How to perfectly understand...."born again".

[Sidon]

You're still stifled in you knowledge, still blinded by a novel gospel.

To you, the Cross is a "novel gospel", as that is always the mindset of a self saver.
But to the born again, the Cross "is the power of God....unto Salvation".

 

[Brightfame52]

Salvation is a free Gift.
IT was completed for us, 2000 yrs ago , by Jesus on the Cross.

The Gift is given not offered.

 

[fhansen]

To you, the Cross is a "novel gospel", as that is always the mindset of a self saver.
But to the born again, the Cross "is the power of God....unto Salvation".

 

[fhansen]

Like all legalists, your entire theology is "you , you, you"....>"look at me me me talk about me me and what im doing "

See yourself?
Where is the Cross?
Where is the Blood?
Where is God saving you = John 14:6?

Oh that's right, you left that out again., and again, and again.
And not just you.

Unless Christ's efforts, His blood, results in a real change in you-a real difference in who we are and how we live and how we love then it's produced nothing of real and eternal value. But we know we're His... if it has made that difference.

 

[Sidon]

It's not my doing if you read myself and Scripture both with blinders and without comprehension. You're still stifled in you knowledge, still blinded by a novel gospel.

The Gospel is the Cross.

Paul teaches.."the preaching of the Cross".

 

[Sidon]

Unless Christ's efforts, His blood, results in a real change in you.

The blood of Jesus, applied to you as "the Gift of righteousness", causes the Spirit to be born again.
There is the '"change". = "new CREATION.......>"in"...>"Christ'.
Your mind is not born again, you have to renew it.
Romans 12:2.
If you do that, then your outward behavior reflects the renewal.
If you dont renew it, and you are born again, and not just water baptized, confused, thinking this saved you, then your mind will cause you to be "spiritually Blind".
In this darkened spiritual condition, you will chase Moses Law and Commandments, having "fallen from Grace".

 

[fhansen]

The blood of Jesus, applied to you as "the Gift of righteousness", causes the Spirit to be born again.
There is the '"change". = "new CREATION.......>"in"...>"Christ'.
Your mind is not born again, you have to renew it.
Romans 12:2.
If you do that, then your outward behavior reflects the renewal.
If you dont renew it, and you are born again, and not just water baptized, confused, thinking this saved you, then your mind will cause you to be "spiritually Blind".
In this darkened spiritual condition, you will chase Moses Law and Commandments, having "fallen from Grace".

We're only just to the extent that we live, walk, and act justly, in thought, word, and deed. Everything else is talk or imagination.

 

[Sidon]

We're only just to the extent that we live, walk, and act justly, in thought, word, and deed.

You are talking about self effort, as that is what you do... as "works."
Here is the issue with that.... THe issue is....If you believe that if you dont do that, you wont go to heaven. ???????????
See that?
So, if that is what you believe, then you are trusting in all that DOING, to get you into heaven, and that means you have not trusted in Christ to get you to heaven.
OR, you once trusted in Christ, but now you are "fallen from Grace" and have become "bewitched", and are "in the Flesh", as Paul teaches regarding all who are born again, yet, are now deceived.

 

[fhansen]

You are talking about self effort, as that is what you do... as "works."
Here is the issue with that.... THe issue is....If you believe that if you dont do that, you wont go to heaven. ???????????
See that?
So, if that is what you believe, then you are trusting in all that DOING, to get you into heaven, and that means you have not trusted in Christ to get you to heaven.
OR, you once trusted in Christ, but now you are "fallen from Grace" and have become "bewitched", and are "in the Flesh", as Paul teaches regarding all who are born again, yet, are now deceived.

You just can’t accept the idea of obligation and accountability for a follower. That’s not the same as being “under the law”. Is man obligated to believe? Will he be born again and enter heaven without faith? To know our obligation, what’s expected of us, what man needs to know, is not a bad thing; that’s what revelation is all about. To reject the idea that we must “live, walk, and act justly, in thought, word, and deed”, that we’re obligated to love to put it another way, is to miss a major part of the heart, soul, and purpose of the gospel.

 

[Ceallaigh]

You just can’t accept the idea of obligation and accountability for a follower. That’s not the same as being “under the law”. Is man obligated to believe? Will he be born again and enter heaven without faith? To know our obligation, what’s expected of us, what man needs to know, is not a bad thing; that’s what revelation is all about. To reject the idea that we must “live, walk, and act justly, in thought, word, and deed”, that we’re obligated to love to put it another way, is to miss a major part of the heart, soul, and purpose of the gospel.

What I've noticed in the many exchanges I've seen between you two. Sidon focuses on the cross and the blood. You focus on obligation performance. Your core argument seems to be that relying on the work of Christ on the cross, is denying that you have an obligation to fulfill.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

What I've noticed in the many exchanges I've seen between you two. Sidon focuses on the cross and the blood. You focus on obligation performance. Your core argument seems to be that relying on the work of Christ on the cross, is denying that you have an obligation to fulfill.

Yes, the contrast is glaring.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Yes, the contrast is glaring.

They both say a lot of right stuff and even basically say the same thing in different ways. But after having read these two pretty extensively, if I were to sum up their argument to one word each, it would be;

Sidon: Cross.

Fhansen: Obligation.

 

[fhansen]

What I've noticed in the many exchanges I've seen between you two. Sidon focuses on the cross and the blood. You focus on obligation performance. Your core argument seems to be that relying on the work of Christ on the cross, is denying that you have an obligation to fulfill.

