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.

There is one common thread in every scenario you have. Water would have killed if not for God’s Love, Mercy, and Grace. The water didn’t save them blood did, but it did symbolize their coming out of the grave (death, burial, and resurrection) that I agree completely.

1. Water killed (blood) every living thing on Earth except what was protected by the Ark(God).
2. The water would have killed Moses, but the basket saved him(God).
3. The water killed the Egyptian Army(blood), but God saved the Israeli’s from the water.
4. Not really sure about this reference, but he was physically sick and due to a miracle became a believer in the God of Israel.
5 & 6. Jonah would have died in the water if not protected by the fish(God). Actually by Scripture v.16 the men then made a sacrifice(blood) it wasn’t water.

Jonah 1:16-17 Amplified Bible (AMP)

16 Then the men [reverently and worshipfully] feared the Lord exceedingly, and they offered a sacrifice to the Lord and made vows.

17 Now the Lord had prepared and appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Baptism is a symbol of faith in God, the resurrection, and the cleansing of the conscience.

Why was Jesus Baptized for he was sin free. Scripture tells us to fulfill all righteousness. And how do we know what that is just look at Abraham as he was credited with righteousness.

Matthew 3:15 Amplified Bible (AMP)

15 But Jesus replied to him, Permit it just now; for this is the fitting way for [both of] us to fulfill all righteousness [that is, to perform completely whatever is right]. Then he permitted Him.

Genesis 15:6 Amplified Bible (AMP)

6 And he [Abram] believed in (trusted in, relied on, remained steadfast to) the Lord, and He counted it to him as righteousness (right standing with God).

Romans 4:3-5 Amplified Bible (AMP)

3 For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed in (trusted in) God, and it was credited to his account as righteousness (right living and right standing with God).

4 Now to a laborer, his wages are not counted as a favor or a gift, but as an obligation (something owed to him).

5 But to one who, not working [by the Law], trusts (believes fully) in Him Who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited to him as righteousness (the standing acceptable to God).

We are commanded to Baptism and thus if we accept Jesus Christ in our heart we want to please him and follow his commands. We want everyone to see our faith and our acceptance of God through Jesus Christ or at least I did and others I have talked to did also. We are also commanded to help the widows, orphans, and the Jewish poor. All this is a result of being saved that the Book of James refers to as good works.

James 2:21-23 Amplified Bible (AMP)

21 Was not our forefather Abraham [shown to be] justified (made acceptable to God) by [his] works when he brought to the altar as an offering his [own] son Isaac?

22 You see that [his] faith was cooperating with his works, and [his] faith was completed and reached its supreme expression [when he implemented it] by [good] works.

23 And [so] the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed in (adhered to, trusted in, and relied on) God, and this was accounted to him as righteousness (as conformity to God’s will in thought and deed), and he was called God’s friend.

**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...**

‘Change around scripture’ is exactly what you are doing with this next statement:

**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...**

Foreasmuch THEN (past tense)....as God GAVE (past tense)...them the like gift.....what was I, that I COULD WITHSTAND (present tense).

Peter is relating the story in the way it progressed.

**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.**

Cornelius lived in Caesarea, right next to the Mediteranean Sea. Also, water is a requirement of life everywhere. The delayed for days baptisms (even in oneness church assemblies) is not very biblical.

**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:**

Instead of changing around scripture, just skip one when convenient, such as some rather critical words at the end of verse 20:

“..wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

**And again, baptism ain’t water...**

When it’s perfomed by those sent by God, it is water baptism IN the name of Jesus, FOR the remission of sins.

God handles the Spirit baptism.

Here’s a sidenote to ponder (if only for a second):

Jesus Christ called the wine his ‘blood’. It is somewhat interesting that his first recorded miracle is the turning of water into wine. EVERYTHING he did had a spiritual meaning. After all, “the flesh profiteth nothing”.

**There is one common thread in every scenario you have. Water would have killed if not for God’s Love, Mercy, and Grace. The water didn’t save them blood did, but it did symbolize their coming out of the grave (death, burial, and resurrection) that I agree completely.**

Water baptism is death and buriel with Jesus Christ. It is the Spirit that powers the resurrection.

**1. Water killed (blood) every living thing on Earth except what was protected by the Ark(God).**

And Peter said that the water was God’s instrument to save eight souls, which is the same instrument he expects his ministers to use to bury souls with Jesus (in his name).

**2. The water would have killed Moses, but the basket saved him(God).**

Baby Moses was comdemned to death, but the water was where the basket was placed to hide him from destruction. Over a period of time he surely would have died in the river, if not pulled from it. He then began a new life.

**3. The water killed the Egyptian Army(blood), but God saved the Israeli’s from the water.**

Blood saved them from the first born curse. Water is the ‘sea’ in 1Cor. 10:1,2.”.. 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”.

**4. Not really sure about this reference, but he was physically sick and due to a miracle became a believer in the God of Israel.**

Well, Namann had the rotting skin of leprosy, a death sentence really. He immersed himself in the river, and his skin became like that of a baby. He left his early death sentence in the river.

