The Once-born and the Twice-born

CLASSIFICATION IS ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT of all tasks. Even in the realm of religion there are enough lights and shades to make it injudicious to draw too fine a line between men and men. If the religious world were composed of squares of solid black and solid white classification would be easy; but unfortunately it is not.

It is a grave error for us evangelicals to assume that the children of God are all in our communion and that all who are not associated with us are ipso facto enemies of the Lord. The Pharisees made that mistake and crucified Christ as a consequence.

With all this in mind, and leaning over backwards to be fair and charitable, there is yet one distinction which we dare make, which indeed we must make if we are to think the thoughts of God after Him and bring our beliefs into harmony with the Holy Scriptures. That distinction is the one which exists between two classes of human beings, the once-born and the twice-born.

That such a distinction does in fact exist was taught by our Lord with great plainness of speech, in contexts which preclude the possibility that He was merely speaking figuratively. "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," He said, and the whole chapter where these words are found confirms that He was speaking precisely, setting forth meanings as blunt and downright as it is possible for language to convey.

"Ye must be born again," said Christ. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." This clear line of demarcation runs through the entire New Testament, quite literally dividing one human being from another and making a distinction as sharp as that which exists between different genera of the animal kingdom.

Just who belongs to one class and who to the other it is not always possible to judge, though the two kinds of life ordinarily separate from each other. Those who are twice-born crystallize around the Person of Christ and cluster together in companies, while the once-born are held together only by the ties of nature, aided by the ties of race or by common political and social interests.

Our Lord warned His disciples that they would be persecuted. "In the world ye shall have tribulation," He said, and "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."

These are only two of many passages of the New Testament warning of persecution or recording the fact of harassment and attack suffered by the followers of the Lord. This same idea runs through the entire Bible from the once-born Cain who slew the twice-born Abel to the Book of the Revelation where the end of human history comes in a burst of blood and fire.

That hostility exists between the once-born and the twice-born is known to every student of the Bible; the reason for it was stated by Christ when He said, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." The rule was laid down by the apostle Paul when he wrote, "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."

Difference of moral standards between the onceborn and the twice-born, and their opposite ways of life, may be contributing causes of this hostility; but the real cause lies deeper. There are two spirits abroad in the earth: the spirit that works in the children of disobedience and the Spirit of God. These two can never be reconciled in time or in eternity. The spirit that dwells in the once-born is forever opposed to the Spirit that inhabits the heart of the twice-born. This hostility began somewhere in the remote past before the creation of man and continues to this day. The modern effort to bring peace between these two spirits is not only futile but contrary to the moral laws of the universe.

To teach that the spirit of the once-born is at enmity with the Spirit of the twice-born is to bring down upon one's head every kind of violent abuse. No language is too bitter to hurl against the conceited bigot who would dare to draw such a line of distinction between men. Such malignant ideas are at odds with the brotherhood of man, says the once-born, and are held only by the apostles of disunity and hate. This mighty rage against the twice-born only serves to confirm the truth they teach. But this no one seems to notice.

What we need to restore power to the Christian testimony is not soft talk about brotherhood but an honest recognition that two human races occupy the earth simultaneously: a fallen race that sprang from the loins of Adam and a regenerate race that is born of the Spirit through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.

To accept this truth requires a tough-mindedness and a spiritual maturity that modern Christians simply do not possess. To face up to it hardly contributes to that "peace of mind" after which our religious weaklings bleat so plaintively.

For myself, I long ago decided that I would rather know the truth than be happy in ignorance. If I cannot have both truth and happiness, give me truth. We'll have a long time to be happy in heaven.

< And yet Catholics disobey by claiming to eat real physical blood when God said not to.

>>The “Bible alone” theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.<<

"They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith" - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1 - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1 Sola Scriptura !

"I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else." - Jerome (Letter 53:10)

“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." - Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9

"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” - Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395) “On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture." - Basil the Great (ca.329–379) On the Holy Spirit, 7.16

“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.” - Augustine (354–430) De unitate ecclesiae, 10

>>It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation.<<

Do you want to double down on that statement? Would you care to guess how utterly uneducated your statements are proven to be in the light of facts?

>>Although popular with many “Bible Christian” churches, the “Bible alone” theory simply does not work in practice.<<

Irenaeus, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hippolytus, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Augustine. Need I say more?

>>The conclusion? The “Bible alone” theory must be false.<<

I would sincerely and strongly suggest you re-adjust your "conclusion". And might I add that you are doing your credibility absolutely no good by making erroneous statements.

