neither affirm or deny, I do not see it as changing the scope of what is actually taught by Christ).

Third, the Lord's rebuke makes it clear Nicodemus' is ignorant of what He is speaking about, which if the Lord meant "circumcision of the heart" would still show Nicodemus way off base. But, the Lord is referring to, not something that was found in the Old Testament (and it is very true that the heart was judged in regards to genuine belief or not) in reality, but in the Old Testament in Promise:


Ezekiel 36:24-27

King James Version (KJV)


24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


This is the promise of the New Birth, complete with their return to the Land, the water that some mistakenly confuse with physical water, and erroneously teach the false doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, a new heart, a new spirit, and...the indwelling of the Spirit of God.

This is what Nicodemus should have thought of.

It is the operation of God in fulfillment of His Promises to Israel.

Let's look at the rebuke:


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.


The new birth is not something that can be witnessed by the eye.



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


10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?


If there were a "circumcision of the heart" in the Old Testament...it would have been as well known as it is today. The very elements of New Birth are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament...except in promise.

Christ's question simply asks..."You don't know what I'm talking about?"

He goes on to make a point:



11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.


12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?


Quite simply, "How can I explain to you what I mean if you do not understand what has already been taught you, and you have not accepted that?"

In view is a Heavenly truth, not an earthly truth, and it is specific to the Cross of Christ:


13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.


14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:


15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.


New Birth is the Promise of God which could not be bestowed until Christ died. That is the Heavenly truth Christ makes clear in this passage.

There is no correlation to that which is physical. New birth is not directly related to the physical body, glorification is.

And sorry, have had numerous interruptions so hope this isn't too sporadic.


God bless.

The Biblicist said:

Is there really anyone who doubts this was stated long before Pentecost according to its historical context? If this was not a "must" for Nicodemus at the moment Jesus said it, then why tell this man he "must" be born again if it were impossible for another three years or more? Moreover why scold him for not understanding something that had no existence yet or was never a "must" up to this time?

Click to expand...

Why tell men they must believe on Christ?

This is no different.

And I have shown you several times that the disciple were not believing on Christ even after the resurrection:


Mark 16:9-14

King James Version (KJV)


9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.


There is simply no way to work into this a view that the disciples "were looking forward to the Cross."

They were unbelieving.

The reason? Glad you asked...


John 20:5-9

King James Version (KJV)


5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.


So how about calculating this into your teaching? They knew not the Scripture that He must rise again from the dead. That means...they did not understand the Gospel presented in the Old Testament a we do, because it had not been revealed to them by the Spirit, because the Spirit had not yet been sent:


John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)


38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)




Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)


4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


So as I said, there are some who can show why men were not born again, and don't have to make excuses about "harmonizational problems," because there is no inconsistency in the Doctrine.


Continued...

The Biblicist said:

Jn. 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

How could God justly scold Israel through Ezekiel for allowing the uncircumcised in heart for entering into the ministry in the present house of God if being circumcised in heart was unknown or non-existent? Moreover, how could Israel be scolded for something invisible and unseen as the human heart unless it was required as a matter of profession that their hearts had been circumcised by God?

Click to expand...

So how is one who is uncircumcised in heart determined?

The text tells us:

The Biblicist said:

Ezek. 44:5 And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary.
6 And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations,
7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
8 And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.
9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Click to expand...

What is the standard in place...it is the Law.

Surely you aren't saying that men were circumcised in heart...by keeping the law, are you?

Have I understood you correctly, that being circumcised in heart is the Old Testament equivalent to being born again? God is telling men they can be born again by keeping the Law, which not only can be, but is defined as a visible effort here?


Continued...

The Biblicist said:

Does not Paul interpret circumcision of the flesh to symbolize the new birth and thus the circumcision of the heart the act of Christ and equal to the new birth?

Col. 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Click to expand...

And what does he contrast this too?