**5 & 6. Jonah would have died in the water if not protected by the fish(God). Actually by Scripture v.16 the men then made a sacrifice(blood) it wasn’t water.**

Verse 16 comes AFTER the storm ceased. My point is that the curse to the sailors was Jonah, and by casting him into the sea, the sea ceased from it’s raging.

And Jonah was his own curse, destined to die with the sailors. Notice that he didn’t throw himself overboard. Sin doesn’t leave on it’s own. Jesus likened Jonah’s time in the fish as burial, since he used it as a comparison to his own.

I will answer more fully when able, we don’t want a sleepy trucker on the roads, do we?

I think we're in some disagreement about the baptisms in Acts. For instance, you say, regarding the Ephesians in Acts 19: "They likely weren't baptized 'into' Jesus but were baptized with the Holy Ghost."

What it says though is: "And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." Isn't this the same baptism Paul describes in Romans 6:3? - "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"

That's a most interesting passage, as it describes what happens in baptism. Paul supposes someone might come to the wrong conclusion from what he's been saying and ask, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" After rejecting that erroneous conclusion in the strongest possible terms ("God forbid."), he says, in essence, that anyone who would reach such a conclusion must not understand what happened when he was baptized:

"Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin; for he that hath died is justified from sin." - Rom. 6:3-7

The Christian is dead to sin, Paul says. He died to sin when he joined in Christ's death. He was buried with Christ in baptism. And he was raised with Christ from the water. The old man - the one in bondage to sin - was killed and buried, while the new man that comes up from the grave of baptism is freed (justified or found not-guilty, and released) from the bonds of sin the slave-master.

We might imagine Paul asking this rhetorical question: How can a Christian continue to live bound by the chains of sin, when those chains have been broken and he is set free?!

And when did all this happen, Paul?

Why, when he died with Christ in baptism, of course. That old man - the slave of sin - was crucified with Christ. And a new man - a free man - was raised with Him.

Would you agree with all that?

>>I’ve given you a LOT to ignore it seems.<<

No, you have given me a lot that you don't seem to rightly understand.

>>I trust that the tranlators used ‘for’ because it is the best suitable word for the passage.<<

Well, the same Greek word is used here. Matthew 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Did the fire exist before the tree was cast into the fire? Yes it did.

and here:

Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

Did Egypt exist before they took Jesus into Egypt? Yes it did.

That Greek word is used 1774 times in the New Testament and nearly every time is translated into. So being consistent let's see it here:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ~~for~~ into the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Did the remission of sins exist before we are baptised into it? Yes it did.

The word is a Preposition, NOT a verb. Surely you understand the difference.

>>So...If I’m a sinner, how do I get into this “remission of sins” state?<<

1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Baptism is a symbol or a picture of what has happened in the life of the person who, by faith, has believed in Jesus Christ and been saved by His grace. It's an outward testimony by which the new Christian gives a public testimony that they have believed in Jesus Christ and have been born again. Being baptized by immersion the believer visually shows the spiritual death, burial, and resurrection of the believer's life. It is not an act that one does to obtain salvation and no one in the New Testament was baptized who did not first believe and put their faith in Jesus Christ. It is a public testimony of salvation.

Baptism in the New Testament always follows salvation by grace through faith it is not part of the causation of salvation or forgiveness.

But don’t you see what you’re saying, my friend?

Let’s take your three examples, and see if your logic holds up. You say (and please, correct me if I’m misrepresenting you!) that:

A person doesn’t get into the “remission of sins” state by being baptized.

By the same logic, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus didn’t get into Egypt by fleeing.

And the tree doesn’t get into the fire by being cast there.

Hmm, it appears something’s wrong with your logic. :-)

Because John the baptizer said the tree DOES get in the fire by being cast there, Matthew said Joseph and his wife and child DID get into Egypt by fleeing there, and Peter said sinners DO get into “remission of sins” by being baptized.

You’re right: the fire existed before the tree was cast into it. But the tree certainly wasn’t in it yet.

And you’re right: Egypt existed before Joseph took his family and fled there. But they certainly weren’t in it yet.

And you’re right: “remission of sins” exists before the sinner is baptized. But he certainly isn’t in it yet.

The fire won’t burn the tree that isn’t in it. And Egypt wouldn’t be a safe haven if Joseph and his family weren’t in it. And the “remission of sins” state won’t save anyone who isn’t in it.

Of course eis is a preposition. It tells us "where" the verb's action gets us, or points us to what the verb's action achieves, etc.

The casting of the tree gets the tree into the fire. The fleeing of Joseph and his family gets them into Egypt. The baptizing of the sinner gets him into the realm of "remission of sins".

It's interesting that you can see that's true with 2 out of 3, but the 3rd is for some reason simply unacceptable to you.

Well here's a 4th to consider:

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." - Matt. 26:28

You say that baptism has nothing to do with the remission of sins. Well, does Jesus' blood have anything to do with remission of sins? The purpose of each is the same. The same thing that is said about Jesus' blood shed - the exact same Greek phrase* translated "for remission of sins" in Matt. 26:28 - is said about baptism in Acts 2:38.

