Born Again?

[ezra]

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13

this is the most important baptism

 

[JLB]

this is the most important baptism

I would probably have to agree.


However I encourage everyone to receive all three.



JLB

 

[Butch5]

I like the ECFs too...but they did say slightly different things about different concepts.

They did agree on all the big stuff and I wish more people respected what they taught.

I can guarantee 80% of all discussion would end and I'm sure you'd agree.

But then what would happen to this forum???
:shock

Yeah. They were pretty much in agreement on the major issues. I give the most credence to the ones closest to the apostles. Men such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Papias, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. As they get farther from the apostles I look more and more for unity among them.

I think the big problem is that Christians are taught to proof text. People start out not knowing the Scriptures and they're "taught" what the Bible says. When in actuality they're really taught whatever the teacher believes. The Bible teaches xyz, now got to this passage, this passage and that passages and that will prove it. Not to pick on any particular group but I'm sure you've seen statements of belief that then list a bunch of Scripture verses. There's no concern for the context in which those passages were written. By doing this one can practically "prove" anything they want to. It's much better to take a holistic approach. Sadly, I don't think too many pastors and theologians really know what the Scriptures teach anymore. They've so bought into the modern day theologies that many can't see the forest for the trees

Thanks for taking the time to share this.


Do you believe we are born again by water baptism rather than believing the Gospel?



JLB

You're welcome!

I believe the phrase born again is a metaphor that Jesus used with Nicodemus. God made certain promises to Abraham and his seed. The Jews understood that they were Abraham's seed, so they believed that they would inherit these promises. Nicodemus believed this also. He believed that it was his physical birth as the seed of Abraham that would entitle him to these promises. However, Jesus corrects this incorrect thinking by telling him he must be born again. In other words, Nicodemus, your physical birth as the seed of Abraham is not going to entitle you to these promises. There's something else you must do. You must be born of water and the Spirit. He says, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he will not see the kingdom of God. One thing to note is that the phrase "Born Again," in Scripture, is only used in reference to the Jews. It's only used about three times and the audience is always Jewish. I think this is important. Paul doesn't use the term with his Gentile readers. The Gentiles weren't thinking, I'm the seed of Abraham and therefore the promises are mine. I believe it's a Jewish issue due to the fact that they were Abraham's seed. That's not to say that the process of being born of water and the Spirit doesn't apply to Gentiles, it does. They've been included. But when it's presented to the Gentiles it's not called being born again.

That said, one must first have faith. Baptism without faith is a bath. However, one must also be baptized. Jesus made this pretty clear in a statement where the grammar He uses cannot be argued against. He said, 'he who believes and is baptized shall be saved'. Believes and, is baptized are present tense. Shall be saved is future tense. Therefore, believes and is baptized, must come before shall be saved.

Just like becoming circumcised was the entrance into the Old Covenant, Baptism is the entrance into the New Covenant

 

[Butch5]

Yes agreed.


Which baptism is He referring to?


The baptism where the Spirit baptizes us into Christ.


For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13


Or

Water Baptism


Or


Where Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit.


In Mark, it lends itself to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which would mean we have already been baptized into Christ.


And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues. Mark 16:15-17


Speaking in tongues is associated with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.





JLB

Baptize simply means to immerse. The normal mode was with water. We know that John baptized with water and we know that the apostles baptized with water. Your claim that it is the Spirit is speculation. As I pointed out in another post, the early church witness gives us evidence of how they understood the teachings of Christ. It was pretty much universally believed that water baptism was necessary. I pretty much just to cover myself in case someone finds some stray statement out there. Here is a statement from Irenaeus, as student of Polycarp what was a student of the Apostle John.

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

We no that the baptism for the remission of sins is water baptism. Irenaeus says this baptism is unto regeneration. This is a guy who was taught by one of the Apostle John's students. They're writings a strewn with statements similar to this one.

Also, saying this baptism is in the Holy Spirit doesn't make sense. If everyone who believe gets the Holy Spirit then there's no reason for Jesus to say and is baptized. He would already know that they were baptized.

 

[Butch5]

You might want to keep reading Romans 6 to the end.


But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. Romans 6:22


In other words just because we are baptized in water, we still have to walk in the new life of Christ, dwelling in us.




This topic may better be discussed in the thread Wondering started on “Abiding in the Vine”.