Colossians 2:11-14

King James Version (KJV)


11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Clearly a New Testament and New Covenant teaching. Nothing to suggest that the circumcision of Christ was present in the Old Testament, particularly in the Law, the very Covenant Christ abrogated by establishing the New Covenant.

The Biblicist said:

Furthermore, is there a third option in addition to being "in the flesh" versus "in the Spirit"? Becoming "in the flesh" is by being "born of the flesh" and becoming "in the Spirit" is by being "born of the Spirit." How does one become in a third option?

Click to expand...

Again, a New Testament Context.

Christ does not say one must be born of flesh and born of the Spirit, He states they must be born of water and the Spirit.

There is not the first thing in John 3 to support this, nor do we see anywhere where being born in the flesh is questioned. There is nothing about men being born again who have not been born of the flesh.

And there is a difference between being born in the flesh, and being in the flesh. In view is being natural and without the Spirit of God and having the Spirit of God.

The Biblicist said:

Finally, does not Paul define "in the flesh" with the enmity of the fallen nature toward God in Romans 8:7-8 and the only other alternative to that unalterable condition of enmity is to be "in the Spirit" in Romans 8:9? How is a third option possible since all mankind from Adam forward are "in the flesh" in the sense that Paul defines it in Romans 8:7-8 and the only other alternative provided by Paul than to be "in the Spirit" is to be "NONE OF HIS"? Are all pre-Pentecost people "none of his" since all of them have been born "of the flesh" and have the fallen nature described as being "in the flesh"?

Click to expand...

"In the flesh" is not a reference to physical birth.


Romans 8

King James Version (KJV)

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Nothing in John 3 that endorses a view that Christ is teaching one must be born of the flesh and born of the Spirit, it is a contrast.

And nothing in Romans 8 that suggests physical birth is in view.


Continued...

The Biblicist said:

Rom. 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Click to expand...

And it has to do with the same thing being uncircumcised in heart has to do with in the Old Testament...the mindset of the person in view. TO be uncircumcised in heart simply means that they are not in relationship to God, and the relationship allowed for in the Covenant of Law is pretty basic information for most Biblie Students.

That relationship was temporal and physical, and every man of Israel was in that Covenant...

...by birth.

That is not how men come into relationship with God through Christ:


John 1:11-13

King James Version (KJV)


11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, 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.


Men were given power to become the sons of God, to be born of God...after He came unto His own.

And they are not born of blood (heritage), nor of the will of the flesh (men do not determine to become sons of God), nor of the will of man (men do not determine other men will be born of God).

We become sons of God because we are born of God, and we can see in 1 John 5:1-5 how that takes place.


Continued...

The Biblicist said:

Some may claim my position has some harmonizational problems with a few other passages, however, every truth has interpretational issues with a few passages but when the alternative is to have serious problems with fundamental and vital truths of scripture then my position is by far the better option. Especially is my position the better option when I can provide reasonable answers for the few problems while the opposing system cannot provide PRACTICAL APPLICATIONAL reasons for denying my position.

Click to expand...

"Every truth has interpretational issues with a few passages?"

I have not seen that in the Word of God, I have seen a consistency in the revelation provided us that is always in harmony with every other passage and teaching in Scripture.

So your position is far better...than what? That men were not born again before Pentecost? A position that refuses to examine the points raised that show it is impossible for men to be born again is not even a position, my friend.

As far as practical application, we see in this the very practical application of...believe God's Word. He gave promise of the New Birth and the Eternal Indwelling, and of Eternal Remission of sins in a future day, when He would create a New Covenant.

Seems pretty practical to simply acknowledge that this was fulfilled in Christ. That is what the Writer of Hebrews states happened.

The Biblicist said:

I don't want your theoretical interpretational reasons based upon a few passages for rejecting new birth for 4000 years prior to Pentecost but your PRACTICAL APPLICATIONAL reasons why the new birth was unnecessary and not a "must" for those 4000 years but now is a "must".

Click to expand...

There is no theoretical interpretational reasons, just simply what Scripture states.

