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.

“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.”

You really need to read your Bible as there are many upon many examples of God allowing the Israelite’s to sin and go wrong.

Your right he wouldn’t be part of it and he’s not, but he’s sure allowing it in your Church! The biggest threat to the world is global warming while Christians heads are being cut off are you kidding me.

The Book of Revelation would be a very good read for you as you would notice that there are several Church’s that will be dealt with according to their sin.

Church of Thratyra describes the Church of Rome perfectly.

You make a good point: We're going to have to examine scriptures which might seem to disagree with our positions, and let God correct us where we need it.

I'm surprised when people turn to scriptures about faith or repentance, or confession of Christ when the question is about baptism. If we want to learn about baptism and its place in redemption, we need to look at what the Bible says about baptism. I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that.

The case you brought up - Cornelius and his household - is a good one to look at. It is a peculiar one, being the first case of the gospel being preached to Gentiles.

Peter, being a Jew, would have been reluctant to preach to those folks, and had to be told by God to do so - hence the vision, etc. But he obeyed the Spirit's instructions, and went and preached to Cornelius. But even after preaching to them, he needed further instruction. So God poured out the Holy Spirit on these Gentiles.

It's important to note that what happened here was different from the usual receiving of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the only similar case Peter can think of is way back at Pentecost. (Recall Acts 8, where people were baptized into Jesus, and only later, when Peter and John come up and lay their hands on them, do they receive the Holy Spirit.)

As we've noted, Acts 10 is a notable case, and God gives them the Holy Spirit in a notable way. Why was this necessary? And what is the significance of it?

We find the answer in the reaction of Peter and those with him, in the reaction of the Jews in Jerusalem when Peter relates the story, and in the use Peter makes of it in Acts 15 when arguing against those who wanted the Gentile Christians to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses: It was God's demonstration that Gentiles were eligible for salvation just as Jews were.

So Peter then asks the rhetorical question: "Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"

Why would anyone have objected to their baptism before this? Because they were Gentiles, right? In pouring out the Holy Spirit "even as on us at the beginning" (Acts 11:15), God overruled that objection and showed that His offer of salvation was for Gentiles as well. Hence Peter's question, "who was I, that I could withstand God?"

What is he saying? What could Peter have done, at this point, that would've been withstanding God?

He didn't do it though. Instead, "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

It's important to note that what happened here was different from the usual receiving of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the only similar case Peter can think of is way back at Pentecost. (Recall Acts 8, where people were baptized into Jesus, and only later, when Peter and John come up and lay their hands on them, do they receive the Holy Spirit.)

Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Act 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. Act 18:27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

These people were WATER baptized but were not born of the Spirit...Not born again...No spiritual rebirth...

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

When these disciples were baptized the 2nd time, was there water involved???

Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

John contrasts two baptisms here...One is with water, the other is with fire (and the Holy Ghost)...John did not say that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Ghost, water, and fire...

Baptism does not mean 'water'...Baptism means immersion...

In John's (water) baptism, no one received the Holy Spirit...John's water baptism was a symbol...A symbol that the person had repented/turned to Jesus...

At Pentecost, the apostles and disciples were not sprinkled or dipped before the Holy Ghost with cloven tongues of fire fell upon them...There is no mention of water in Acts 2:38...

I'm surprised when people turn to scriptures about faith or repentance, or confession of Christ when the question is about baptism.

You have to...They are intertwined...Baptism without faith and repentance would be meaningless...

John's statement about Jesus baptizing "in the Holy Spirit and in fire" is partly explained in the previous and following verses:

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?...And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire." - Matt. 3:7, 10-12

Does this fire baptism save or destroy?

Yes, John baptized in water, as did Jesus:

"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized....And they came unto John, and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." - John 3:22-23, 26

Was Jesus baptizing in the Holy Spirit and in fire? Or in water?

John was preparing the people for the Messiah and His kingdom, "preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins" (Luke 3:3) The people "were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." (Matt. 3:6) I don't see how they could've been "turning to Jesus" as you suggest, since John was baptizing before Jesus had manifested Himself.

We must also keep in mind that this all took place before the new covenant had been established. Perhaps Apollos had been in Judea when John was baptizing and preaching, but not afterward when the gospel was being preached by the apostles. The Holy Spirit was not yet being received by the faithful. That would begin at Pentecost, at the fulfilling of Joel's prophecy.

Those in Ephesus (in Acts 19) had been baptized in John's "baptism of repentance". But when they heard of the baptism of Jesus, they were baptized into Him. Why?

Did they receive the Holy Spirit when they were baptized into Jesus? Or when Paul laid his hands on them?

You have to...They are intertwined...Baptism without faith and repentance would be meaningless...

Okay, you're right. We need to look at everything the Bible says about what to do to be saved, and not exclude those which discuss baptism.

**Filled with the Holy Ghost before water baptism...Saved...Born again...**

You apparently didn’t read what I posted on that event, so here it is again:

Acts 10:46,47,48 “...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..”.

Jesus said man must be born of the water, and of the Spirit. Peter says water baptism saves us.

Jesus commanded to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matt. 28:19

He He says: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16

He commands his disciples: “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in HIS NAME among all nations beginning at Jerusalem”.

The first post-ascension sermon to the lost is preached to the lost by Peter. In Acts 2:37, we find convicted souls asking, “what shall we do?”

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.)

In Matt. 28:19, what is foremost in the Lord’s command,.....”accept the Lord as your personal savior”?

His first detailed command is for the disciples to baptize.