>“Not as a removal of dirt from the body…
IOW, NOT water baptism.
...
You got the wrong type of baptism here…”

Well there’s the problem. There is only ONE type of baptism:
“one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all…” Eph 4:5-6

“Water” baptism IS “Spirit” baptism:
“And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” John 3:5. Water and Spirit - together.
Of course, “water baptism” is actually a redundant phrase because the word baptizo already implies the use of water.

The reference to not removing dirt from the body makes it clear that it is not WATER that is accomplishing anything, but GOD. Baptism doesn’t save you because it got you wet. Water alone doesn’t accomplish anything. Baptism saves you because God said it does.

The Bible is extremely clear about what (water) baptism accomplishes:
Forgives your sins. Acts 2:38 (With repentance)
Gives you the Holy Spirit. John 3:5, Acts 2:38.
Joins you with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Romans 6:2-5, Colossians 2:12.
Clothes you in Christ. Galatians 3:27.
Regenerates you. Titus 3:5.
Saves you. 1 Peter 3:21.

Nowhere is a Christian baptism referenced as merely symbolic.

>“But faith negates the necessity of baptism. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was credited to him as righteousness.“
Of course, one who believes and is not baptized is saved. The Bible is clear. But one must wonder at the one who claims to believe but rejects being baptized. Does he truly have faith in Christ to openly reject what He and his apostles said baptism accomplishes?

I don’t speak Greek, and I assume you don’t either, so here’s a short exegesis on 1 Peter 3:21, directly from the Greek. It’s enlightening, and only ten minutes. Well worth your time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjcrsZFVyKw Does focus somewhat on the NIV translation, but then breaks the entire verse down in the Greek. According to Pastor Fisk, the literal Greek reads as such:
“The thing also/and you a type now it saves baptism not of the flesh the removal of dirt but for a clean conscience request into God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (word order is used for emphasis in Greek, unlike English)

Your logic doesn’t compute.

Your comment: “Acts 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood”

How does the blood and meat of animals sacrificed to idols compare to Jesus giving us the gift of His Body and Blood?

You seem to repeat the “talking points” without fully understanding their meaning. The purpose of the letter was addressed so the gentiles could become followers of Christ without having to follow mosacic law from the Old Testament.

So with your logic, do you eat meat (and blood) from animals? If it was a sin for Christ, it must be a sin for you?

I think it is a sin to reject Christ and His Eucharist and His words that His Body and Blood are the food for eternal salvation.

>>How does the blood and meat of animals sacrificed to idols compare to Jesus giving us the gift of His Body and Blood?<<

Does your twisting of words never stop. Read this again.

Acts 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood

The and from blood is separate from the idols and from the strangled animals. It truly says don't eat blood.

>>So with your logic, do you eat meat (and blood) from animals?<<

No, I don't eat blood. I butcher my own and the blood is drained on the ground as is instructed in scripture. Oh, and please don't come back with "there is still blood left". NO there is not. The red coloring is NOT the blood. It is simply some red corpuscles from the meat tissue.

>>I think it is a sin to reject Christ and His Eucharist<<

I know it is a sin to eat blood and misunderstand Jesus words.

**So all that works for me...**

Yes, your private interpretation certainly seems to work for you.

**even to them that believe on his name:**

If you refuse to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, you have rejected his name.

**Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.**

**This is a reference back to John 1:13...**

Agreed. Both verses mention a first and second birth. But then you say this:

**John 1:13 is certainly not speaking of a natural birth but a spiritual birth...**

Huh? It mentions both, and water is not used as a symbol of first birth.

**Anyone who knows anything about a natural birth knows we were conceived and raised in a bag (for lack of a better term) of liquid/water...**

One private interpretation is as good as another, I suppose.

There is a whole lot of water baptism in Acts, and it was treated as a very serious and urgent matter. (not the pathetic delayed action, “let’s plan on baptizing Bob next week when all of the kin can be here”)

Again you make statement without substance, only your misguided opinion. Just because you say so does not make it true. Just because you do not accept the words of Jesus does not make your opinion correct.

If you really understood and accepted the Bible, you would agree that Jesus founded His Church with Peter and the Apostles and their successors and Jesus promised to be with His Church (the Body of Christ) until the end of time.

You certainly haven’t convinced me of any lies in the Catholic understanding of the Bible or in the Catholic Church teachings.

If you really seek the Truth, the best place is the Catholic Church, and Jesus Christ is not exclusively tied to the Catholic Church, as God loves all of us and wants us to love Him and join Him in Heaven.

Well you are wrong.

I am not a scientist, but you may be wrong on the blood as blood soaks into the meat, but you still eat the meat. Customs change.

But the word of God is very clear and you reject it.