Be baptized ---> for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
Blood shed ----> for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28)

Now tell us, did Jesus shed His blood because everybody's sins had been forgiven already? You say that baptism "is a public testimony of salvation." Was the shedding of Jesus' blood "is a public testimony of salvation"??

Well it must be - according to you - because the Bible says the purpose of Jesus' bloodshed and the purpose of baptism are one and the same.

If we need Jesus' blood, we need baptism. But according to you, eis proves we don't.

* The Greek phrase in both is "eis aphesin hamartion".

Now you're misrepresenting me, my friend. I hope that was unintentional.

The reason I want you to understand about baptism is so that you can obtain the gift of salvation. Baptism isn't a way to "earn salvation" or "deserve forgiveness". It is the way Jesus set in place for us to receive the gift He wants to give us.

It is where the slave of sin, the "old man", is put to death, and we are freed from that bondage to live a new life (Rom. 6). It is where Jesus performs the operation which circumcises our hearts:

"in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." - Col. 2:11-12

This operation is not one we perform on ourselves. What would you think if somebody told you, "I fixed my own heart problem!" and then you found out all he did was change into the hospital gown and lie on the operating table while surgeons and assistants performed the open-heart surgery?

Well that's what we do - we allow Jesus to perform the operation while we merely submit ourselves into His hands in baptism. Is that anything to boast about? "We DESERVE salvation now! We did WORKS to earn it!" We'd sound silly saying such a thing, wouldn't we?

**No, you have given me a lot that you don’t seem to rightly understand.**

That’s a good of a dodge as any.

**The word is a Preposition, NOT a verb. Surely you understand the difference.**

You can’t see the forest for the trees.
You can’t see the forest into the trees.

Same result. (a suggestion: you could come back and read those two lines again after reading the rest of this post)

Baptism is the verb, but you seem to want to interpret when it means water baptism, or not.

I’ve proven to you and others that Paul water baptized plenty of folks. You, and those like minded, readily jump on 1Cor. 1:17 to say Paul didn’t water baptize, or at least saw it as unecessary.

Which is a diss on Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:16, and the various accounts of souls being baptized by God’s messengers.

Look at the response to Peter preaching to the unsaved souls in Acts 2:37 (keeping in mind that these folks had just been thoroughly taught who Jesus Christ is).

“Now when they HEARD this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethern, what shall we do?”

Now you are faced with Acts 2;38, and MUST PROVE that ‘baptism’ in not in water, to satisfy your ‘no works’ doctrine (when it is not ‘our own works’ at all, but obedience to God. Rom. 6:17).

The problem with that is the cases in Acts that directly mention water baptism in the name of Jesus, or make it very obvious by the actions taking place, such as:

1. The Samaritans believed, and then were baptized. 8:12
2. Simon the sorcerer believed, and then was baptized. 8:13
3. The eunuch believed, and then was baptized. 8:36-38
4. Saul/Paul believed, and ‘arose, and was baptized’. 9:18. (Second account: ‘arise, and be baptized’ 22:16. He had to arise. Why?)
5. Cornelius and household believed, received the Holy Ghost, and were then baptized...in water...in the name of the Lord. 10:46-48
6. Crispus, and others of Corinth, believed and were baptized. 18:8 (I have already proved earlier that Paul water baptized Crispus and others by the 1Cor. 12-17 passage).

As for Cornelius and his household, in Acts 11:17 Peter is relating the story in the way it progressed, and WHY he HAD to baptize them.

Foreasmuch THEN (past tense)....as God GAVE (past tense)...them the like gift.....what was I, that I COULD WITHSTAND (present/future tense).

You, and those like minded, are determined to deny that certain instances of baptism, noted in Acts, is water, if water is not specifically mentioned. If you were a truck driver, and I the dispatcher, my patience would be tested by your behavior: By your repeatedly requiring word for word directions to a place you had already been to several times.

When King Josiah read the ‘words of the book of the covenant’ to the people, the scriptures don’t go back and repeat it all. That’s because, by that point in reading the Bible, one knows where to find it in detail. The DETAILED instructions of the new birth are easily found in the NT, if one WANTS to find them.

Concerning Abraham:

**Genesis 15:6 Amplified Bible (AMP)
6 And he [Abram] believed in (trusted in, relied on, remained steadfast to) the Lord, and He counted it to him as righteousness (right standing with God).**

That testamony from God was made years after Abraham had (at God’s instructions) traveled at least 400 miles (the old fashioned way), built an altar at Bethel (it wasn’t just to look at), and done many other faithful things.

The Abraham example is great, when told in it’s fullness. But, that is the failure of ‘Ahimaaz’ messengers. Good men, but inspite of missing the entire message, they still feel qualified. (see 2Sam. 18:19-32.)

**We are commanded to Baptism and thus if we accept Jesus Christ in our heart we want to please him and follow his commands. We want everyone to see our faith and our acceptance of God through Jesus Christ or at least I did and others I have talked to did also. We are also commanded to help the widows, orphans, and the Jewish poor. All this is a result of being saved that the Book of James refers to as good works.**

That is true. Just make SURE that you are not overlooking Jesus Christ, and his apostles, COMPLETE teaching on water baptism.

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.