They knocked themselves out, baptizing everybody that professes faith, pronto. And you folks say it’s just an outward sign of an inward cleansing. God expects obedience. If you refuse to obey HIS ordinance, then isn’t that unbelief?

Acts 2:38, and the absolute urgency that the disciples showed, would indicate that remission of sins is indeed in baptism in the name of Jesus. The blood would have to be applied at that point, or Acts 2:38 would not be worded the way it is.

**What I have found over the years is when a person sides with one doctrine or another, he/she will seek out scripture to bolster that doctrine...**

You mean like when folks point out certain passages that mention baptism, and say it isn’t water baptism? Or, when wanting to discount water baptism, they trot out 1Cor. 1:17, and end up making Paul look like a flip-flopper?

I covered a lot in post #209, but it is dismissed by tradition of men, or not even dealt with.

Keep following this thread. I have more to point out on this subject.

Thanks for the reply!

**21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.**

True.

**Blood forgave Adam and his wife for this was the first sacrifice in Blood. Please note that there was no water involved just Blood.**

Rather than kill Adam and Eve, God preserved them UNDER certain conditions........

They were expelled from the garden. They were forced to live under the curse of the land, etc.

Water is symbolized as washing sin away in:

1. the Flood.
2. baby Moses was condemned to death, was place in the river, and was pulled out to new life.
3. crossing the Red Sea (”.. all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the Sea”. 1Cor. 10:1,2. The Egyptians symbolized the sin being washed away).
4. The leper Namaan was as good as dead, but immersed in the water of the Jordan, and was given new life.
5. Jonah was a type of sin to the sailors. They were condemned to death, as long as sin was present (Jonah). The ‘sin’ was washed away, ‘buried’ at sea. The sailors were given new life.
6. Jonah was condemned to death while on the ship, was buried at sea, and rose from the depths to life.

I suppose one could even point to creation: The earth was without form and void. Just plain dead. But, God brought forth life from the water.

For the Lord to command water baptism, and tie it to remission of sins, it seems that one has to realize that that is where he applies the blood.

If water baptism was just to be an outward sign of an inward cleansing, why would God bother with such a command, since he can see the heart? And why the absolute urgency of baptism performed by his apostles?

The eunuch saw the urgency, stopping the chariot at the first sign of water; not waiting until getting to the next village.

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.

You're pretty hung up on this water baptism stuff...What's important is to learn that baptism does not mean water and water does not mean baptism...

.Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

With this verse that you neglected to include one can easily see there are two different things going on here...John baptized with water...Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost...You guys want it to say that Jesus baptized with water and the Holy Ghost...Actually, you want it to say baptized with water and you will receive the Holy Ghost...But it doesn't say that does it...

Act 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?

So we can change around the scripture a little bit to get it to mean what we want it to mean or we can leave it as it as and see how it works out that way...

And then you imply that withstanding God's command has something to do with water baptism...It doesn't...The command was for Peter to go to a Gentile and preach the gospel to him...That is what Peter could not withstand...

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

We don't know when Cornelius ended up getting baptized with water...No doubt he, like me, had to go to a place where there was enough water to get immersed...And how do I know that???

Joh_3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

And while this is from a funny movie, I can't help but think it was similar to this with John the Baptist...A beautiful scene and song by Alison Krauss that I'd recommend to anyone...

Jesus said man must be born of the water, and of the Spirit. Peter says water baptism saves us.

Now there you go again...When you change scripture you can get it to mean what every you want...Peter says we get water baptism for the remission of sins...Peter says baptism saves us...And again, baptism ain't water...

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

John's statement about Jesus baptizing "in the Holy Spirit and in fire" is partly explained in the previous and following verses:

Interesting verses there...

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?...And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire." - Matt. 3:7, 10-12

Does this fire baptism save or destroy?

I don't believe the baptism in itself destroys...

Looking at the verse, there are Sadducees and Pharisees coming down to get baptized...John knows their heart...There will be no repentance on their part...They have only bad fruit...They can get baptized all day long and it will have no affect on them...They're going to end up in the fire with or without baptism...

The fire is their end...

Now Jesus who comes afterward and baptizes with the Holy Ghost and fire to me is a reference to the Judgment Seat of Christ...Where those who are in Christ and indwelt with the Holy Spirit will have their unfruitful works burned up...

Yes, John baptized in water, as did Jesus:

Of course Jesus didn't baptize anyone with water; but his disciples did...Jesus baptized only with the Holy Ghost...

Was Jesus baptizing in the Holy Spirit and in fire? Or in water?

Again, Jesus didn't baptize anyone in water...But his disciples did, and still do...

I don't see how they could've been "turning to Jesus" as you suggest, since John was baptizing before Jesus had manifested Himself.

That was John's message...Jesus the Messiah was coming...And soon...Get ready to go into his kingdom...

God was selectively dropping the Holy Spirit on people as he did in the O.T....

Joh_20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

That was before Joel's prophecy was spoken of by Peter...John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit...

Those in Ephesus (in Acts 19) had been baptized in John's "baptism of repentance". But when they heard of the baptism of Jesus, they were baptized into Him. Why?
Did they receive the Holy Spirit when they were baptized into Jesus? Or when Paul laid his hands on them?

Likely when Paul laid his hand on them...They likely weren't baptized 'into' Jesus but were baptized with the Holy Ghost...You'll notice in Joel's prophecy they are not indwelt with the Holy Spirit but the Spirit lands on them so that they can provide signs for the coming of Jesus, the Messiah...

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the 'we in Christ and He in us' was a mystery until it was revealed to Paul and then he revealed it to us, the church...

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.