Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Born Again????


Noni1974
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've gotten the feeling that TWI was a Born Again Christian off shoot.Could someone please explain what Born Again really means.As a JW we were never really told what it meant just that Born Agains are into things like speaking in tounges.I don't eaxctly know what that really is either.I've never seen it for myself and I don't know anybody who does it.I don't really know anyone who would say they were Born Again either so if you have a website or something I would very much like to know for myself what it means.

JW's have a dislike for Born Agains and I have no real clue as to why.I personally don't have the same dislike because when I left the JW's I left all that type of thinking behind.I hate being ignorant of something so I feel like I should hear it from those who practice it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Could someone please explain what Born Again really means.
I don't really know anyone who would say they were Born Again either so if you have a website or something I would very much like to know for myself what it means.

Here's a website or something.

=================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again

"Born again is a term used primarily in the Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Pentecostal branches of Protestant Christianity, where it is associated with salvation, conversion and spiritual rebirth. Outside of these circles, the term is often applied by extension to other phenomena, including a transcending personal experience — or the experience of being spiritually reborn as a "new" human being.

Christian concepts

To be born again in Christianity is synonymous with spiritual rebirth and, in many denominational traditions, salvation. The term is used somewhat differently in different Christian traditions.

The Christian use of the term is derived from the third chapter of the Gospel of John, where Nicodemus visits Jesus:

Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God."

Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again."

Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

-John 3:1-5 (New Revised Standard Version)

(Note that some translators consider "born from above" to be a better translation than "born again".)

Most Christian denominations hold that a person must be born again in some sense in order to be a Christian, and thus that all who are true Christians are in fact born again, whether they describe themselves as such or not. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, considers that "Baptism is ... the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost." , though the term is not frequently used by Catholics. This is also the belief held by Eastern Christianity, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism, among other Christian traditions. However, the term itself is most frequently used by Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and Evangelical Protestants, where it is often associated with an intense conversion experience and an encounter of the individual with the power of God. Most "born-again Christians" believe that baptism is symbolic rather than sacramental. Many Christians who are "born again" in this sense deny that those without such an experience are true Christians.

The idea of being born again carries with it the theological idea that a Christian is a new creation, given a fresh start by the action of God, freed from a sinful past life and able to begin a new life in relationship with Christ via the Holy Spirit. John Wesley and Christians associated with early Methodism referred to the born again experience as "the New Birth". The Unity Church suggests that being born again is a continuous process that must be done repeatedly as one "dies" to old, ineffective ideas and redirects oneself toward Christ consciousness.

In recent history, born again is a term that has been associated with evangelical renewal since the late 1960s, first in the United States and then later around the world. Associated perhaps initially with Jesus People and the Christian counterculture, born again came to refer to an intense conversion experience, and was increasingly used as a term to identify devout believers. By the mid 1970s, born again Christians were increasingly referred to in the mainstream media as part of the Born Again Movement. A 1976 book of that title by Watergate conspirator and convicted felon Charles Colson, describing his path to faith in conjunction with his criminal imprisonment, played a significant role in solidifying Born Again identity as a cultural construct in the U.S. The term was sufficiently prevalent that, during that year's Presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter described himself as born again, notably in the first Playboy magazine interview of a U.S. Presidential candidate."

==========

As to whether or not "born again" should properly be translated "born from above",

the word translated "again" there is "anothen" in the Greek, and that's translated

"from above" in other places in the Bible, but not "again" in other places in the Bible.

I'd say that argues it's better translated "from above" in all instances.

The verses I think of would be

(New American Standard)

I Peter 1:3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

I Peter 1:23

for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

As twi used it, someone "born again" is different in a substantive way. They WERE like everyone

else since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, and thus only body and soul, neither of which is

immortal, and both of which die. However, once born again, they were born of God's Spirit,

and were now composed of body, soul AND spirit.

I think that explanation is different from what the average Christian means when

they say "born again."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote: (Note that some translators consider "born from above" to be a better translation than "born again".)

Yes. And it's not just a feeling; it either happened or it didn't.

The phrase born again is not used that many times in scripture, but I think VP was right that saved = born again = received holy spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues.

I also think VP was right that our adversary does try very hard to convince Christians that their Christianity is no good, that they're walk is poor, etc. and that many church Christians really do go all their life not sure if they're born again or not. VP wasn't perfect, but he gave us plenty to work with.

