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.

Your comment: “I might at that when you mention someone in a post it is common courtesy to ping that person.”

You are right I should have pinged you.

You have the right to believe whatever you want (God gave us all free will to do so). However, just because it is your interpretation or opinion of the Bible (Or from other individuals)does not make it truthful.

I do feel that you ignore and reject the words of Jesus in John.

• John 6: 47-71
53Jesus said to them, “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.
54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

I did offer a detailed logical reply to the mosaic law regarding the eating of meat and blood that you seem to ignore. Just because you use other words of the Bible does not change the words or meaning of Christ's words. Again you just completely ignore the words of Christ who initiated a New Covenant and concluded the Old Covenant.

I also believe that you (and others) have hatred in your heart toward the Catholic Church and her teachings. Your comment: “Not the corrupted teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Again you do not accept the words of Jesus in founding His Church.
Matthew 16
17Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 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

Then you claim (your statement): “It's the Catholic Church who admits it's simply their opinion that Mary was assumed into heaven. They have no proof from scripture yet it's a major belief in the Catholic Church”

Part of your problem is that you feel the world and the church stopped from dealing with any issues unless written in a 2000 year old Bible. Again Jesus addressed this and delegated His authority to the Catholic Church (of course, you reject the words of Jesus again).

Matthew 28 16f The eleven* disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. 17* When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. 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.”

So God gave the Catholic Church the role to teach and baptize what Jesus has taught. It is the Holy Spirit that inspires the Church in her teachings and God would not be part of any erroneous teachings in His name.

Since you do not believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Mother, I will post a lengthy article on that subject.

I do feel that you do not have an open mind to look at the facts presented or willing to understand the Faith of members of the Catholic Church.

>>However, just because it is your interpretation or opinion of the Bible<<

Interpretation? Opinion? Direct words from scripture do not require opinion or interpretation. God said don't eat the blood. The disciples reiterated the prohibition against eating blood. Christ told us His words were spirit not physical flesh and blood.

>>So God gave the Catholic Church the role to teach and baptize what Jesus has taught.<<

No, He didn't. He gave that to individuals and told the apostles to make disciples of "all the nations" therefore all who are baptists are disciples not just some select few. The apostles told us that we all have the same Spirit just as they did and that no distinction was made between us and them.

Acts 15:8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he cleansed their hearts through faith.

>>It is the Holy Spirit that inspires the Church in her teachings<<

God sent the Holy Spirit to each and every one of us who has faith in Christ alone.

1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

The lies of the Catholic Church that people need them to interpret is not from God but from the enemy of God. The Holy Spirit through the apostles told us clearly that it was He who would be our counsellor and guide. It is the ekklesia of those individual believers are the "pillar and foundation" of truth. That means they uphold the truths taught by the apostles and do not add to it.

>>I do feel that you do not have an open mind to look at the facts presented or willing to understand the Faith of members of the Catholic Church.<<

Oh I do have an open mind to look at the facts as presented in scripture. It's what causes me to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church as false and paganistic. I am quite willing to understand the faith of the members of the Catholic Church as well. They have cult like faith in the Catholic Church and it's extra scriptural beliefs just like Mormons and Muslims have in theirs. Their faith is place in the Magisterium rather than in Christ alone.

Since there is a commonality with you all, I hope you don’t mind my answering you collectively. On a side note, if any of you made a physical effort to go hear a preacher preach the Gospel, which caused you to make a committment to Christ; shame on you for making a physical effort in order to be saved /sarc.

The main question has been a list of water baptisms found in Acts. Answers to other questions are intertwined. If I missed some, I will try to get to them (I am quite swamped away from the pc). Here they are, all from the KJV:

In Acts 2:37 (Jews) we find convicted souls asking, “what shall we do?”

Your answer seems to be, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved”. But no details, such as HOW to believe, contrary to what the Lord and his apostles specifically commanded.

2:38; “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. (note the position of the commas in the KJV.)

Now, I will list the separate DETAILED accounts of water baptism:

8:12,13 (Samaritans) “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip...”.

Notice they ‘believed, and were baptized’. (sounds like fulfillment of the the Lord’s command in Mark 16:16; “He that believeth, and is baptized..”). They had NOT received the Spirit yet. Peter and John were then called to come to Samaria:

8:16; “(For as yet he was fallen upon NONE of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)”

The Ethiopian eunuch: 8:35-38; “Then Philip....preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See here is WATER; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down INTO the WATER, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” (first detailed witness mentioning water used in baptism).

10:46,47,48 (Gentiles) “...Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the NAME of the Lord...”. (care to guess what that name is? AND, remember these words of Peter: “Can any man forbid water..”. That is the second detailed witness mentioning water baptism).

In Acts 11 we find Peter back in Jerusalem, after the conversion event at Cornelius’ house in Caesarea, testifying of their 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:
11:17; “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, those souls were completely born again after the Spirit fell, so Peter had NOTHING to withstand. Also, he could have refused to baptize them. But knew he couldn’t withstand God’s command, for notice his words; “Can any man forbid water..”.

Re-baptism in Ephesus: 19:5,6 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”

(OOPS! Paul baptized ‘about twelve’ people, when he ‘wasn’t sent to baptize’. /sarc. 1Cor. 1:17 is a declaration by Paul, telling us that his ministry was not just baptism. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have baptized ANYBODY)

Now, the list of the brief mentioning of baptisms. You may argue that those are ‘Spirit’ baptisms only. Can you prove that? I say they are water baptisms, or both (and Paul is involved in all but the first of them):

Acts 2:41 about 3,000 were added.
9:18 Saul/Paul’s conversion.
16:15 Lydia and her household.
16:33 keeper of the prison and his household.
18:8 Crispus (one of several Paul admitted to baptizing in Corinth. 1Cor 1:14,16)
22:16 Saul/Paul again.( did Paul have to ‘arise’ to receive the Spirit?...that sounds like ‘works’./sarc)

Now, the references to baptism in the epistles, which were written to those already born again (note the intro to those letters; ‘brethern’, ‘faithful’, ‘saints’, etc. Like it or not, that’s the context).

