If, Like Jesus, People Are Born NOT Dead in Sin, Then . . .

[Epoisses]

No. But the Bible says God gave us new birth when Jesus rose again. I have provided the verses.

Even Paul was NOT physically present with Jesus when Jesus was crucified, yet Paul said he was crucified with Him (Gal 2:20).

So where's the verse I was asking you to provide that people are born again when they believe?

So why did Jesus tell Nicodemus he needed to be born again if he was already born again? You have no answer for that except to jump up and down and put your fingers in your ears!!!

 

[Epoisses]

Even Paul was NOT physically present with Jesus when Jesus was crucified, yet Paul said he was crucified with Him (Gal 2:20).

Paul said this after conversion not before!! Saul the Pharisee could never have said this because he did not have the Holy Spirit yet. Samie actually negates the new birth with his spurious unbiblical wacko theories.

 

[Samie]

So why did Jesus tell Nicodemus he needed to be born again if he was already born again? You have no answer for that except to jump up and down and put your fingers in your ears!!!

Oh really?

Who told you Nicodemus was already born again when he was conversing with Jesus? Did you soon forget that Jesus has NOT yet died and therefore had not yet risen then? Ergo, Nicodemus was not yet born again, hence Jesus told him he needed to be born again. Remember the Bible says people were born again when Jesus resurrected.

 

[Samie]

Paul said this after conversion not before!!

So what?

You were asking me if I was physically present when Jesus lived, died and resurrected. I countered that Paul was likewise NOT physically present then but he said he was crucified with Christ.

Saul the Pharisee could never have said this because he did not have the Holy Spirit yet. Samie actually negates the new birth with his spurious unbiblical wacko theories.

Unbiblical? I have given the verses that prove my point that man's new birth occurred when Jesus rose from the dead. How can you say I negate the new birth?

But until now you have not given even one verse that says people are born again when they believe.

 

[Epoisses]

Technically by the letter of the law so to speak all men were given new life when Jesus rose from the grave and ascended to the right hand of God. But I do not experience that new life until I first hear the good news and believe the good news and receive the Holy Spirit. So I will agree that the objective reality of the new birth did happen at the resurrection. I doubt seriously that you can admit that all men do not experience this until their personal conversion. There are two sides to the coin Samie, and by only focusing on one you wrest the scriptures.

 

[Samie]

Technically by the letter of the law so to speak all men were given new life when Jesus rose from the grave and ascended to the right hand of God. But I do not experience that new life until I first hear the good news and believe the good news and receive the Holy Spirit. So I will agree that the objective reality of the new birth did happen at the resurrection.

At last. Thank you for admitting this biblical reality that people were born again when Jesus resurrected.

I doubt seriously that you can admit that all men do not experience this until their personal conversion.

I'd rather say that, after the cross, people are physically born already born again, having been born again when Jesus resurrected. It necessarily follows that experiencing new birth starts and ends in the lifetime of a man.

There are two sides to the coin Samie, and by only focusing on one you wrest the scriptures.

I simply focus on what Scripture actually says. Because it is actually adding to Scripture to say that Scripture says what it does not actually say. And it says "Do not go beyond what is written":

1 Corinthians 4:6 NIV Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." . . .

 

[Epoisses]

I'd rather say that, after the cross, people are physically born already born again, having been born again when Jesus resurrected. It necessarily follows that experiencing new birth starts and ends in the lifetime of a man.

This is double speak. Jesus said the new birth occurs when people are born of the Spirit John 3:8 and those who are not born again will never see the kingdom of God John 3:3. We must conclude that all men are not born again believers.

 

[Samie]

This is double speak. Jesus said the new birth occurs when people are born of the Spirit John 3:8 and those who are not born again will never see the kingdom of God John 3:3. We must conclude that all men are not born again believers.

Wrong conclusion, it seems.

I suggest: Although all were born again, NOT all will ultimately make it to the kingdom of heaven. Only OVERCOMERS will, because overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life, but will be seated with Christ in His throne.

KJV Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. KJV Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

 

[TFTn5280]

Epoisses wrote: "So why did Jesus tell Nicodemus he needed to be born again if he was already born again? You have no answer for that except to jump up and down and put your fingers in your ears!!!"

Hi, Epoisses, I think Jesus may have implied that Nicodemus must be born "from above" to know the things of which he spoke, Jesus to that point being the only one who had been. But Nicodemus misunderstood his use of the word, which in the Greek can also mean "again", the evidence being his comment about going back into his mother's womb to be born a second time. Jesus, by the way did not tell Nicodemus that he was wrong about his thoughts about him, that he had come from above, but said only that that kind of knowledge took a special birth, one of water (from the mother's womb, in other words) and of the Spirit, Jesus himself being uniquely the only one ever born of both.