Take your best shot, WW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is simple to be born again ... it is synonymous with the word "saved" as used in the Bible. See Romans 10:9 ... "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. And it's not just a feeling; it either happened or it didn't.
This is a false dilemma. There are at least THREE choices:
  • "It" happened
  • "It" didn't happen
  • You thought "it" happened even though "it" didn't

This is not a commentary on the validity or reality of the experience. Reducing an argument to black & white often is an oversimplification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DogLover gave the *correct* definition -- as accepted by many "Christian" outfits.

Twi (the way international), believed the same -- but put their own spin on it.

The pfal class (power for abundant living), taught by the founder and 1st president of twi

*dr.* victor paul wierwille (hereafter referred to as docvic) ----

taught a few extra things, that gave that *new spin* to being born again.

In the pfal class -- docvic tells us man was originally formed, made, and created.

He also says man was designed originally as body, soul, and spirit.

The body was formed, the soul was made, and the spirit was created.

He continued on to say that when man (adam) sinned, he did not die PHYSICALLY that day,

but he died SPIRITUALLY, thus the spirit God gave to man was lost, dead, no longer a part of the *three-some*.

And from the day adam sinned to the day of Pentecost in Acts 2,

(when the apostles spoke in tongues

man was a *two-part being*, and not *three-part* as originally planned.

Docvic went on to teach that many in the Old Testament had spirit UPON them (conditionally),

but it wasn't the same as having it IN THEM (unconditionally), like adam did (created in him).

The folks who had spirit conditionally, were folks like the prophets,

and they could lose the spirit, if they screwed up in their personal lives.

To make a long story short -- docvic taught that when you accept Jesus as your Saviour (Romans 10:9),

then God creates within you spirit once again -- now you are a 3-part being again.

Body, Soul, AND Spirit -- ie --- *born again*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote: Yes. And it's not just a feeling; it either happened or it didn't.

This is a false dilemma. There are at least THREE choices:

"It" happened

"It" didn't happen

You thought "it" happened even though "it" didn't

This is not a commentary on the validity or reality of the experience. Reducing an argument to black & white often is an oversimplification.

1 John 5:12 - He that hath the son hath life, and he that hath not the son hath not life.

Is this also oversimplification?

quote: Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?

C'mon, you're a pfal grad. God never oversteps man's freedom of will. I'm glad the 12 on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 "cared to SIT".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?

I guess I'm a mite confused about this one myself.

Docvic never did say you HAVE to speak in tongues to be born again.

What he said about it was, *It is outward proof in the senses realm, of the internal reality of the spirit*.

Belle -- maybe this was before your time in twi ---

but I remember docvic saying he water baptized some folks who asked him to.

He said he didn't like it, saw no need for it, but did it anyway, since it helped their *believing*.

Perhaps he lied -- I don't know, but he claims he did it, regardless of his teachings on the subject.

So -- even he agreed to something he taught differently about. (no surprise -- eh??)

Where does the *You have to speak in tongues to be *saved* come from*??

As much as I don't care for docvic -- I never remember hearing him say that.

It certainly was not twi doctrine -- at least not the doctrine from pfal.

SIT is real to me. I know MANY folks who have never done it,

and they are *Christian* in every sense of the word --- (love thy neighbor, etc.)

I've never heard that (you have to SIT), except here. Meebe that was an lcm thing?? I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regeneration (being born again) is not synonymous with salvation, which is a rather broad term. Salvation has past, present and future aspects. Those who have been been saved, are yet being saved and will yet be saved. Salvation includes a settled forensic (legal) justification, an accomplished and a progressive sanctification, a bodily redemption, an eschatological justification, a deliverance from the wrath of God, and a grant of life in the eschatological kingdom.

Regeneration is God’s making alive a spiritually dead man and is theologically sometimes said to be included in salvation. There is biblical language, however, that presents regeneration as instrumental to salvation (Titus 3:5).

It is God’s act of regenerating his elect that brings one to faith (which is a gift of God) in Christ. Faith does not appropriate God’s regenerating activity.

I used to oppose the notion that regeneration precedes faith, but the case made by “Gottswrks” (aka: “Gottschalk”) for regeneration being causally prior to faith in the following IRC discussion (which I have edited by bolding some text and deleting various posts and messages) changed my mind.

