Jesus teaching on the New Birth, Born Again !

[Butch5]

Reread the OP it’s explained

I read it m. You don't describe what it is.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I read it m. You don't describe what it is.

You claim you read the thread but your really did not otherwise you would not be asking me to repeat myself. So here is what I already posted in this thread.

Man is dead in sin. He is in need of regeneration first before he can respond to the call of the gospel and receive eternal life.

paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal

Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: paliggenesia
Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah)
Definition: regeneration, renewal
Usage: a new birth, regeneration, renewal. properly, the coming of new birth because "born again"; regeneration.

Thayers- παλιγγενεσία- properly, new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation . Commonly, however, the word denotes the restoration of a thing to its pristine state, its renovation, as the renewal or restoration of life after death.

In English, the word generate means to bring into existence; cause to be; produce. Re-generate basically means again.

So, it means to bring into existence again, renewed, rebirth, recreate, restoration etc......

When God created Adam, Adam was spiritually alive. When they sinned in the garden they died spiritually.

This is what it means when Paul says we were (past tense) dead in sins. ( Ephesians 2:1,5) We were regenerated and brought back to spiritual life (that man was originally created with, hence rebirth, renewed, born anew-again, born of the spirit etc...). A work of God not by mans will or human decision. John 1:13.

Ephesians 2:4-5- But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions

Colossians 2:13
When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses,

Paul says:
(1 Corinthians 2:14 ) But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The natural man is a spiritually dead person who is unsaved. He does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, and he cannot know them. Why? Because they are spiritually discerned.

Then in the next verse Paul says:
(1 Corinthians 2:15) But he who is spiritual judges all things . . .

The word "judges” basically means to sift, to examine, to decide rightly.

The question is, how does a natural man who does not accept the things of the Spirit of God become spiritual so that he can sift, examine or decide rightly? The correct answer is that God must sovereignly do it through regeneration.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Butch5]

You claim you read the thread but your really did not otherwise you would not be asking me to repeat myself. So here is what I already posted in this thread.

Man is dead in sin. He is in need of regeneration first before he can respond to the call of the gospel and receive eternal life.

paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal

Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: paliggenesia
Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah)
Definition: regeneration, renewal
Usage: a new birth, regeneration, renewal. properly, the coming of new birth because "born again"; regeneration.

Thayers- παλιγγενεσία- properly, new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation . Commonly, however, the word denotes the restoration of a thing to its pristine state, its renovation, as the renewal or restoration of life after death.

In English, the word generate means to bring into existence; cause to be; produce. Re-generate basically means again.

So, it means to bring into existence again, renewed, rebirth, recreate, restoration etc......

When God created Adam, Adam was spiritually alive. When they sinned in the garden they died spiritually.

This is what it means when Paul says we were (past tense) dead in sins. ( Ephesians 2:1,5) We were regenerated and brought back to spiritual life (that man was originally created with, hence rebirth, renewed, born anew-again, born of the spirit etc...). A work of God not by mans will or human decision. John 1:13.

Ephesians 2:4-5- But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions

Colossians 2:13
When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses,

Paul says:
(1 Corinthians 2:14 ) But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The natural man is a spiritually dead person who is unsaved. He does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, and he cannot know them. Why? Because they are spiritually discerned.

Then in the next verse Paul says:
(1 Corinthians 2:15) But he who is spiritual judges all things . . .

The word "judges” basically means to sift, to examine, to decide rightly.

The question is, how does a natural man who does not accept the things of the Spirit of God become spiritual so that he can sift, examine or decide rightly? The correct answer is that God must sovereignly do it through regeneration.

hope this helps !!!

Thanks for the explanation. One thing I would point out is that when man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God. Accept is in the active voice. That means that the man is the one who is either accepting or rejecting. It's not passive.

To the main issue, you said Adam was spiritually alive when he was created and when he sinned he died spiritually. Can you establish that point from Scripture? The reason I ask is because your entire argument is based on this one point.

 

[Fidelibus]

As a Catholic and non- believer of Sola Scriptura (SS), I find it interesting reading through all the pages and posts of this thread from the different beliefs of Protestantism and non -denomination churches and sects regarding Baptism. To be more specific, the topic seems to hinge on Baptisim and the necessity or non necessity of it. The interesting part is... most if not all of the groups I mentioned are adherents of SS. So what is so interesting about that to a non-adherent of SS like myself?

