Explicit future denials of apostasy of true children of God

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

To be born of God is for God to forgive us of all sins that are past and to treat us as if though we have never sinned granting to us His indwelling spirit. This is only accomplished as we fulfill His stated conditions to repent of our sins and have a change of heart towards them, exercising faith in the shed blood of Christ and God’s forgiveness. It is a spiritual rebirth of the spirit of man. As we repent and turn to Christ in faith, ones one’s ultimate intentions are changed from selfishness to that of benevolence towards God and man.

I am certian that definition/explanation could be better worded but it at least is an attempt to answer your question.

 

[Zenas]

Define born again for us.

See John 3:5. You must be baptized and you must receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dr. Walter]

DW, if I knew how to implement it I would throw down this challenge to you. Find a Hindu, Moslem, atheist [fill in the blank with your choice] who has never read the Bible, never heard it preached, never read about Christianity or never discussed Christianity with anyone else. Give him a New Testament to read, tell him to read it with common sense giving words and phrases their ordinary meaning, and when he is finished, pose this question: "Once a person is saved according to the doctrines taught in this book, is it possible for that person to ever lose his salvation so that he becomes unsaved?" There can be no doubt that the answer would be an emphatic yes.

One basic common sense rule of intepretation is that you do not interpret the clear by the unclear. You do not build doctrines on examples, metaphors, figures of speech, allegories, inferences, parables but upon clear and explicit precepts and statements. Examples, figures of speech, allegories, parables, inferences, ambiguous language can be used as supportive for explicit and clear precepts and statements but not vice versa.

Go to those passages that deal clearly and directly with the specific question and build doctrine upon that. Go to passages that deal directly with true children of God and deal specifically whether they can be lost in the future and build your doctrine on that.

This is exactly what OSAS is built upon - those clear and explicit precepts and statements that speak directly to this point about true children of God.

What you cannot find in scripture is equally clear and explicit precepts and statements that deal specifically with that point and teach true children of God will become lost - no such precepts, no such explicit statements.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: So it does come down to contextual interpretation.

HP: Can ones contextual interpretation be fallible, and does the possibility exit that it just might be subject to ones interpretation? Why do I feel a circular issue coming on???

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let' see what this proves. My interpretation is better than yours. ( I am just saying this to get across a point )

 

[Zenas]

One basic common sense rule of intepretation is that you do not interpret the clear by the unclear. You do not build doctrines on examples, metaphors, figures of speech, allegories, inferences, parables but upon clear and explicit precepts and statements. Examples, figures of speech, allegories, parables, inferences, ambiguous language can be used as supportive for explicit and clear precepts and statements but not vice versa.

Go to those passages that deal clearly and directly with the specific question and build doctrine upon that. Go to passages that deal directly with true children of God and deal specifically whether they can be lost in the future and build your doctrine on that.

This is exactly what OSAS is built upon - those clear and explicit precepts and statements that speak directly to this point about true children of God.

What you cannot find in scripture is equally clear and explicit precepts and statements that deal specifically with that point and teach true children of God will become lost - no such precepts, no such explicit statements.

The problem with this approach is that it leaves a lot of scripture hanging out there without any meaning. Maybe you could clip these passages out of the Bible and sell your work product to Reader's Digest. Besides, I doubt that you always use this approach, only when it suits your preconceived ideas about the way things ought to be. You can't get any more imperative and direct than Mark 16:16 and I'll bet you don't accept it for what it plainly says.

I guess you didn't like my hypothetical challenge since you didn't comment on it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

See John 3:5. You must be baptized and you must receive the Holy Spirit.

Here is what I mean as an example of improper interpretation. Where is the word "baptized" used here? It is not to be found. You are making an INFERENCE and I believe an inference that is not called for by the context. Nicodemus asks a specific question about how can someone who is OLD go back into their mother's womb and be born a second time. That is his question. Now we can assume that Jesus ignored his question or answered it. Verse 6 indicates he was answering it - "that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is spirit."