Rather, I've insisted on seeing that as an obligation, our first one, involving man's will, whereas many somehow seem to find a way to object even to that. The only difference is that for me the obligation doesn't end there. We must remain in Him, picking up our cross daily and following; parting company is always an option. And we must strive and persevere, we must pursue the holiness that only He can cause to blossom and persist in us; we must put to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit. We must continue to participate, to live as a child of His, to do our little part.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Rather, I've insisted on seeing that as an obligation, our first one, involving man's will, whereas many somehow seem to find a way to object even to that. The only difference is that for me the obligation doesn't end there. We must remain in Him, picking up our cross daily and following; parting company is always an option. And we must strive and persevere, we must pursue the holiness that only He can cause to blossom and persist in us; we must put to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit. We must continue to participate, to live as a child of His, to do our little part.

Sidon is right. Your message is "me me me I have to keep doing this that and the other to get into heaven". Or put another way, Jesus did his part, and the rest, the lion's share, is all up to you. I've been reading you saying the same thing for over a month, and that's what I've come to conclude. Your way of trying to deny that, is to reword the same message so that it sounds different, but it's just saying the same thing in a different way. I like and respect you, and don't want to be your adversary, but that's the way I see it.

 

[fhansen]

Sidon is right. Your message is "me me me I have to keep doing this that and the other to get into heaven". Or put another way, Jesus did his part, and the rest, the lion's share, is all up to you. I've been reading you saying the same thing for over a month, and that's what I've come to conclude. Your way of trying to deny that, is to reword the same message so that it sounds different, but it's just saying the same thing in a different way. I like and respect you, and don't want to be your adversary, but that's the way I see it.

No, the message is, I can't do my part, in any way, apart from Him. The lion's share is His. The burden He gives me is light (Matt 11), not non-existent.

Or should we just prefer no obligation, no need for the human will to be continuously involved at all? If that's true, why should we even need the bible at all? God could've just throw a portion of us in heaven at the beginning and the rest in hell or whatever His ultimate plan is. God's very purpose from the beginning is to patiently draw the human will increasingly into rectitude, into alignment with His will, into loving as He does to put it simply. We have to believe in Him first of all.

 

[fhansen]

They both say a lot of right stuff and even basically say the same thing in different ways. But after having read these two pretty extensively, if I were to sum up their argument to one word each, it would be;

Sidon: Cross.

Fhansen: Obligation.

Correction:
Fhansen: Both

You've already agreed that man is obliged to believe.

 

[Ceallaigh]

No, the message is, I can't do my part, in any way, apart from Him. The lion's share is His. The burden He gives me is light (Matt 11), not non-existent.

I think you both are probably on the same page regarding that. At least as far as acting like a Christian goes.

Or should we just prefer no obligation, no need for the human will to be continuously involved at all? If that's true, why should we even need the bible at all? God could've just throw a portion of us in heaven at the beginning and the rest in hell or whatever His ultimate plan is. God's very purpose from the beginning is to patiently draw the human will increasingly into rectitude, into alignment with His will, into loving as He does to put it simply. We have to believe in Him first of all.

Sorry bro, but what you're saying there still comes down to salvation is via you doing stuff. That you have to believe in in Him first of all, but then... you have to keep yourself saved by doing your part. Like He did His part, and thanks for that, but the rest is up to you.

What I think is that when we become saved, born again, become a new person spiritually, the Holy Spirit gives us the inkling and ability to do what God wants us to do and molds us. That it comes automatically. I think some resist or they backslide, but eventually the Holy Spirit gets them to where He wants them to be. And then starts taking it to the next level. Really it seems to me that saying someone can lose their salvation by not fulfilling their obligation, is like saying the Holy Spirit failed to enable them and carry them through.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Correction:
Fhansen: Both

But in your case there seems to be a much greater emphasis on obligation than on the cross.

You've already agreed that man is obliged to believe.

You both think that. But in your case you seem to think that just gets your foot in the door so to speak.

 

[fhansen]

Sorry bro, but what you're saying there still comes down to salvation is via you doing stuff. That you have to believe in in Him first of all, but then... you have to keep yourself saved by doing your part. Like He did His part, and thanks for that, but the rest is up to you.

What I think is that when we become saved, born again, become a new person spiritually, the Holy Spirit gives us the inkling and ability to do what God wants us to do and molds us. That it comes automatically. I think some resist or they backslide, but eventually the Holy Spirit gets them to where He wants them to be. And then starts taking it to the next level. Really it seems to me that saying someone can lose their salvation by not fulfilling their obligation, is like saying the Holy Spirit failed to enable them and carry them through.

And I'm saying the obligation, to remain in relationship with Him, born out by how we live and not merely by what we think and say, is a continuous one. We are not OSAS. The choice is one that we all face daily. If I say I believe, but then fall into sin, that sin, itself, defies and opposes my faith. We're compromising faith, at that point, which is essentially what Adam did in Eden to begin with. Because to believe in God means we know Him and according to John to say we know Him and continue to sin is a lie. So if we were to engage in some persistent serious sin especially, we're already turning away from faith, from Him.

 

[fhansen]

But in your case there seems to be a much greater emphasis on obligation than on the cross.



You both think that. But in your case you seem to think that's just gets your foot in the door so to speak. It's like saying, in order to dive a car, you first have to open the door... and the you have to sit down and turn the key and put your foot on the gas pedal and turn the steering wheel and so on.

It means to believe is to finally embark on the journey, the only way, to full communion with God who is our end, our purpose. We just have to stay on it. Or keep getting back on if we stray.