My interpretation of this passage is I think similar to Samie's understanding of the new birth. Our new birth, that of both water and Spirit, is in our inclusion in the unique Son in and through and with him in his resurrection from the dead, whereby we are hidden with him in God (Col 3.3), that being our real or "ontological" existence, our entire existence in him, he being him in whom all exist (Col 1.17).

Greetings, BTW

 

[genuineoriginal]

In your sequence of events: 1. believe first, then 2. get written in the BoL or be In Christ. That's cart before the horse because if one is NOT In Christ he can do NOTHING: he cannot believe. And Christ EXPLICITLY said so.

If you are not able to believe first, as instructed in the Bible, then you will never be saved.

 

[TFTn5280]

It appears you believe in universal salvation and limited damnation.

Pardon me please for busting in. Thanks Samie, for this interesting thread. I would actually say that I believe in a universal atonement ~ humanity's complete and absolute inclusion in Christ in his entire life, death, resurrection, and ascension ~ and the "impossible possibility" (K. Barth) that some with comprehensive knowledge of their inclusion in Jesus Christ may actually refuse to believe in this Christ whom they know has saved them and given them life everlasting (and it may be a possibility that this could even occur in resurrected bodies on the other side of death); thereby blaspheming the Holy Spirit, the sin for which there is no forgiveness, the Holy Spirit being their witness to this greatest truth, and in so doing trample underfoot the Lord who redeemed them; THEREBY subjecting themselves to the "second death", the death from which there is no hope of salvation. Those, I believe, will be few in number.

Thanks in advance for considering my words.
Greetings.

 

[Epoisses]

Epoisses wrote: "So why did Jesus tell Nicodemus he needed to be born again if he was already born again? You have no answer for that except to jump up and down and put your fingers in your ears!!!"

Hi, Epoisses, I think Jesus may have implied that Nicodemus must be born "from above" to know the things of which he spoke, Jesus to that point being the only one who had been. But Nicodemus misunderstood his use of the word, which in the Greek can also mean "again", the evidence being his comment about going back into his mother's womb to be born a second time. Jesus, by the way did not tell Nicodemus that he was wrong about his thoughts about him, that he had come from above, but said only that that kind of knowledge took a special birth, one of water (from the mother's womb, in other words) and of the Spirit, Jesus himself being uniquely the only one ever born of both.

My interpretation of this passage is I think similar to Samie's understanding of the new birth. Our new birth, that of both water and Spirit, is in our inclusion in the unique Son in and through and with him in his resurrection from the dead, whereby we are hidden with him in God (Col 3.3), that being our real or "ontological" existence, our entire existence in him, he being him in whom all exist (Col 1.17).

Greetings, BTW

I agree with this but you and Samie must also admit that the new birth as is traditionally understood is a point in time in the believers life where they receive the Holy Spirit and pass from death to life. Some conversions are more dramatic than others. I had a very powerful conversion experience where others just seem to gravitate towards the Lord over the course of a lifetime. To each his own.

 

[serpentdove]

...[O]ur new birth occurred WHEN Jesus resurrected...Eph 2:4-6 ; Col 2:13

...And Eph 2:5

You hadn't been born yet. lain:

 

[serpentdove]

Men are born in Adam (Ro 5:12). Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (1 Jn 3:5).

 

[Samie]

If you are not able to believe first, as instructed in the Bible, then you will never be saved.

If a person starts out in this life apart from Christ, then he can do NOTHING.

So, God first enabled man - He made him spiritually alive first so man can do SOMETHING. God fashioned man as part of the Body of His Son. That's step 1, the past tense of salvation.

Then man is physically born into this world, already In Christ because of step 1. And then, man believes. He overcomes the evil of disbelief/unbelief. He repents, and that's overcoming the evil of impenitence. This is step 2. If at the end of his journey in life, God through Christ judges him to have overcome evil with good, then his name is not blotted from the book of life.

When Christ comes again, he will reward each one according to what each has done. This is step 3. Those whose names are found written in the book of life will gain access to the heavenly portals and will be seated with Christ in His throne being overcomers like Jesus. All others will suffer God's wrath and finally thrown into the lake of fire.

Simple and best of all, biblical. See this OP.

 

[TFTn5280]

In your sequence of events: 1. believe first, then 2. get written in the BoL or be In Christ. That's cart before the horse because if one is NOT In Christ he can do NOTHING: he cannot believe. And Christ EXPLICITLY said so.

If I may interject something here ~ and genuineoriginal, I hope you do not feel like I'm piling on ~ I would like to agree with Samie. What he is expressing, Paul states explicitly in the verses Ephesians 1.13-14. Please allow me to include them below:

13 In [Christ] you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel [or "good news"] of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory."