The fleshly birth is a birth in water in the womb of your mother while the new birth is birth in spirit by the Holy Spirit. One must be born of water but the birth that Jesus spoke of at the beginning is in addition to that, one must be born of the Spirit to enter heaven.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The problem with this approach is that it leaves a lot of scripture hanging out there without any meaning. Maybe you could clip these passages out of the Bible and sell your work product to Reader's Digest. Besides, I doubt that you always use this approach, only when it suits your preconceived ideas about the way things ought to be. You can't get any more imperative and direct than Mark 16:16 and I'll bet you don't accept it for what it plainly says.

I guess you didn't like my hypothetical challenge since you didn't comment on it.

Yes, I use the same approach on Mark 16:16. There is no question that it teaches that all who believe the gospel and are baptized shall be saved. I use the same approach with Acts 22:16 where in baptism our sins are washed away. The question is not what it says for it says what it says and says it clearly. The question is how does baptism save us and wash away our sins. I Peter. 3:21 is very explicit and clear in answering that question. Baptism saves us figuratively and therefore washes away our sins figuratively. This is indicated in Mark 16:16 by the latter part of the verse where it is unbelief rather than lack of baptism that damns a person. Furthermore, I take in the clear and explicit statements in regard to the general rule that God has used for four thousand years to characterize all external divine ordinances (Heb. 10:1-4; Col. 2:14-16; Rom. 4:9-13). Every external divine ordinance God has instituted from Genesis to Revelation are but SHADOWS and SIGNS and TYPES that although are directly associated with redemptive langauge such as "for sin" and "for cleansing" yet could NEVER take away sins (Heb. 10:4) except as a Shadow/type. Acts 10:43 is a very clear and explicit statement that defines exactly how Old Testament saints had their sins literally remitted.

Hence, I take in all the explicit and clear statements to form a conclusion and when you do it clearly and explicitly repudiates the use of external ordinances a literal and actual means to remit sins.

 

[Zenas]

Baptism saves us figuratively and therefore washes away our sins figuratively.

Here is where you went outside scripture and imposed your suppositions on what it says. Nowhere does scripture say that baptism is figurative or symbolic. Moreover, not a single commentator prior to the Reformation treated baptism as purely symbolic.

 

[Zenas]

Here is what I mean as an example of improper interpretation. Where is the word "baptized" used here? It is not to be found. You are making an INFERENCE and I believe an inference that is not called for by the context. Nicodemus asks a specific question about how can someone who is OLD go back into their mother's womb and be born a second time. That is his question. Now we can assume that Jesus ignored his question or answered it. Verse 6 indicates he was answering it - "that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is spirit."

Interesting. Did you know that 100% of the early church fathers who commented on this verse--men who spoke, wrote and even thought in the same language and dialect as the original manuscripts--regarded "born of water" as baptism?

The fleshly birth is a birth in water in the womb of your mother while the new birth is birth in spirit by the Holy Spirit. One must be born of water but the birth that Jesus spoke of at the beginning is in addition to that, one must be born of the Spirit to enter heaven.

A majority of modern commentators, even those in the evangelical camp including some Baptists, would disagree with you. Granted, they won't agree with me either but they don't think the syntax allows for childbirth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Here is where you went outside scripture and imposed your suppositions on what it says. Nowhere does scripture say that baptism is figurative or symbolic. Moreover, not a single commentator prior to the Reformation treated baptism as purely symbolic.

"the LIKE FIGURE whereunto baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. 3:21

Paedobaptist commentators are wrong and it is easy to prove it. If you simply erased the words "like figure" from this text it would not affect their commentary on this text in the least bit as their commentary is devoted to explaining away the clear explicit meaning of these words. No Jew would understand "baptism" to be misunderstood as a "bath" to clean your physical body. Jews were completely versed in ceremonial baptisms. Peter is using the ceremonial language of the day, completely understood by Jews, to mean that baptism saves figuratively it does not remove the corruption of the human nature - sin - but is a response of a conscience already cleansed from sin that makes that INTERNAL cleansing manifested in submission to baptism as baptism is a figure just as the ark was a figure of what ultimately gives victory over sin, death and hell - BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.