Start of Status Window buffer: Sun Aug 26 02:37:44 2001

*** Connecting to houston.tx.us.starlink-irc.org (6667)

Start of #prosapologian buffer: Sun Aug 26 02:39:11 2001

*** Now talking in #prosapologian

*** Topic is 'God is Sovereign Over All Things

(Rooster) The following article addresses the

Reformed view of regeneration (http://www.faith

alone.org/journal/2000ii/Anderson.htm). Does

anybody know if there has been a Reformed

response to this issue?

(Charis) Rooster: Who wrote it?

(Rooster) David Anderson, Pastor of Faith

Community Church in the The Woodlands, TX

(Charis) Rooster: I asume he believes that one

must have faith prior to regeneration..

(Charis) assume too

(Rooster) charis... He writes, "We have grappled

in this discussion with one of the crucial

differences between what is called Reformed

Theology and Dispensational Theology, that is,

regeneration as it relates to faith in the

ordo salutis and the impact this crux

interpretum has on one’s understanding of

Total Depravity."

(Charis) Rooster: Would you agree that one must

be "Born Again" prior to receiving faith?

(Rooster) Charis, good question... not sure I'm

persuaded that saving faith is received.

(Rooster) but haven't quite thought through all

the issues.

(Charis) Rooster: Would you say we contribute

faith to the process of salvation?

(Rooster) I would say that faith is a human

response (not a contribution).

(Charis) Response to what?

(Rooster) A response to the truth of the gospel.

You are either persuaded that it is true or

you are not.

(Charis) Rooster: But what about 1Corinthians

2:14?

(Charis) ~niv 1cor 2:14

(Latreuo) 12 1Corinthians 2:14 The man without the

Spirit does not accept the things that come

from the Spirit of God, for they are

foolishness to him, and he cannot understand

them, because they are spiritually discerned.

(NIV)

(Charis) And John 3:3?

(Charis) ~niv joh 3:3

(Latreuo) 12 John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I

tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom

of God unless he is born again. [17]" (NIV)

*** Joins: Gottswrks

(Cynic) One problem I've got with the

regeneration-precedes-faith dogma is that

faith itself is a gift of God.

(Charis) And of course Ephesians 2:8-10

(Charis) ~niv eph 28-10

(Charis) ~niv eph 2:8-10

(Latreuo) 12 Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you

have been saved, through faith--and this not

from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- (NIV)

(Latreuo) 12 Ephesians 2:9 not by works, so that

no one can boast. (NIV)

(Latreuo) 12 Ephesians 2:10 For we are God's

workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do

good works, which God prepared in advance for

us to do. (NIV)

(Gottswrks) philippians 1:29 is better

(Charis) And Titus 3:5

(Charis) ~niv titus 3:5

(Latreuo) 12 Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of

righteous things we had done, but because of

his mercy. He saved us through the washing of

rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, (NIV)

(Charis) ~niv phi 1:29

(Latreuo) 12 Philippians 1:29 For it has been

granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to

believe on him, but also to suffer for him,

(NIV)

(Charis) Rooster: Even repentance must be

granted by God before one can repent.

(Charis) ~niv act 11:18

(Latreuo) 12 Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they

had no further objections and praised God,

saying, "So then, God has granted even the

Gentiles repentance unto life." (NIV)

(Gottswrks) and acts 13:48

(Charis) The Scriptures clearly show that

salvation from Regeneration to faith to

repentance is all of God.

(Cynic) The argument that regeneration must

precede faith seems (at best) to be rank

speculation about a soteriological order with

which God grants salvation.

(Gottswrks) cynic - i would dispute that it is

simple speculation - it is exegetically

derived from Scripture as fact

(Charis) Cynic: Very good. :)

(Cynic) And implies weird things such as there

might be regenerated unbelivers walking around.

(Cynic) unbelievers, too.

(Gottswrks) the order of the decrees is

irrelevant, incidentally, with regard to the

actual order of man's conversion

(Gottswrks) cynic, we're not asserting that

there is a time lag between regeneration and

faith - just that one is the necessary

recondition of the other

(Charis) Cynic: Are you a faith to regeneration

kinda guy? ;)

(Gottswrks) precondition

(Cynic) Where is such a thing exegetically

derived from in Scripture?