JLB

Well sure. I didn't say all one needs to do is be baptized. One has to have faith, repent, be baptized, obey, etc. Paul gave a list of behaviors that will keep one out of the kingdom.

 

[stovebolts]

Jesus asked the Pharisee’s a simple question.



The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?” Matthew 21:25


I believe the shadows and types from the Old Testament pointed to, not only John’s baptism but the others as well.


Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4


all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

• This points to the Spirit baptizing us into Christ.
• Johns water baptism
• Jesus baptizing is with the Holy Spirit.

JLB

Yes, thank you once again for reiterating that again. I believe i have heard you say this multiple times in a variety of ways during the course of this thread and others.

Again, it's not really the focus of my study and just like your not interested in Hillel, I'm really not interested in pursuing the direction you want to go.

I don't mean to diminish the importance of your understanding nor belittle your belief in any way. I simply bore over the same ole same ole. I want to learn something new, something deeper.

Grace and peace.

 

[ezra]

this has pretty well run its course ..i would have a hard time believing any one can walk away from this post and say they are in %100 truth i have been listening to some apologetic teaching laced in history .. we simply do not have the original scripts ..as i listened he stated the story of the woman caught in adultery was added .. i don't know but it sure has great value to it.. neither do i condemn thee go and sin no more and that is the message from the cross of Calvary..

 

[JLB]

Well sure. I didn't say all one needs to do is be baptized. One has to have faith, repent, be baptized, obey, etc. Paul gave a list of behaviors that will keep one out of the kingdom.

 

[JLB]

Yes, thank you once again for reiterating that again. I believe i have heard you say this multiple times in a variety of ways during the course of this thread and others.

Again, it's not really the focus of my study and just like your not interested in Hillel, I'm really not interested in pursuing the direction you want to go.

I don't mean to diminish the importance of your understanding nor belittle your belief in any way. I simply bore over the same ole same ole. I want to learn something new, something deeper.

Grace and peace.

Ok.


Sorry.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yeah. They were pretty much in agreement on the major issues. I give the most credence to the ones closest to the apostles. Men such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Papias, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. As they get farther from the apostles I look more and more for unity among them.

I think the big problem is that Christians are taught to proof text. People start out not knowing the Scriptures and they're "taught" what the Bible says. When in actuality they're really taught whatever the teacher believes. The Bible teaches xyz, now got to this passage, this passage and that passages and that will prove it. Not to pick on any particular group but I'm sure you've seen statements of belief that then list a bunch of Scripture verses. There's no concern for the context in which those passages were written. By doing this one can practically "prove" anything they want to. It's much better to take a holistic approach. Sadly, I don't think too many pastors and theologians really know what the Scriptures teach anymore. They've so bought into the modern day theologies that many can't see the forest for the trees

You're welcome!

I believe the phrase born again is a metaphor that Jesus used with Nicodemus. God made certain promises to Abraham and his seed. The Jews understood that they were Abraham's seed, so they believed that they would inherit these promises. Nicodemus believed this also. He believed that it was his physical birth as the seed of Abraham that would entitle him to these promises. However, Jesus corrects this incorrect thinking by telling him he must be born again. In other words, Nicodemus, your physical birth as the seed of Abraham is not going to entitle you to these promises. There's something else you must do. You must be born of water and the Spirit. He says, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he will not see the kingdom of God. One thing to note is that the phrase "Born Again," in Scripture, is only used in reference to the Jews. It's only used about three times and the audience is always Jewish. I think this is important. Paul doesn't use the term with his Gentile readers. The Gentiles weren't thinking, I'm the seed of Abraham and therefore the promises are mine. I believe it's a Jewish issue due to the fact that they were Abraham's seed. That's not to say that the process of being born of water and the Spirit doesn't apply to Gentiles, it does. They've been included. But when it's presented to the Gentiles it's not called being born again.

That said, one must first have faith. Baptism without faith is a bath. However, one must also be baptized. Jesus made this pretty clear in a statement where the grammar He uses cannot be argued against. He said, 'he who believes and is baptized shall be saved'. Believes and, is baptized are present tense. Shall be saved is future tense. Therefore, believes and is baptized, must come before shall be saved.

Just like becoming circumcised was the entrance into the Old Covenant, Baptism is the entrance into the New Covenant

Wow.
I think we were separated at birth!

Just one comment,,,
Some believe baptism is the sign of the N. C.
Some believe it's the eucharist.
By some, I mean biblical scholars.