What's interesting is all the different interpretations and opinions of Scripture passages in regards to Baptism from adherents of SS. Among all the different churches within Protestantism and non-denominational churches and sects that are believers of "The Bible Alone," one would think that all of them.... supposedly being guided by the Holy Spirit , that Scripture should be crystal clear and easy to understand, then they would be able to agree upon the nature of Baptism. But, in fact, as we can see here all the various interpretations/opinions of Scripture about the nature of Baptism, that Protestants/non-Denominationalist have come up with several contradicting teachings on Baptism. And they base all of these teachings upon their own personal twist of the Bible alone.

So why is that? Who, what, or where do these differing churches/sects go to determine who has the correct understanding and teachings on the nature of Baptism? Surely you would agree that if your groups understanding and belief of Baptism is believed to be guided by the Holy Spirit, then the other Protestant, non-Denominational bible believing churches or sects that disagree with your interpretation/understanding has to be in error....... Correct? I would also hope you agree that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to teach error. So which of you posters on this thread believe your church or sect has it right and the others do not?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Butch5]

As a Catholic and non- believer of Sola Scriptura (SS), I find it interesting reading through all the pages and posts of this thread from the different beliefs of Protestantism and non -denomination churches and sects regarding Baptism. To be more specific, the topic seems to hinge on Baptisim and the necessity or non necessity of it. The interesting part is... most if not all of the groups I mentioned are adherents of SS. So what is so interesting about that to a non-adherent of SS like myself?

What's interesting is all the different interpretations and opinions of Scripture passages in regards to Baptism from adherents of SS. Among all the different churches within Protestantism and non-denominational churches and sects that are believers of "The Bible Alone," one would think that all of them.... supposedly being guided by the Holy Spirit , that Scripture should be crystal clear and easy to understand, then they would be able to agree upon the nature of Baptism. But, in fact, as we can see here all the various interpretations/opinions of Scripture about the nature of Baptism, that Protestants/non-Denominationalist have come up with several contradicting teachings on Baptism. And they base all of these teachings upon their own personal twist of the Bible alone.

So why is that? Who, what, or where do these differing churches/sects go to determine who has the correct understanding and teachings on the nature of Baptism? Surely you would agree that if your groups understanding and belief of Baptism is believed to be guided by the Holy Spirit, then the other Protestant, non-Denominational bible believing churches or sects that disagree with your interpretation/understanding has to be in error....... Correct? I would also hope you agree that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to teach error. So which of you posters on this thread believe your church or sect has it right and the others do not?

Have a Blessed Day!

Good luck using logic. It's been my experience that when we start to talk about the Bible, logic and reason are the first things thrown out.

 

[Fidelibus]

Good luck using logic. It's been my experience that when we start to talk about the Bible, logic and reason are the first things thrown out.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Butch5]

Why do you think that is?

I don't know. I've tried to figure it out. I don't know if it's that people don't want to think they could believe wrongly or if maybe it's what grandma taught me and grandma couldnt be wrong, I just dont know. It is a rather dismaying phenomenon though.

 

[Fidelibus]

I don't know. I've tried to figure it out. I don't know if it's that people don't want to think they could believe wrongly or if maybe it's what grandma taught me and grandma couldn't be wrong, I just don't know. It is a rather dismaying phenomenon though.

Thanks for your honestly Butch5. You know, I've touched on the disunity created by the belief of Sola Scriptura before, (My belief as a Catholic, is that SS is an unbiblical, man-made product of the Protestant Reformation) and can never seem to get an answer of why all the different interpretation of Scripture (like we've seen here on this thread) and to where and whom do these different churches and sects turn to settle these dis-agreements? Any thoughts?

Have a Blessed day!

 

[Butch5]

Thanks for your honestly Butch5. You know, I've touched on the disunity created by the belief of Sola Scriptura before, (My belief as a Catholic, is that SS is an unbiblical, man-made product of the Protestant Reformation) and can never seem to get an answer of why all the different interpretation of Scripture (like we've seen here on this thread) and to where and whom do these different churches and sects turn to settle these dis-agreements? Any thoughts?
Have a Blessed day!

I'm kind of in a mixed boat. While I don't hold to Sola Scriptura, I'm also real skeptical of tradition. I know Paul said to keep the traditions that were handed to them. However, today there is so much error in the faith that I don't feel I can rely on tradition.

Regarding the churches there is no real source. Everyone has their own interpretation. That's why there are so many sects and denominations in protestantism. From what I can gather there are no real methods of hermeneutics that are used. It just means what the person reading it thinks it means. Often they don't take the context or the history into account. I think this is why you see so much division. So many people are demonstrably wrong and yet refuse to admit it. Whole groups of churches teach doctrines that are demonstrably wrong. Yet if you try to address it with them they shut down. They don't want to hear it.

 

[Fidelibus]

I'm kind of in a mixed boat. While I don't hold to Sola Scriptura, I'm also real skeptical of tradition. I know Paul said to keep the traditions that were handed to them. However, today there is so much error in the faith that I don't feel I can rely on tradition.