(Gottswrks) just as faith is a necessary

precondition to justification

(TheJavaMan) Cynic: You're wrong...Faith is an

INSTANTANEOUS product of regeneration

(Cynic) I don't know that I can seperate the two.

(Gottswrks) cynic, lets turn to 1 john

(TheJavaMan) There are no unregernerate

believers or visa versa

(Gottswrks) now let me get you to look at a few

verses

(Gottswrks) ~nas 1john 2:29

(Latreuo) 12 1John 2:29 If you know that He is

righteous, you know that everyone also who

practices righteousness is born of Him. (NASB)

(Gottswrks) cynic - do you see that verse says

that everyone who practices righteousness *is*

born of God

(Gottswrks) the tense of that verb is perfect

representing completed action in the past

relative to the action of the main verb

(Gottswrks) therefore regeneration precedes

practicing righteousness - do you see that

here?

(Cynic) I would certainly admit there is a work

of the Holy Spirit prior to one's coming to

faith, but I dispute that it can properly be

called effected regeneration.

(Gottswrks) cynic - are you following me here?

(Cynic) So far, yes.

(Gottswrks) eveyone who practices righteousness

has been born of God right?

(Cynic) Yes.

(Gottswrks) the born of God precedes praticing

righteousness.

(Gottswrks) ok, lets look at another verse

(Gottswrks) ~nas 1john 4:19

(Latreuo) 12 1John 4:19 We love, because He first

loved us. (NASB)

(Gottswrks) oops

(Gottswrks) ~nas 1john 4:7

(Latreuo) 12 1John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one

another, for love is from God; and everyone

who loves is born of God and knows God. (NASB)

(Gottswrks) same idea

(Gottswrks) the born of God here is perfect tense

(Gottswrks) and obviously we don't really love

util after we're born again - right?

(Gottswrks) everyone who loves has been born aga

(Gottswrks) again

(Gottswrks) the new birth precedes the ability

to really and truly love

(TheJavaMan) Cynic: How can you believe faith

precedes regeneration when the Scriptures

clearly teach: "There is NONE righteous, NO,

NOT ONE;

(TheJavaMan) There is NONE who understands;

(TheJavaMan) There is NONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD.

(TheJavaMan) They have ALL gone out of the way;

(TheJavaMan) They have together become

UNPROFITABLE;

(TheJavaMan) There is NONE who does good, NO,

NOT ONE.

(TheJavaMan) Their throat is an open tomb;

(TheJavaMan) With their tongues they have

practiced DECEIT;

(TheJavaMan) The poison of asps is under their

lips;

(TheJavaMan) Whose mouth is full of cursing and

bitterness.

(TheJavaMan) Their feet are swift to shed blood;

(TheJavaMan) Destruction and misery are in their

ways;

(TheJavaMan) And the way of peace they have not

known.

(TheJavaMan) There is NO FEAR OF GOD before

their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)

(Gottswrks) cynic are yo with me so far?

(Jason) stop spamming

(TheJavaMan) Cynic: still believe dead men can

have *saving* faith?

(Jason) or whatever you call it...

(Gottswrks) the apostle john has been very

careful in 1 john twice now to indicate that

we love and practice righteousness after

having been born again

(TheJavaMan) Jason: are you talkin' to ME???

(Gottswrks) cynic?

(Charis) The new birth, or regeneration, is God

giving us the spiritual life that enables us

to do what we must do (repent and believe),

but CANNOT DO because of our bondage to sin.

When the Bible says man is dead in sin, it

means that man's mind, heart, and will are all

spiritually dead in sin.

(Gottswrks) cynic?

(Gottswrks) is cynic msging someone?

(Cynic) My argument is not that dead men can

respond in faith to the gospel. It is that

Scripture attests that faith is itself the

gift of God, without metaphysical underpinning

thought necessary concerning regeneration.

(Gottswrks) cynic - i am making an exegetical

argument here - are you with me?

*** Quits: Charis

*** Gottswrks is now known as Gottschalk

(Cynic) Gottschalk: I understand the argument,

but it seems to depend upon making "regeneratio

n" the enabler of "faith" and "repentance."

Faith and repentance, however, are themselves

gifts of God.

(Gottschalk) cynic - i was hoping to demonstrate

to you that Scripture clearly indicates that

regeneration precedes faith - and that it is

not simply a logical argument

(Gottschalk) cynic - i haven't gotten to the

relevant verse yet

(Cynic) Go ahead.