And to say that there are only a few passages applies only to your defense of your position which includes a disclaimer that "every truth has interpretational issues with a few passages."

I have given many passages, and you have addressed very few.

So how about addressing the passages this time. and if you don't mind, could you start with those presented which show the disciple themselves, men who had been enlightened to the truth that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God...were unbelievers in the Resurrection.

Because they knew not the Scriptures that He would rise again from the dead.

Why not? Because the Gospel of Jesus Christ is shown to be the Hidden wisdom of God, a Mystery not revealed to generations and Ages. It is now revealed to the saints, and saints are now made perfect in regards to remission of sins, which the Old Testament Saints were not.


God bless.

The Biblicist said:

Either deal with 0P our stay off the thread

Click to expand...

Okay, I have met your requirement, will you now answer my question?

God bless.

Darrell C said:

Its not my burden, Biblicist. Your thread, your doctrine, my question.

Do you think you have no burden to answer questions that challenge your doctrine?

Here it is again:

So when are infants that die in the womb born again?

You're the one claiming to know what you're talking about, so educate me.

When are infants that die in the womb born again?

Surely you have an opinion on this? If not, I can supply quite a few quotes from several threads.




God bless.

Click to expand...

If you disagree, Iconoclast, could you explain...why?


God bless.

The customary destruction of the thread by Darrell.
Eight posts on the trot! How is anyone who has a life outside of this forum supposed to deal with this?
Seeing this vast array of nonsense kills any desire in me to get involved at all.

May I suggest to the mods that this sort of spamming be banned? Perhaps no more than two replies to a post be permitted until the original poster responds. And perhaps posts that have nothing to do with the OP should be moved to a thread of their own

The Biblicist said:

Jn. 3:6 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.

Notice that in the context being born of God is directly contrasted to being "born of the flesh" (Jn. 3:6). Since all mankind since Adam have been "born of the flesh" what PRACTICAL value in relationship to natural birth does being born of God have since many believe that for the past 4000 years it was non-existent and for all PRACTICAL purposes unncessary for God to have close relationships with fallen man? Why is it all of a sudden a "must" with regard to being "born of the flesh" if there is no PRACTICAL value with regard to being born of the flesh for the past 4000 years and God had no problems fellowshipping with those merely "born of the flesh" without being "born again"?

What PRACTICAL necessity does it accomplish that makes it a "must" now and not then?

Is there really anyone who doubts this was stated long before Pentecost according to its historical context? If this was not a "must" for Nicodemus at the moment Jesus said it, then why tell this man he "must" be born again if it were impossible for another three years or more? Moreover why scold him for not understanding something that had no existence yet or was never a "must" up to this time?

Jn. 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

How could God justly scold Israel through Ezekiel for allowing the uncircumcised in heart for entering into the ministry in the present house of God if being circumcised in heart was unknown or non-existent? Moreover, how could Israel be scolded for something invisible and unseen as the human heart unless it was required as a matter of profession that their hearts had been circumcised by God?

Ezek. 44:5 And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary.
6 And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations,
7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
8 And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.
9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Does not Paul interpret circumcision of the flesh to symbolize the new birth and thus the circumcision of the heart the act of Christ and equal to the new birth?

Col. 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

What PRACTICAL value is the new birth if the uncircumcised fallen nature of man could be dealt with PRACTICALLY apart from new birth for the past 4000 years? Why is it all of a sudden a "must" with regard to being "born of the flesh"?

Furthermore, is there a third option in addition to being "in the flesh" versus "in the Spirit"? Becoming "in the flesh" is by being "born of the flesh" and becoming "in the Spirit" is by being "born of the Spirit." How does one become in a third option?

Finally, does not Paul define "in the flesh" with the enmity of the fallen nature toward God in Romans 8:7-8 and the only other alternative to that unalterable condition of enmity is to be "in the Spirit" in Romans 8:9? How is a third option possible since all mankind from Adam forward are "in the flesh" in the sense that Paul defines it in Romans 8:7-8 and the only other alternative provided by Paul than to be "in the Spirit" is to be "NONE OF HIS"? Are all pre-Pentecost people "none of his" since all of them have been born "of the flesh" and have the fallen nature described as being "in the flesh"?