Regarding the churches there is no real source. Everyone has their own interpretation. That's why there are so many sects and denominations in protestantism. From what I can gather there are no real methods of hermeneutics that are used. It just means what the person reading it thinks it means. Often they don't take the context or the history into account. I think this is why you see so much division. So many people are demonstrably wrong and yet refuse to admit it. Whole groups of churches teach doctrines that are demonstrably wrong. Yet if you try to address it with them they shut down. They don't want to hear it.

Thanks for your thoughts Butch5

 

[Guojing]

As a Catholic and non- believer of Sola Scriptura (SS), I find it interesting reading through all the pages and posts of this thread from the different beliefs of Protestantism and non -denomination churches and sects regarding Baptism. To be more specific, the topic seems to hinge on Baptisim and the necessity or non necessity of it. The interesting part is... most if not all of the groups I mentioned are adherents of SS. So what is so interesting about that to a non-adherent of SS like myself?

What's interesting is all the different interpretations and opinions of Scripture passages in regards to Baptism from adherents of SS. Among all the different churches within Protestantism and non-denominational churches and sects that are believers of "The Bible Alone," one would think that all of them.... supposedly being guided by the Holy Spirit , that Scripture should be crystal clear and easy to understand, then they would be able to agree upon the nature of Baptism. But, in fact, as we can see here all the various interpretations/opinions of Scripture about the nature of Baptism, that Protestants/non-Denominationalist have come up with several contradicting teachings on Baptism. And they base all of these teachings upon their own personal twist of the Bible alone.

So why is that? Who, what, or where do these differing churches/sects go to determine who has the correct understanding and teachings on the nature of Baptism? Surely you would agree that if your groups understanding and belief of Baptism is believed to be guided by the Holy Spirit, then the other Protestant, non-Denominational bible believing churches or sects that disagree with your interpretation/understanding has to be in error....... Correct? I would also hope you agree that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to teach error. So which of you posters on this thread believe your church or sect has it right and the others do not?

Have a Blessed Day!

Because many churches do not rightly divide the word of truth as instructed by Paul, they tend to call themselves Israel and believe that the truth meant for the nation Israel, is also meant for them.

That is why we see so many opinions on the necessity of water baptism.

 

[Guojing]

I don't know. I've tried to figure it out. I don't know if it's that people don't want to think they could believe wrongly or if maybe it's what grandma taught me and grandma couldnt be wrong, I just dont know. It is a rather dismaying phenomenon though.

You might find this teaching useful

 

[Butch5]

Thanks for your thoughts Butch5

You're welcome!

 

[Butch5]

You might find this teaching useful

Thanks. Why do you say that?

 

[Guojing]

Thanks. Why do you say that?

It explains very well, why reading the Bible to get doctrine, is very different and more difficult, than reading the Bible to get history.

Different churches use different grids to understand which books are meant for Christian doctrine, and which are not meant to be used.

 

[Butch5]

It explains very well, why reading the Bible to get doctrine, is very different and more difficult, than reading the Bible to get history.

Different churches use different grids to understand which books are meant for Christian doctrine, and which are not meant to be used.

Ok. I see. I use a method called the Grammatical Historia method of hermeneutics.

 

[Guojing]

Ok. I see. I use a method called the Grammatical Historia method of hermeneutics.

Nice, I have never heard of that until now. Would you like to explain briefly what that entails?

 

[Fidelibus]

Because many churches do not rightly divide the word of truth as instructed by Paul, they tend to call themselves Israel and believe that the truth meant for the nation Israel, is also meant for them.

You are kind of making my point. I don't know what church (Protestant/non-denominational) it is you are a member of, but what's to stop a member of one the other many Protestant/non-denominational churches/sects to say the exact same thing? That being...... your church is not rightly dividing the word of truth as Paul instructed? So the question remains.... where would these different Protestant/non-denominational churches and/or sects turn, to settle who has it right, and who does not?

That is why we see so many opinions on the necessity of water baptism.

I have to ask, by who's or what authority do you come to this conclusion?

Have a Blessed Day

 

[Butch5]

Nice, I have never heard of that until now. Would you like to explain briefly what that entails?

Sure. It's a method of studying the Scriptues that looks at the grammar of the Greek and Hebrew text and it looks at the historical setting in which a particular event happened. For instance, when looking at Ephesians we would look at the historial setting. The who, what, where, when, type of things that were going on in Ephesus at the time Paul wrote the letter.

 

[Fidelibus]

You might find this teaching useful

How can you be sure this fella is giving us the correct way to study the Bible? By who's or what authority does he have to do so? Would you consider him fallible?