(Gottschalk) do you know any greek btw (just

curious since i mentioned the greek perfect

tense - and sinc it is relevant to this

argument)?

(Gottschalk) its not essential - but it is

helpful

(Cynic) No. I do know what the perfect tense is.

(Gottschalk) ok, anyway - the greek perfect

tense represents completed action in the past

with ctinuing results into the present

(Gottschalk) it is often translated with the

english helping verb "has"

(Gottschalk) therefore in the 2 verses i just

cited - i would translate hose verses as:

...you know that everyone who pravctices

righteousness HAS BEEN born of God

(Gottschalk) and also...everyone who loves HAS

BEEN born of God

(Gottschalk) which we both should agree with

(Gottschalk) the born again there precedes the

action of the main verb

(Gottschalk) now look at 1 john 5:1

(Gottschalk) ~nas 1john 5:1

(Latreuo) 12 1John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus

is the Christ is born of God, and whoever

loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

(NASB)

(Gottschalk) same perfect tense

(Gottschalk) whoever believes that Jesus is the

Christ HAS BEEN born of God

(Gottschalk) the HAS BEEN born of God precedes

the action of believing grammatically

(Gottschalk) and the apostle john has been very

careful twice in this epistle to relate the

time of the "born again" and our actions

subsequent to it

(Jason) Chalk, does that mean that "everyone"

and "righteousness" and "love" mean that

absolutely no one can practice any kind of

righteousness at all without having been born

again, or does it mean that if we know people

are practicing righteousness, they must be

born again?

(Gottschalk) we obviously love after having been

born again (1 John 2:29)

(Gottschalk) and we obviously practice

righteousness after having ben born again (1

John 4:7)

(Gottschalk) and accoding to John we even

believe after having been born again (1 John

5:1)

(Gottschalk) thats not a logical argument

(Cynic) Gottschalk: that is a very compelling

argument (the only exegetical argument, in

fact, that I have ever seen on the issue.)

(Gottschalk) its completely exegetical

(Gottschalk) too often we calvinists rely only

on logical forms of arguemtn

(Gottschalk) i appeal to my calvinists brethren

to make the thrust of their appeals to

Scriputre

(Gottschalk) logic has its place

(Gottschalk) but let us loo to the Word and let

us do so with care

(Jason) Gottschalk...perhaps we believe and are

simultaneously born again at the same time,

and saying that we only believe after having

been born again is only to emphasis the fact

that you can't have one without the other

(Cynic) I checked out 1 John 5:1 in Strong's (no

offense), and it does have it as the perfect

tense.

(Gottschalk) jason - i believe that as far as

time they do occur (for all intensive

purposes) at the same time

(Gottschalk) yet we are speaking in terms of one

being the necessary precondition of the other

(Gottschalk) just s faith and justification

occur at the same time

(Gottschalk) yet faith is the necessary

precondition

(Gottschalk) it occurs prior to justification

(Jason) ok

(TheJavaMan) Jason: But it is regereration that

produces faith, and not visa versa

(Jason) but...

(Gottschalk) sorry jason - im not good enough to

carry on simultaneous convos at once :)

(Cynic) You have me just about convinced

(subject to a more comprehensive study, of

course).

(Gottschalk) i appreciate you taking the time to

listen respectfully to my arguments cynic

(Jason) what if regeneration is defined as

clearing away the sin that blocks the will's

ability to choose good?

(Gottschalk) if we woud all just listen and

dialogue with respect we could avoid all the

clutter that arguemnst produce and we could

progress in our understanding of the Word -

learning from each other

(TheJavaMan) regeneration literally means

"bringing back to life"

(Gottschalk) i myself am guilty of not doing

this all too often

(Rooster) Gotts - I once asked a Greek teacher

about 1 John 5:1. He replied, "A participle's

tense does not carry aspect, that is, it

doesn't say anything about the nature of the

action. [The word in 1 John 5:1] is an

articular participle and it functions as a

noun."

(Gottschalk) rooster - the aspect is not at

issue here - its the TIME of the participle

(Gottschalk) and the time is admittedly a

secondary issue with regard t the nature of

Greek particples

(Gottschalk) primarily it is aspect that is

emphasized

(Gottschalk) yet the time of a Greek participle

is related to the action of the main verb

(Jason) ok, so nobody answered my question...