 

[DHK]

DW, if I knew how to implement it I would throw down this challenge to you. Find a Hindu, Moslem, atheist [fill in the blank with your choice] who has never read the Bible, never heard it preached, never read about Christianity or never discussed Christianity with anyone else. Give him a New Testament to read, tell him to read it with common sense giving words and phrases their ordinary meaning, and when he is finished, pose this question: "Once a person is saved according to the doctrines taught in this book, is it possible for that person to ever lose his salvation so that he becomes unsaved?" There can be no doubt that the answer would be an emphatic yes.

I have read of two or three such conversions. The ones that I remember well were: one was a convert from Hinduism and one a convert from Islam. The convert from Islam, after reading the Bible from cover to cover trusted Christ as her Savior. She was astonished how no one could deny that Christ could not be who he claimed to be--the Savior of the world. The biggest obstacle she faced was to call God "Father." She developed a very close relationship with Christ, and walking daily with Him, never had any doubt in her mind to turn her back on Him. That is eternal security. You speak from a theological armchair that is based on philosophy. I speak from the authority of the Word of God, and from what I have seen on the mission field where the Word of God is put in practice.

 

[DHK]

To be born of God is for God to forgive us of all sins that are past and to treat us as if though we have never sinned granting to us His indwelling spirit. This is only accomplished as we fulfill His stated conditions to repent of our sins and have a change of heart towards them, exercising faith in the shed blood of Christ and God’s forgiveness. It is a spiritual rebirth of the spirit of man. As we repent and turn to Christ in faith, ones one’s ultimate intentions are changed from selfishness to that of benevolence towards God and man.

I am certian that definition/explanation could be better worded but it at least is an attempt to answer your question.

An absolute wrong definition of born again.
You stated: "This can only be accomplished as we fulfill His stated conditions...."
To be born again has no stated conditions. It is unconditional. Salvation is always unconditional. It is the free gift of God. There is no free gift that has conditions attached to it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Interesting. Did you know that 100% of the early church fathers who commented on this verse--men who spoke, wrote and even thought in the same language and dialect as the original manuscripts--regarded "born of water" as baptism? A majority of modern commentators, even those in the evangelical camp including some Baptists, would disagree with you. Granted, they won't agree with me either but they don't think the syntax allows for childbirth.

I regard the Ante-Nicene Fathers to be the history of apostasy that led to the Nicene and Post-Nicene Apostate positions.

I have never read anyone give any syntactical basis for rejecting the human birth interpretation. I have read several who say the conjunction "kai" should be understood as "even" or "also" suggesting that Jesus was talking to some one steeped in Jewish ceremonial use of wate and that Jesus was simply saying "born of water EVEN the Spirit" thus making a transition from the use of ceremonial use of water as a type of the Holy Spirit. Many go on to see this consistently in the gospel of John where in the very next chapter the Holy Spirit is characterized as "water" bubbling up in side a person just as in John 7 it is used to represent the Holy Spirit within a person. I don't take great issue with that interpretation as that is a direct and explicit application of water by both Jesus and Paul (Eph. 5:26-27).

However, Mark 16:16 makes it very clear that if Jesus wanted to say "baptize" he could say it but he did not say it in John 3:3-5.

 

[Zenas]

I regard the Ante-Nicene Fathers to be the history of apostasy that led to the Nicene and Post-Nicene Apostate positions.

I expected that would be you response, or something like that. They don't agree with you. But the fact remains that Greek was their first language. They lived in the same era as the Bible was written. To say that we understand scripture better than they did is like saying modern legal scholars understand the U. S. Constitution better than Washington, Jefferson and Madison. You can say it and think it all you want but it just ain't so.

I have never read anyone give any syntactical basis for rejecting the human birth interpretation.

I don't have a theological library available to me right now but here are some remarks by Dr. Thomas Constable, of Dallas Theological Seminary, who maintains an excellent on line commentary:

Another view proposed by many scholars is that "water" is an allusion to
the amniotic fluid in which a fetus develops in its mother's womb. Other
scholars see it as a euphemistic reference to the semen without which
natural birth is impossible. In either case "water" refers to physical or
natural birth while "spirit" refers to spiritual or supernatural birth.148 They
claim that Jesus was saying that natural birth is not enough. One must also
experience supernatural birth to enter the kingdom. However this use of
"water" is unique in Scripture. Moreover it assumes that two births are in
view whereas the construction of the Greek phrase favors one birth rather
than two. If two were in view, there would normally be a repetition of the
preposition before the second noun.

http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/john.pdf Maybe I can check out another commentary at church tomorrow and share it with you.