The meat and blood of animals is not the same as Jesus giving us HIS BODY AND BLOOD. Why do you compare animals slaughtered for idols to Jesus Christ? Do you just repeat your talking points because your reason doesn’t compute?

You have the logic of Satan who does not want you to fully understand and receive God’s gift to us in the Eucharist.

Here is a longer answer. I hope that you begin to open your mind so that you will understand the words of the Lord.

You can say four things. First, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.

Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for “These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink” (Col 2:17, 16).

The mention of not eating blood in Acts 15:20, 29 was a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. We know that these pastoral provisions were only temporary. One concerned abstaining from idol meat, yet later Paul says eating idol meat is okay so long as it doesn’t scandalize others (Rom 14:1-14, 1 Cor 8:1-13).

If it is objected that blood is not a food (though it is in some cultures), note that Jesus was asked (Mk 7:5) why his disciples ate with unwashed hands. He replied, “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body” (7:18-19). In context this refers to a non-food substance (the dirt on one’s unwashed hands).

Third, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: “The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood” (Lv 17:14, cf. Dt 12:23). The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal’s life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, “Christ who is your life” (Col 3:4).

Finally, even if the Jehovah’s Witnesses were right that drinking blood were intrinsically evil instead of the subject of a temporary prohibition, they would still have problems with John 6 because, in their interpretation, Jesus would be commanding us to eat his flesh symbolically and to drink his blood symbolically. He would be commanding us to act out symbolically an intrinsically evil deed as part of a sacred worship service. But this leads us to a ludicrous conclusion, so it must be that drinking Christ’s blood is permissible (not to say desirable).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff .

Did you read post #55? Any thoughts?

**It appears you are trying to be cute by half and it’s not working for you.**

So you don’t answer the questions, just use the ol’ Alinsky spin tactic.

**I think you need to restudy all those verses again and look closely at the Greek words and their intent.**

I think you’ve got a lot of baptizing in the name of Jesus in Acts, but you seem to deny it’s water baptism, and that it’s done in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins.

So, the Etheopian eunuch saw water, but it was just a mirage. Earlier in Samaria, Philip baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:12-16)

Paul was told to arise and be baptized, calling on the name of the Lord (Hmm, and that name is?), but in your opinion that was not water baptism. But, for some reason he needed to arise (arise? hmm, that sounds like ‘works’/sar).

Without delay, Peter baptized the household of Cornelius after seeing and hearing them be filled wioth the Holy Ghost.

In Acts 11 we find Peter back in Jerusalem, after the conversion event at Cornelius’ house in Caesarea. Answering to those that questioned his hanging out with the Gentiles, he told of them receiving the Holy Ghost. With God giving them the Spirit, his hand was forced to obey God’s ordained plan, and baptize them in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Notice his testamony at that point:

“Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; WHAT WAS I, THAT I COULD WITHSTAND GOD?”.

God expected Peter to do HIS part, and baptise them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission sins. Peter HAD to do it, for it was required by God.

Under your ‘no works’ opinion, you folks seem to believe that after the Spirit is given, nothing else is required. In which case, Peter had NOTHING to withstand. But there was, he could have refused to baptize them, but knew he couldn’t withstand God’s command.

Paul and Silas baptized the keeper of the prison and his household. You may say that is referring to Spirit baptism. I say it is water baptism, and possibly both.

Paul rebaptized certain disciples in Ephesus. It doesn’t look like they delayed it for “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”. Acts 19:5

The devil hates Acts 2:38. It seems that lots of people do as well.

Your question: “So who’s making Jesus out to be a liar there?”

You are. About Baptism,Eucharist, Salvation, Catholic church, etc.

Jesus said: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day”

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God

Matthew 28:19
18* g Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19h Go, therefore,* and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20i teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.* And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age

Matthew 16:
18k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff .

• Man’s ingenuity cannot account for this. The Church has remained one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not through man’s effort, but because God preserves the Church he established (Matt. 16:18, 28:20).

• Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops,

There are no popes in the bible...You automatically disqualified yourself from any further discussion on the scriptures...

“He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth

The bible does speak of your Church but that is not it...

Mat_23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

That's your church in the scriptures...Every one of your male clergy is a 'Father'...And the unbiblical, unGodly pope you have you call 'Holy Father'...

Your Catholic Church is the anti-church...

1Ti_4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

There's your Roman Catholic Church again in the scriptures...Again, yours is the anti-bible, anti-church...

Luk_20:46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;

The Catholic Church is well known in the scriptures...Here it is again describing your priests, bishops, cardinals and popes...

Who are these religious Catholic people posing as Christians??? They are people God warns us about in the scriptures...They aren't Pharisees...You have to be of the twelve tribes of Israel to be a Pharisee...

2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

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.