(Gottschalk) and besides - the apostle john has

used a similar constructiontwice in that very

epistrle

(Jason) what if "prevenient Grace

(Jason) "

(Gottschalk) and aboviously the action of the

verb occurs after the perfect tense in those

two cases

(Gottschalk) forgive my typing

(Gottschalk) rooster look at 1 John 2:29

(Jason) is God's action of clearing away the sin

which distorts our choices in order for us to

be able to make the same choice that Adam was

faced with

(Gottschalk) also look at 1 john 4:7

(TheJavaMan) Jason: WHAT?????????????????????????

???????????????

(Jason) *if, not "is"

(apollos) Jason: Where do you find any

scriptural support for that ?

(Gottschalk) both utilize e perfect tense with a

participle

(Jason) hey, i'm just asking questions...don't

yell..."boo hoo!"

(apollos) What is your question based on ?

(Gottschalk) and in both it is obvious that the

action of the main verb occurs after the

actionof the participle

(TheJavaMan) Jason: Look, again, in a nutshell,

dead sinners will NEVER have a saving trust in

Christ, so they need to be "brought to life"

to believe, because, again, the Scriptures

teach: "There is NONE righteous, NO, NOT ONE;

(TheJavaMan) There is NONE who understands;

(TheJavaMan) There is NONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD.

(TheJavaMan) They have ALL gone out of the way;

(TheJavaMan) They have together become

UNPROFITABLE;

(TheJavaMan) There is NONE who does good, NO,

NOT ONE.

(TheJavaMan) Their throat is an open tomb;

(Gottschalk) now is it likely that the same

author used that identical construction in 1

john 5:1 with no sense of time?

(TheJavaMan) With their tongues they have

practiced DECEIT;

(TheJavaMan) The poison of asps is under their

lips;

(TheJavaMan) Whose mouth is full of cursing and

bitterness.

(Jason) it's based on what seems to me possible

interpretations of all the scriptures i've

seen posted just now...

(TheJavaMan) Their feet are swift to shed blood;

(TheJavaMan) Destruction and misery are in their

ways;

(TheJavaMan) And the way of peace they have not

known.

(TheJavaMan) There is NO FEAR OF GOD before

their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)

(Cynic) pav (3956) {EVERYONE} o (3588) {THAT}

pisteuwn (4100) (5723) {BELIEVES} oti (3754)

{THAT} ihsouv (2424) {JESUS} estin (2076)

(5748) {IS} o (3588) {THE} cristov (5547)

{CHRIST,} ek (1537) tou (3588) {OF} yeou

(2316) {GOD} gegennhtai (1080) (5769) {HAS

BEEN BEGOTTEN;} kai (2532) {AND} pav (3956)

{EVERYONE} o (3588) {THAT} agapwn (25) (5723)

{LOVES} ton (3588) {HIM THAT} gennhsanta

(1080) (5660) {BEGAT,} agapa (25) (5719)

(5725) {LOVES} kai (2532) {ALSO} ton (3588)

{HIM THAT} gegennhmenon (1080) (5772) {HAS

BEEN BEGOTTEN} ex (1537) {OF} autou (846)

{HIM.}

(Cynic) From a downloaded Interlinear with

Strong's numbers.

(TheJavaMan) Cynic; yes!!!...but *WHO* will

believe???

(Gottschalk) thanks cynic

(TheJavaMan) Steph: LOL

(apollos) Jason: I must have missed it. Which

scriptures say that we are returned to the

state of Adam to make the same choice ?

(Gottschalk) the believing there is a presnt

participle

(Gottschalk) the born again is perfect tense

(TheJavaMan) BRB

(Jason) ok, java...i asked you not to do that

again...i get the idea, i've read it

before...you know? anyway...i'm not saying we

can do this stuff without God's Grace, i'm

saying, couldn't we NOT do it, even with God's

grace? how do these verses show the

irresistable quality of God's Grace? not

prevenient Grace, at the moment that we can

have faith...

(Gottschalk) the time of the participle (the

present tense "the one who believes") is

dependent upon the main verb (has been born

again)

(Cynic) Compelling.

(Gottschalk) and again what makes it even more

compelling to me is that John uses tat exact

same construction twice before

(Jason) ad a "but" in there after that last

comma...