 

[Randy]

Several different places WIP.
The bible should be our authority...
but we can't depend only on the bible if we want to learn a little more about Jesus' time and the O.T. times.

It comes from persons studying the bible and those times as their life's work. It includes history, anthropology, and all that stuff. People study this. Scholars know things we don't know.

John knows a lot about the O.T. He studied it, he studied those times and what people believed and how they lived.

Jesus didn't understand being born again the way we do.
It's become a catch phrase...this is why there are so many problems in churches...why so many denominations...why so many different beliefs.

JohnDB is saying that being born of above means being someone special that was foreseen...he'll correct this if it's wrong.
0
I've never heard of this either because I didn't study O.T. times and culture. It's interesting.

The different beliefs are the result of mans studies. Jesus understood exactly what born of the Spirit meant Nicodemus didn't at that time. We now, (beginning with Pentecost), have a common frame of reference to understand what Jesus taught. "Christ in us"

The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. What is written is the source of our understanding not mans studies as they differ. Though mans studies may be considered. And Jesus is but a prayer away.

Born anew by the Spirit of God by the will of the Fathers promise carried out through Christ Jesus our Lord. No one enters the Kingdom of God apart from Jesus.

Born of the Spirit=Born of God as in the Children of God.

children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

In those days even such, simple to us, matters were discussed. We have the whole testimony.

They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant

 

[GodsGrace]

The different beliefs are the result of mans studies. Jesus understood exactly what born of the Spirit meant Nicodemus didn't at that time. We now, (beginning with Pentecost), have a common frame of reference to understand what Jesus taught. "Christ in us"

The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. What is written is the source of our understanding not mans studies as they differ. Though mans studies may be considered. And Jesus is but a prayer away.

Born anew by the Spirit of God by the will of the Fathers promise carried out through Christ Jesus our Lord. No one enters the Kingdom of God apart from Jesus.

Born of the Spirit=Born of God as in the Children of God.

children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

In those days even such, simple to us, matters were discussed. We have the whole testimony.

They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant

So I don't get it.
If the Spirit brings us to all truth, how come we all believe something different?
Why did Pelagius understand everything the same as Augustine did?
How come Calvin and Wesley don't agree?

What do you mean by Pentecost?
And how come we had to wait till then to know what Jesus taught?

What is difficult to understand about the beatitudes?
Or any of the other teachings of His.....

Are you saying it's not possible to understand Him until some certain point?

I wish you'd explain better.
I believe Jesus was very clear in what He taught.
I believe biblical scholars know a lot more than we do...
That being said...yes,,,, we will be held accountable for what WE believe,,,,so we better know what we believe and trust it enough for it to be true FOR US.

But...
It may not be THE TRUTH.

 

[GodsGrace]

this has pretty well run its course ..i would have a hard time believing any one can walk away from this post and say they are in %100 truth i have been listening to some apologetic teaching laced in history .. we simply do not have the original scripts ..as i listened he stated the story of the woman caught in adultery was added .. i don't know but it sure has great value to it.. neither do i condemn thee go and sin no more and that is the message from the cross of Calvary..

It's an accepted fact by all biblical scholars that the story was added in later on....
It is, however, in keeping with what Jesus taught.

You said it right when you stated we don't have the original manuscripts anymore....

We don't really know each and every word Jesus said....this is why the N.T. should be taken as a whole, and not word for word as if God sat down and wrote it. This is not what inspired means....

BTW, Just for those who may have any doubts....It's pretty much accepted by all that the resurrection DID happen.

 

[JohnDB]

So I don't get it.
If the Spirit brings us to all truth, how come we all believe something different?
Why did Pelagius understand everything the same as Augustine did?
How come Calvin and Wesley don't agree?

What do you mean by Pentecost?
And how come we had to wait till then to know what Jesus taught?

What is difficult to understand about the beatitudes?
Or any of the other teachings of His.....

Are you saying it's not possible to understand Him until some certain point?

I wish you'd explain better.
I believe Jesus was very clear in what He taught.
I believe biblical scholars know a lot more than we do...
That being said...yes,,,, we will be held accountable for what WE believe,,,,so we better know what we believe and trust it enough for it to be true FOR US.

But...
It may not be THE TRUTH.

What is at the root both you and Randy are talking about is Hermeneutics.

It's the main reason (once everyone was on the same page with the discussion) for the different opinions.