 

[Zenas]

I have read of two or three such conversions. The ones that I remember well were: one was a convert from Hinduism and one a convert from Islam. The convert from Islam, after reading the Bible from cover to cover trusted Christ as her Savior. She was astonished how no one could deny that Christ could not be who he claimed to be--the Savior of the world. The biggest obstacle she faced was to call God "Father." She developed a very close relationship with Christ, and walking daily with Him, never had any doubt in her mind to turn her back on Him. That is eternal security. You speak from a theological armchair that is based on philosophy. I speak from the authority of the Word of God, and from what I have seen on the mission field where the Word of God is put in practice.

I have seen one such conversion, a Burmese Buddhist who converted to Christianity. However, he did so under the tutelage of a fundamentalist Baptist so he naturally held these views after his conversion. The challenge I threw down to DW, however, was based on what he said in Post #50--that the Bible should be read in its plain common sense terms. I suggested that maybe we should find someone completely ignorant of Christianity, give them a Bible and see what they come up with.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I expected that would be you response, or something like that. They don't agree with you. But the fact remains that Greek was their first language. They lived in the same era as the Bible was written. To say that we understand scripture better than they did is like saying modern legal scholars understand the U. S. Constitution better than Washington, Jefferson and Madison. You can say it and think it all you want but it just ain't so.

They taught baptismal regeneration among many other heretical doctrines. They writings were preserved by the old Harlot because it gives the proper developmental history of her while she destroyed the writings of New Testament churches as she persecuted and killed them.

I don't have a theological library available to me right now but here are some remarks by Dr. Thomas Constable, of Dallas Theological Seminary, who maintains an excellent on line commentary:
http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/john.pdf Maybe I can check out another commentary at church tomorrow and share it with you.

If verse 6 is explanatory of verse 5, then there is the repetition of the preposition in verse 6 before each noun. I would venture to guess that Thomas Constable probably took the position of water being the counterpart symbol of the Holy Spirit in Jewish ceremonialism and thus made his case on the conjunction "kai" to mean "even" or "also."

 

[Zenas]

They taught baptismal regeneration among many other heretical doctrines. They writings were preserved by the old Harlot because it gives the proper developmental history of her while she destroyed the writings of New Testament churches as she persecuted and killed them.

Ah, yes. Conspiracy theories abound. Of course she also preserved the Holy Bible intact through the centuries. She even did a translation in the late 4th/early 5th Centuries that was as true to the early manuscripts as any we have today.

If verse 6 is explanatory of verse 5, then there is the repetition of the preposition in verse 6 before each noun. I would venture to guess that Thomas Constable probably took the position of water being the counterpart symbol of the Holy Spirit in Jewish ceremonialism and thus made his case on the conjunction "kai" to mean "even" or "also."

That's pretty close, although he says nothing about the implication of "kai." Maybe you could click on the link.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ah, yes. Conspiracy theories abound. Of course she also preserved the Holy Bible intact through the centuries. She even did a translation in the late 4th/early 5th Centuries that was as true to the early manuscripts as any we have today. That's pretty close, although he says nothing about the implication of "kai." Maybe you could click on the link.

I believe both the Old Latin and Old Syric translation were made around 150 A.D. demonstrating the New Testament churches already had a complete canon before the harlot ever dreamed about doing it. Indeed, Jerome's was a reaction to the Old Latin.

 

[Zenas]

I believe both the Old Latin and Old Syric translation were made around 150 A.D. demonstrating the New Testament churches already had a complete canon before the harlot ever dreamed about doing it. Indeed, Jerome's was a reaction to the Old Latin.

Indeed. There were many different versions of the Old Latin and none of them was complete. Some even omitted one or more of the Gospels. There was only one version of the early Syriac Bible but several books of the N.T. were missing from it. Damasas I thought it proper to have a uniform translation throughout the Christian world and commissioned Jerome to produce it.