(Gottschalk) 1 john 2:29 & 1 John 4:7

(Gottschalk) and in both cases everyone agrees

that "the one who loves" and "the one who

practices righteousness" occur *after* being

born again

(Jason) i suppose i made my point a little too

strong by saying we were given the same

ability that Adam had...but i hope you get my

point, nonetheless...

(Gottschalk) and john even asserts that the one

who believes *has been born again*

(Jason) i've never talked with anyone about

this, so expect me to miss some obvious point

that could obliterate any case i'm trying to

make...

*** Quits: Rooster

(Gottschalk) but i do understand our brothers

argument which assert that faith precedes

regeneration - and there are some who do so

who still affirm the fact that salvation is a

sovereign act of God - thy just have God

giving faith to men through the effectual call

(apollos) Jason: I don't get your point clearly.

can you restate it

(Jason) i'll try...

(Jason) ok, we're corrupted by sin to the point

that we can do nothing but sin...right?

(Gottschalk) yet i personally do not find that

argument compelling - and i think that the

argument from 1 john is difficult to overcome

(apollos) ok

(Jason) ok, we are so corrupted...yet we still

have a will that works, right?

(Jason) anyone listening to me?

(TheJavaMan) no

(Jason) no what

(TheJavaMan) no--no one is listening to YOU :o)

(Jason) well boo hoo

(TheJavaMan) lol

(Gottschalk) so anyway - i think that we should

argue that for all intensive purposes -

regeneration and faith occur simultaneously -

but that Scripture seems to indicate that one

is the necessary precondition of the other

regeneration being prior to faith ie)

(Gottschalk) and there is a scripture that

indicates that the time is simultaneous

incidentally

(Cynic) Subject to more reading and chewing, it

certainly appears so.

(Gottschalk) think about it

(Gottschalk) if you have any questions or if

something occurs to you after this about the

arguemtn from 1 john, let me know

(Gottschalk) you can email me if you want

(C777) ~niv John 1:12-13

(Latreuo) 12 John 1:12 Yet to all who received

him, to those who believed in his name, he

gave the right to become children of God--

(NIV)

(Latreuo) 12 John 1:13 children born not of

natural descent, [3] nor of human decision or

a husband's will, but born of God. (NIV)

(Jason) it still works in that we can still

choose, although what we choose now is

necessarily always evil

(apollos) Jason: are you referring to the debate

on impeachment ?

(Jason) no...it was one about religion and

government

(Gottschalk) cynic here's my email - i have to

go for a bit

(Gottschalk) [deleted by Cynic]

(C777) Human will is enslaved by sin. It will

always choose the sinful path.

(Cynic) Thanks, Gottschalk.

*** Gottschalk is now known as Gottsaway

(Gottsaway) np thanks for the chat

* Cynic is trying to figure out how to save this

session, without having had logging activated.

(Syz|Lurks) In mIRC, Cynic?

(Syz|Lurks) Click on the window icon in the

upper left

(Cynic) Yes.

(Syz|Lurks) Buffer-)Save

(Cynic) Can't find buffer or save.

(Syz|Lurks) Did you find the menu? It's the

little icon left of #Pros

(Cynic) Ah hah.

1 John 5:1

Edited by Cynic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cynic,

Just wanted to let you know that-if there was a reason you took us to that discussion-

I for one didn't see it even with the bolding.

Perhaps others did, but I doubt the majority of posters read it.

Moreover, even I say there's a point beyond which a post is too long.

If you really want to say something there,

may I suggest trimming out a few pages not germane to the discussion,

and "enable the help files"?

I for one didn't see the main point as sufficiently supported.

I doubt you meant "I'm right because the post is long", but it would be an

easy conclusion to make, that this is what you meant to say.

Finally, I'd bet money that the original questioner didn't get anything from it.

Feel free to ignore my advice, but expect the more obvious results if so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belle:

"Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?"

Johniam:

"C'mon, you're a pfal grad. God never oversteps man's freedom of will. I'm glad the 12 on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 'cared to SIT' ".

WordWolf responds:

"John, are you aware that you didn't answer her question? Any plans on actually answering it?"

I diagrammed it for ease of answering:

A) do you believe that one has to speak in tongues?

(i.e. -Is speaking in tongues required of God?)

B) If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again?

C) How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?