I think that it is an excellent idea for a thread topic all on it's own.

 

[GodsGrace]

Baptize simply means to immerse. The normal mode was with water. We know that John baptized with water and we know that the apostles baptized with water. Your claim that it is the Spirit is speculation. As I pointed out in another post, the early church witness gives us evidence of how they understood the teachings of Christ. It was pretty much universally believed that water baptism was necessary. I pretty much just to cover myself in case someone finds some stray statement out there. Here is a statement from Irenaeus, as student of Polycarp what was a student of the Apostle John.

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

We no that the baptism for the remission of sins is water baptism. Irenaeus says this baptism is unto regeneration. This is a guy who was taught by one of the Apostle John's students. They're writings a strewn with statements similar to this one.

Also, saying this baptism is in the Holy Spirit doesn't make sense. If everyone who believe gets the Holy Spirit then there's no reason for Jesus to say and is baptized. He would already know that they were baptized.

All of the above is correct.
In fact, it's the baptismal beliefs of the early church that lead to confession...but that's another story.

Could you then answer this for me:

Jesus said:
Acts 1:8
8but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”


What did Jesus mean by the Holy Spirit will come upon you? (the same phrase Gabriel used with Mary)

 

[JohnDB]

It's an accepted fact by all biblical scholars that the story was added in later on....
It is, however, in keeping with what Jesus taught.

You said it right when you stated we don't have the original manuscripts anymore....

We don't really know each and every word Jesus said....this is why the N.T. should be taken as a whole, and not word for word as if God sat down and wrote it. This is not what inspired means....

BTW, Just for those who may have any doubts....It's pretty much accepted by all that the resurrection DID happen.

Most of the scholars I have read on the subject of John 8 being inserted claim that it actually belongs in Mark's Gospel...but where to reinsert it is the problem.

 

[WIP]

@JohnDB s most probably right...why would he post something like this unless he was sure?

I never take the opinion of one person as gospel. An atheist is sure about what he/she posts. Does that make it accurate? I'm not questioning JohnDB's sincerity. I was asking where his understanding comes from. I'm sure it's not just something he dreamed up one day.

 

[GodsGrace]

What is at the root both you and Randy are talking about is Hermeneutics.

It's the main reason (once everyone was on the same page with the discussion) for the different opinions.

I think that it is an excellent idea for a thread topic all on it's own.

Yes.
But then it is NOT the Holy Spirit and maybe we should stop saying this and start learning the correct way?

I looked for a good article on hermeneutics:

Bible Q&A - What Is Hermeneutics?

Dane Ortlund discusses what hermeneutics are and why they are important.

www.crossway.org

 

[GodsGrace]

Most of the scholars I have read on the subject of John 8 being inserted claim that it actually belongs in Mark's Gospel...but where to reinsert it is the problem.

This is possible,,,,I know that it doesn't belong anywhere in the N.T. but it was such a good story it's just been kept in.

The beatitudes....
On a hill
On the plain?

Does it matter?

But then why take each word of the bible and hang on to it like our lives depend on it?

Can't we accept that Jesus came to save us...God in the flesh...He died and was resurrected to show who He was.

I find some arguments we make rather nonsensical....
So, personally, I'm here to speak to God's character.

 

[GodsGrace]

I never take the opinion of one person as gospel. An atheist is sure about what he/she posts. Does that make it accurate? I'm not questioning JohnDB's sincerity. I was asking where his understanding comes from. I'm sure it's not just something he dreamed up one day.

Agreed.
And how could he possibly answer?
By telling you that he's really intelligent and likes to study a lot?
By telling you that he's read more books than anyone else here?

An answer would be self-aggrandizing....I think.

He did state he has a vast book collection.
He spent a lot on it so it must be valuable to him.

We can't dismiss what someone says...we should look into it.
I know that the adultress shouldn't be in any gospel,,,,he knows that it should be in Mark. It's not OUR opinion,,,it's the opinion of scholars.

Mark is most probably, 90%, the first gospel written. Why would it have been removed from there?
And why would John have put it back?

This is something for us to ponder.
OR,.,, was it in ANY gospel???

Does it matter enough to study it....as far as I'm concerned, it's not. But if for someone it IS,,,then they should look into this.

Nothing I state is from my own mind, but what I've learned.

I believe in SOLA SCRIPTURA
but I do not believe in SOLO SCRIPTURA.