Rom. 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Some may claim my position has some harmonizational problems with a few other passages, however, every truth has interpretational issues with a few passages but when the alternative is to have serious problems with fundamental and vital truths of scripture then my position is by far the better option. Especially is my position the better option when I can provide reasonable answers for the few problems while the opposing system cannot provide PRACTICAL APPLICATIONAL reasons for denying my position.

I don't want your theoretical interpretational reasons based upon a few passages for rejecting new birth for 4000 years prior to Pentecost but your PRACTICAL APPLICATIONAL reasons why the new birth was unnecessary and not a "must" for those 4000 years but now is a "must".

Click to expand...

As yet no one has provided anything with substance to Contradict one word I said. We have had a poster just posting nonsense personal opinions and irrational statements based on strawman argument's circular reasoning but so far no one has been able to provide any practical and or biblical objections

I have to say that I have learned something from this thread. I did not know there was anyone on this board or even in existence who called themselves a Christian and believed men were not born again in the OT. Complete news to me. Further, it is unorthodox and contrary to scripture. In fact such an idea is not even necessary. Very odd.

Martin Marprelate said:

The customary destruction of the thread by Darrell.
Eight posts on the trot! How is anyone who has a life outside of this forum supposed to deal with this?
Seeing this vast array of nonsense kills any desire in me to get involved at all.

May I suggest to the mods that this sort of spamming be banned? Perhaps no more than two replies to a post be permitted until the original poster responds. And perhaps posts that have nothing to do with the OP should be moved to a thread of their own

Click to expand...

YES......rule 5 prohibits trolling.....

Martin Marprelate said:

The customary destruction of the thread by Darrell.

Click to expand...

Not sure how addressing the OP as asked by the OP himself...is a destruction of the thread.

Report it, Martin.

Martin Marprelate said:

Eight posts on the trot! How is anyone who has a life outside of this forum supposed to deal with this?

Click to expand...

Enough with the cop-outs.

This is a Debate Forum, and when people debate...don't be so surprised. Just because you cannot incest the necesary work involved in threashing out an issue doesn't mean its wrong for someone else to do it.

Martin Marprelate said:

Seeing this vast array of nonsense kills any desire in me to get involved at all.

Click to expand...

So...point out the nonsense.

That is the typical response...in a debate.

I did it. Your turn.

Martin Marprelate said:

May I suggest to the mods that this sort of spamming be banned?

Click to expand...

Its not spamming, Martin. Each response is created as I go. There is nothing that is repeated except the Scripture references.

So report me. If they say I am spamming as well then they can show why it is spamming.

I can guarantee there would be no complaints of spamming if my doctrine agreed with yours.

Martin Marprelate said:

Perhaps no more than two replies to a post be permitted until the original poster responds.

Click to expand...

What you want to do is dictate new rules to suit your own limited ability in debate.

And the reason there are so many is because if I do posts with responses grouped together, there is complaints about length. I do short posts...there are complaints about the number of posts.

And the reality of the situation is simply...you, and no-one on here is willing to debate the issues, and when they do, and cannot address the points raised...they run off and start a new thread that is usually the same topic they ran away from somewhere else.

Well, you may think that popular opinion has a place in Sound Doctrine, but I don't. I don't need to have support from others here to know what I believe, and defend what I believe. If that makes you feel better, okay. More power to you. But, don't presume to dictate how others should post, and when others change their style specifically to suit posters like you, it makes it worse to complain about that too.

Martin Marprelate said:

And perhaps posts that have nothing to do with the OP should be moved to a thread of their own

Click to expand...

So how is a direct address to the OP, whether it is in the question I asked, or the direct response to the OP...

...nothing to do with the OP?


God bless.