Posted on 04/01/2005 7:41:06 AM PST by Frumanchu
JKL: "Your defintion of "born again" is different from mine, and I believe different from that of the Bible"
Please explain to me your biblical definition of "born again". Or perhaps, explain what you interpret as my "anti-biblical" view of "born again".
In your last post, you said the following: "Until we are born again, we cannot see the need for salvation and certainly not the need for baptism either."
It is obvious from this statement that you believe we are born again before we even know we need salvation. I am guessing that means you believe in the Holy Spirit regenerating you in order for you to be able to believe, repent of your sins, confess Christ, and then ultimately, be baptized.
From my study of the Bible, the Scriptures teach that we are born again after we believe, repent of our sins, confess Christ, are baptized for the remission of sins, and receive the Holy Spirit. Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be "born of the water and the spirit", and said that was how he was to be "born again". What do you think that water refers to in this passage? Thanks.
Why would I want to find an alternative to following the Word of God? I, personally, do not find this discussion humourous, and I am sorry that you do find it to be that way. I will gladly continue "speaking the truth in love"(Ephesians 4:15).
God bless.
JKL: "Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be "born of the water and the spirit", and said that was how he was to be "born again". What do you think that water refers to in this passage?"
I think the water in this context is evidence of a pouring out of God's spirit. If you look in Luke 3:16:
John answered, saying to all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
You will notice that true "baptism" is through the spirit of God and water is not a requirement. So in this sense, Christ must not have been speaking of baptism when he was talking of being born of water and the spirit. Also, if Christ meant that baptism was a requirement, why did he not just say baptism instead of water!
You have also missed a major concept in Jesus' teaching in John 3. The whole point of using the idea of being "born again" is to show how radical the change must be in those who are regenerated. Does a baby choose how or even if he will be born? Is the child the source of the new life, or is God? Rebirth implies an outside agent that works to create a new creation. Being "born again" is not a metamorphosis, it is a new creation!
Another major item you have overlooked in your belief of baptism is the Old Testament. Almost none of God's chosen people were baptised in the OT yet many of the old testament Jews were redeemed in Christ! How can they possibly be saved if they were not baptised? Are you saying that God has changed the requirements for salvation from the OT to the NT? Granted the Old Testament believers did not have the gift of the Holy Spirit, but they were still saved by faith in Christ alone - just as we are today.
God does not put us to any temporal tests or oath-swearings in order to be saved. That's for the secret societies of men to require.
Because all men are fallen and dead in sin, we cannot know righteousness. Because of Adam's fall, our hearts are dead to God. Like Lazarus, we cannot raise ourselves to life again.
It is only by God's grace that we receive salvation through Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And that is all His doing, ordained by God from before the foundation of the world.
"We love him, because he first loved us." -- 1 John 4:19.
Or else He's not God, but only an eternal scorekeeper who's playing the game along with the rest of us.
So the course of a typical person's life would be:
1.) Born into a state not able to make a decision, so no need for a Saviour.
2.) Missionary/Preacher/Teacher gives the person the Gospel thereby putting them in a position where they do need a Saviour.
3.) The person formerly not in need of a Saviour, but who is presently in need of a Saviour thanks to the person who told him/her, must now live a life of constant obedience in order to retain the Saviour they used to not need but now need?
Wouldn't it be much simpler to leave people in ignorance so that they don't need a Saviour to begin with?
You have misrepresented my thoughts in my post. We are all in need of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. However, only when a person reaches the point where they are able to make a decision, on their own, are they accountable for their choice to follow or deny Christ. An infant can't make such a decision.
Then when, in your point of view, does a person become "subject for the need of salvation?"
The criteria in your earlier post was the ability to decide.
What gives a person the ability to decide, and thus "subject for the need of salvation?"
Why does one man "make a decision" to believe in Christ and the guy next door not make that decision?
Why are these men "different" intrinsically?
It is when they are of an accountable age. When we are infants and small children, we do not fully understand the consequences of our actions. We do not have the comprehension necessary to make a decision for or against Christ. Each person reaches this point at a different time.
You will have to ask those people for that answer. Each person is free to do as he/she pleases, and not all our decisions will be understood by others.
What is your opinion of Paul's teaching below:
1 Corninthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
Paus seems to separate the preaching of the gospel from baptism. He appears to presume that baptism is not an essential for salvation?
Here is an interesting excerpt from "Baptism: A Matter of Obediance" by John MacArthur. His is a VERY pro-baptism teacher and yet he does not take the extreme that you have by making it a pre-requisite to salvation...
Yet, Jesus said, "Go out into all the world and make disciples, baptizing them." When He was saying that…that was synonymous with salvation because the next thing He says is, "…teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you." Baptism became synonymous with leading them to the knowledge of the gospel and if they were willing to receive the gospel, believe, repent…they would be baptized as an immediate response. So, when Peter says, "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin," he’s simply saying, "Repent and believe unto salvation…demonstrate the genuineness of that by the first act of obedience which is baptism.
We’re not saved by the water—that’s not going to save you. "By grace are you saved, through what?" "Faith, that not of yourself, not of works…not of works." Paul says in I Corinthians 1:14, "I’m glad that I baptized none of you." Now, if that was a saving act, how could he say that? It doesn’t save you—you can go through all the water you want and not be saved. And, I have to confess that you can be saved and not be baptized, but you’re in a condition of disobedience. Baptism produces nothing but blessing. Nothing but the joy and the reward of obedience. Nothing but the affirmation of God to an obedient child. It doesn’t save you, it doesn’t make you holier than somebody else…it just brings you the blessing of obedience—that’s what it does.
You could sum it up like this: as a believer stands in the water, ready to be immersed, he could declare these words, "I hereby confess in my willing submission to this divinely appointed ordinance, my glad obedience to the command of my Lord and Savior. In this symbolic manner, I show forth my identification with the one who bore my sins, took my place, died in my stead, was buried, and rose again for my justification. As Christ went through the dreadful reality of suffering and death to secure my salvation, so, by my immersion in water and emergence there from, I thus publicly declare my identification with my Lord in His death, burial, and resurrection on my behalf, with the intention hence forth to walk with Him in newness of life." That’s the sum of it.
You're the one who says salvation comes according to our choices. It's a logical question to ask what determines those choices?
If you're not comfortable conjecturing about other men's "choices," then I'll ask you only about yourself. What allowed/caused you to "choose" Christ when others didn't/don't?
I was raised in church and attended regularly my whole life. I had heard the Gospel preached many times, and learned about the Bible in many Bible classes. I realized, when I was 13, that I needed to come in obedience to Christ. I went forward during a Gospel meeting on May 17, 1988 and obeyed the Lord by being buried with Him in baptism.
The question then becomes why did you "obey" and the guy next door didn't/doesn't?
It's really an important question for many reasons, not the least of which is evangelism.
Why did your ears hear the Word and others didn't?
The Word of God obviously convicted me and caused me to realize that I was a sinner and I needed to obey Christ in order to be saved. I was saved by believing in Christ, repenting of my sins, confessing His name, and being baptized for the remission of my sins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