Romans 6:3; “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”
4. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:....” (That’s certainly not Spirit baptism, because the Spirit is life.) “..that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the GLORY of the FATHER, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” 5 “For if we have been planted together in the LIKENESS of his death, we shall be also in the LIKENESS of his resurrection.”

Col. 2:12 is quite similar: “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the operation of God, who raised him from the dead.”

Buried,...planted.....That sure is clear to me: Paul is referring to water baptism, and Spirit baptism, as separate events, and that both are required.

1Cor. 1:12-17
Now is as good of a time as any to address the inconsistancies of the ‘water baptism is not essential’ folks, which I will call the ‘discount crowd’:

When faced with passages that mention baptism, but don’t specifically say that it was water baptism, the discount crowd will say it’s not talking about water baptism. But, when faced with the passage in 1Cor. 1:12-17, then they wholehearted agree that it is referring to water baptism.

(I have just taken the afore mentioned Acts 18:8 (Crispus), and solidly put that passage in the water baptism category.)

Then there is the emphasis on the name, which Paul makes clear to be Jesus: 1Cor. 1:13 “Is CHRIST divided? was PAUL crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the NAME of Paul?”
(Yes, Paul baptized in water at Corinth, in the name of Jesus.)

But then the discount crowd totally disses baptism at times, using the “..Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..”; when Paul JUST got done admitting to baptizing several souls. Oh consistancy, though art a jewel.

Heb. 6:1-3 is written to those born again: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection: not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgement. And this we will do if God permit.”

(Notice the ‘doctine of baptisms’ is plural?)

1Peter is also written to born again souls. Look at 1:2, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto OBEDIENCE and SPRINKLING of the blood of Jesus Christ...”.

1Peter 3:20,21 is quite plain, if you are willing to allow it to harmonize with everything presented so far. 20 “...eight souls were saved by water.” 21 “The LIKE figure whereunto even BAPTISM doth also now save us (not the butting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Water baptism is not a bath, but is done in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. That is how it saves. That is how one has the answer of a good conscience toward God.

Being “buried with him” is where you get his blood on you, but his NAME must not be left out.

If there is no resurrection, then water baptism is a waste of time. “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” 1Cor 15:29.

That’s Paul (the one who wasn’t suppose to baptize), saying that if Christ (and the asleep in Christ) rise not, then it is all vain. Of course, we know that is not the case, since Christ is risen, and the Spirit poured out.

Being born again requires obedience, which is NOT ‘our OWN works’. As Paul said to the saints in Rome:

“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being THEN made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Rom. 6:17,18

Since you made comments about the NIV translation I will use interlinear translation "On a side note, if any of you made a physical effort to go hear a preacher preach the Gospel, which caused you to make a committment to Christ; shame on you for making a physical effort in order to be saved /sarc." There you go again thinking that a man can cause you to commit to Jesus and/or save you. Only our Heavenly Father can cause us to commit to Christ. As far as the “physical effort in order to be saved” you act like that the drive saved you, but it didn’t. You are saved by committing with your HEART, not your body. You could have been saved in your very own house if you had chosen you didn’t need to make that drive. Your physical effort argument is thinking again of fleshly desires and not the Spirit. Romans 2:4 Or the riches of the kindness of him and the forbearance and the patience despise you not knowing that the kindness of God to repentance you leads Ephesians 1:18 Being enlightened the eyes of the heart of you in order to know you what is the hope of the calling of him what [are] the riches of the glory of the inheritance of him in the saints Romans 9:16 So then [it is] not of him willing nor of him running but on whom is showing mercy God John 5:24 Truly truly I say to you that the [one] the word of me hearing and believing the [one] having sent me has life eternal and into judgement not comes but has passed out of death into life Hebrews 10:12 this [One] moreover one for sins having offered sacrifice in perpetuity sat down at [the] right hand of God He sat down contrary to OT Priests because his work of Salvation was done, complete, or finished. John 19:30 When therefore took the sour wine Jesus he said it has been finished and having bowed the head he yielded up [his] spirit You fail to realize that Baptism to a first century Jew or Gentile didn't mean salvation. It has been perverted over the centuries to mean salvation, but that wasn't the original intention. "Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred. A person was required to be ritually pure in order to enter the Temple. In addition, a convert to Judaism is required to immerse in a mikveh as part of the his/her conversion, and a woman is required to immerse in a mikveh after her menstrual period or childbirth before she and her husband can resume marital relations. In this context, "purity" and "impurity" are imperfect translations of the Hebrew "tahara" and "tumah", respectively, in that the negative connotation of the word impurity is not intended; rather being "impure" is indicative of being in a state in which certain things are prohibited (as relevant) until one has become "pure" again by immersion in a mikveh." It's the outward sign of conversion of the heart that can't be seen except by God Himself. Under the OT law man was dependent on a man the High Priest to take his sacrifice into the Holy of Holies, but under Jesus we worship by Spirit and not by man. If we have to be Baptized then we are right back to the OT of works by a Man and I just can't accept that. The Spirit of Jesus Christ is him being the Messiah and the Savior. I BELIEVE in the Blood and Body of Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross and of that alone. Strong's Concordance pisteuó: to believe, entrust Original Word: πιστεύω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: pisteuó Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o) Short Definition: I believe, have faith in Definition: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted

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.