Here we see quite clearly that our salvation was true or real and active and effective, how ever you'd like to say it, before we believed or trusted in it. Said differently, our salvation in Jesus Christ IS the good news to which which we respond in faith.

I think where the confusion creeps in (or in this case, crept in, because this teaching has been around for a couple hundred years) is in the misunderstanding that the receipt of the Holy Spirit is that particular ACT whereby we are saved or "born again." That is not so. The receipt of the Holy Spirit is the "gift" from God that guarantees our salvation is true, and seals our salvation unto everlasting life, never to be lost! For whose hand is greater than the hand of God which holds us?

May I say also, that that experience, that initial belief, IS our first cognitive experience of the truth of our existence in Christ, and of course it evokes an emotional response, sometimes powerfully so, AND what could be greater than the receival(my word) of the Holy Spirit, the very Spirit of God within you? That is Christ in you, the hope of glory! Of Course you feel born again, because this is the first time in your cognitive awareness of reality that you now know the truth, "THE GOOD NEWS OF YOUR SALVATION"!

It must be, In Christ first by God's grace, then people can do SOMETHING: they can now believe, etc. God gets the credit. In your sequence, UNLESS man puts in his share into the basket (believe first), he cannot be saved. So, man gets the credit. Clearly, that's salvation by works.

Well said.

 

[TFTn5280]

I agree with this but you and Samie must also admit that the new birth as is traditionally understood is a point in time in the believers life where they receive the Holy Spirit and pass from death to life. Some conversions are more dramatic than others. I had a very powerful conversion experience where others just seem to gravitate towards the Lord over the course of a lifetime. To each his own.

Hi Epoisses, I believe I may have addressed this in my last post to genuineoriginal. If not adequately so, please respond relative to what you believe I may have omitted.

BTW, I agree with you that what you are espousing is the "traditional view" of contemporary evangelical Christianity. But friend, I've got to tell you, that tradition is not all that old. It took hold in the campfire revival preaching of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And it's not that invasive: even today the Lutheran and Presbyterian and other churches are baptizing infants into their inclusion in Christ, in his resurrection. They've got their unique ways of expressing it, but that's what they are doing. Humbly I suggest you check your Church history on this one.

Best regards,

 

[Epoisses]

Hi Epoisses, I believe I may have addressed this in my last post to genuineoriginal. If not adequately so, please respond relative to what you believe I may have omitted.

BTW, I agree with you that what you are espousing is the "traditional view" of contemporary evangelical Christianity. But friend, I've got to tell you, that tradition is not all that old. It took hold in the campfire revival preaching of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And it's not that invasive: even today the Lutheran and Presbyterian and other churches are baptizing infants into their inclusion in Christ, in his resurrection. They've got their unique ways of expressing it, but that's what they are doing. Humbly I suggest you check your Church history on this one.

Best regards,

I've already acknowledged that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself - the objective gospel. I also acknowledge the subjective or personal gospel where we receive the Holy Spirit at some point in our individual lives when we confess Christ as our savior. Two peas in a pod, two sides of the same coin, two shakes of a lamb's tail and it takes two to tango.

 

[TFTn5280]

Yes, they do.

Both of them [Arminians and Calvinists] have accepted the heretical teachings of Augustine, and this has tainted their doctrines.

I couldn't agree more on this one. The concept and subsequent doctrine of "spiritual death" was introduced by Augustine; hence the conundrum, to answer how it is that spiritual cadavers can respond to God's call and thereby get themselves regenerated in their present lifetimes.

Note: And not to mention the impossibility it introduced into Christianity of trying to comprehend how Jesus could in any way be in every way like us (yes, and yet without sin) if we are born spiritually dead and he was not. And we know in our hearts that there is no way that he too could have been incarnated a spiritual cadaver, in order that he too be as we are. And so ever since Augustine, Christians have lost the ability relate to Jesus in the matters where they need him most, deep within themselves where there deepest darkness resides, because deep down there his humanity did not touch. The early fathers had a saying: "That which Christ did not assume (in the incarnation), he could not heal." They said that if only half of Adam fell, then Christ only needed assumed the half which had fallen, because Jesus only needed to be like what he needed to save. BUT if it was all of Adam that fell, then how ever deep that fall (and we all know how deep it was), Christ had to have become as that, in order to reach it, and thereby heal it. My friends, that reaches me deeply!

Augustine's profound error that humans are somehow born dead in some places and alive in others strips us of the ability to know Christ in that way. Shame on him! And shame on us for believing it.

 

[TFTn5280]

Epoisses wrote: "I've already acknowledged that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself - the objective gospel. I also acknowledge the subjective or personal gospel where we receive the Holy Spirit at some point in our individual lives when we confess Christ as our savior. Two peas in a pod, two sides of the same coin, two shakes of a lamb's tail and it takes two to tango."

Yeah, sorry, I missed that post. Good stuff.