(Do you consider Christians as born again if they do not plan to sit at any point,

or are they not born again on that basis?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is simple to be born again ... it is synonymous with the word "saved" as used in the Bible. See Romans 10:9 ... "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
I agree with DogLover and I learned that in twi.
DogLover gave the *correct* definition -- as accepted by many "Christian" outfits...

To make a long story short -- docvic taught that when you accept Jesus as your Saviour (Romans 10:9),

then God creates within you spirit once again -- now you are a 3-part being again.

Body, Soul, AND Spirit -- ie --- *born again*.

Cynic,

Just wanted to let you know that-if there was a reason you took us to that discussion-

I for one didn't see it even with the bolding.

My reason for posting the log of the IRC discussion is that, showing that faith follows regeneration, Gottchalk's argument shows also that getting born again (which is to be regenerated) is not something that happens because one directs oneself to Christ in accordance with Romans 10:9, but is something that turns to Christ those in whom regeneration has taken place.

Edited by Cynic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cynic, sorry, but that's just too long and I'd rather "discuss" the topic than merely be given something to read on a topic. I am glad that you had the discussion and that you're open-minded enough to change it because of a discussion. :)

David, they are just questions - I've asked this question a few times on here and, yes, during the 90's, a person was considered to not really be born again if they did not speak in tongues. :) I believe that it may have been more "enforced" (for lack of a better word) in some areas than in others, but in my area, Bob Moynihan kicked a lady out of my fellowship because she wouldn't speak in tongues - she didn't want to and didn't believe in it. He, furthermore, called my parents and my ex husband's parents "unbelieving" because they don't speak in tongues.

My purpose for asking was not to derail the thread or to change the discussion to SIT specifically. I was just curious as to what Johniam thinks based on his previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 John 5:12 - He that hath the son hath life, and he that hath not the son hath not life.

Is this also oversimplification?

In my opinion, yes, but the example is different in kind from the point that I was making. The addition of a third (or more) choice includes the possibility of being mistaken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote: "John, are you aware that you didn't answer her question? Any plans on actually answering it?"

As already discussed, no, SIT is not a requirement for salvation, it's an option after salvation. A very good option, IMO.

During the Living Victoriously class, VP said (on LV in God's peace) that every time he got unpeaceful he would wait for his next sober thought and just SIT like crazy. "It still works, baby! Every time!," he said. I would have to concur. Many times I've SIT under duress and the storm went away sooner rather than later. Why wouldn't anyone care to do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does the *You have to speak in tongues to be *saved* come from*??

As much as I don't care for docvic -- I never remember hearing him say that.

It certainly was not twi doctrine -- at least not the doctrine from pfal.

There's a thread about this somewhere :biglaugh:

From what I saw, there were things not directly taught in PFAL where people inferred things like "if you don't speak in tongues you're not born again".

It's not that big a leap from "speaking in tongues is the external evidence of the internal reality" to "if someone doesn't speak in tongues you have no evidence (external manifestation) therefore you don't know that they're born again" to "I never heard them SIT, maybe their not born again" to"someone who doesn't SIT is not born again".

Wierwille didn't teach it, but it was prmoted informally in some areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote: The addition of a third (or more) choice includes the possibility of being mistaken.

There is no 3rd choice. The 2 are either it happened or it didn't. You chimed in with "it didn't happen but you thought it did". That's from man's point of view. In reality, it still either did or didn't happen, regardless of who thought what.

Black and white thinking is OK, but I don't need it for ALL situations. This is one area where TWI crossed the line. I don't need black and white thinking to pick out clothes, food, cars, etc. But when I'm dealing with spiritual things, like salvation and eternal life, I want my choices to be simple.

Consider that scripture says that Jesus was in all points tempted, yet without sin. Was Jesus a woman? Did he ever go through labor? PMS? Was he married? Have kids? How could he possibly have been tempted in all points as us, unless temptation and sin are black and white from God's view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perspective, John. Perception is reality for that individual - it is not necessarily truth.

Ask any police officer - he'll tell you there are three sides to every story - his story, her story and what really happened. Heck, even vee pee says that "experience is no guarantee for truth" and "people can be sincere, but sincerely wrong."

If you take away from or change "the word of vee pee" you no longer have "the word of vee pee". :biglaugh:

Are ya gonna answer my questions? :wink2:

Edited by Belle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...