What does it mean, this birth from the word of God?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sorry, but unlike many people on here defending their particular church, I'm not going to lie to that person.

Take it however you wish.

I knew a Pentecostal man and his wife 19 years ago; they shunned me when I became a Catholic. Is it the norm for Pentecostals to hold such strong anti-Catholic sentiments? I am guessing that you hold such views yourself.

 

[ARBITER01]

I knew a Pentecostal man and his wife 19 years ago; they shunned me when I became a Catholic. Is it the norm for Pentecostals to hold such strong anti-Catholic sentiments? I am guessing that you hold such views yourself.

I consider the person, not their associations,.... at least for the most part.

Your cup is full.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Your cup is full.

My glass is about 1/4 full.

 

[ARBITER01]

My glass is about 1/4 full.

I would disagree.

For me, as an AOG Pentecostal, I don't hate catholics, I just don't have a lot of time to deal with all the lies they've been told. Probably the people you knew before had a similar stance. Hard to say.

Joining any church can have an indoctrination aspect about it if you're not careful. I feel that traditional type churches have a much greater indoctrination aspect associated with them. It's not about scripture and Jesus, it's about their church teachings and submission.

Sorry, I'm not interested in that. Even if my current AOG church suddenly came out with some ridiculous stuff like that, I would immediately look for another and start going there. I'm not loyal to any church, only Jesus.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

Consider referring to me as your brother and refrain from any implied insults; it's a suggestion worth considering, wouldn't you agree?

My brother???

Not genetically, no. But I thought you may understand the Christian brethren reference, perhaps not?

I'll be very honest with you,.....If you don't have your robe washed in the blood of The Lamb, you are not one of His,..... and that keeps you from being my brother in Christ.

Wow.

Just observing

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Key to Understanding Paedobaptism: Romans 6:3-4

3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become [a]united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be [b]in the likeness of His resurrection….​

Baptism is a Christological event. Because Baptism has its foundation in Christ’s death and resurrection (Ro. 6:3-4), it must be Gospel. It can be nothing other. This is why Paedobaptists always say Baptism is God’s work. Baptism is pure Gospel. Christ’s work on the cross and his resurrection are not the only components in Baptism, but they are the essence of it. From this prespective, all of Christ’s winning of the forgivenss of sins of mankind are delivered to the person in Baptism. This is why Acts 2 and Acts 22 state, “for the forgiveness of sin” and “wash away your sins.”

Baptism is God’s action to us as the NT states: As ViaCrusis wrote yesterday…

The Bible says that one is born again by water and the Spirit (John 3:5). The Bible says that we are united to Christ's burial, death, and resurrection by baptism (Romans 6:3-4). The Bible says that we are clothed with Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27). The Bible says that we cleansed by the washing of water with the word (Ephesians 5:26). The Bible says that that baptism now saves us (1 Peter 3:21).

All Gospel statements. No Law.

Clearly Baptists and many American Evangelicals have turned Baptism into Law with no authority from Scripture to do so. The common B/AE definition of baptism for them would be following examples

• Baptism is a required step of obedience for a disciple, that is, a person who is already saved
• A public proclamation and a testimony of God’s work in a believer’s life.
• Baptism is “a decision.”

These definitions are not found in Scripture and conflicts with Paul’s clear teaching of being baptized in Christ death. The Gospel is turned into law.

My next post will be on how Baptists and American Evangelicals interpret Romans 6.

 

[Clare73]

I see you are already missing the point.

You made it about this. As a tangent. But the conversation in this thread is about regeneration viz-a-viz God's word. You objected to baptism being brought up in relation to regeneration.

Indeed. . .which baptism is not, hence my response.

Regeneration is a sovereign, as-unaccountable-as-the-wind operation of the Holy Spirit, governed by nothing but his sovereign unaccountable choice (Jn 3:3-8).

Likewise regarding baptism, "sacrament" is not in the Greek text. The word in the Greek text is "mystery," which the NT specifically states as being

God's promise to sum up all things in Christ (Eph 1:9),
inclusion of both Jews and Gentiles in the NT church (Eph 3:3-6),
the change that will take place at the resurrection (1 Co 15:51),
the plan of God by which a remnant of both Jew and Gentile will be included in his kingdom (Ro 11:25),
the secret wisdom (1 Co 2:7) of the death of Christ (1 Co 2:1),
the incarnation (1 Tim 3:16).

Man does not have the authority to change the nomenclature and its application (above) in the word of God written.
Nowhere in the Greek NT is baptism referred to as mysterion.
That is an invention of man.

Taking such liberties with the word of God written results in erroneous doctrine, such as baptism is regeneration.
There is no faith without the new birth, for one can't even see the kingdom of God without the new birth (Jn 3:3-5).
Baptism follows regeneration, the new birth, it does not cause it.
Just as circumcision followed one's birth as a descendant of Abraham, it did not cause it.

Baptism is not the cause of regeneration, just as circumcision is not the cause of being a descendant of Abraham.
Just as circumcision was a symbol of being in the descendants of Abraham, so Baptism is a symbol of being in the body of Christ.

As being in the OT people of God by descendancy from Abraham was not caused by circumcision,
so being in the body of Christ by faith is not caused by baptism.

As circumcision was a cutting off of the flesh, so baptism is a putting off of the flesh (sinful nature),
paralleled in Col 2:11-12, they being signs thereof, not causes thereof, respectively.

That is the meaning of baptism as presented in the NT.

 

[Clare73]

I am completely unaware of the unreasonable claims in your post. However, since your most recent post merely repeats previously refuted arguments, there is nothing more to add, so let's proceed.

Then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate their error.

 

[Clare73]

I would disagree.
For me, as an AOG Pentecostal, I don't hate catholics, I just don't have a lot of time to deal with all the lies they've been told. Probably the people you knew before had a similar stance. Hard to say.
Joining any church can have an indoctrination aspect about it if you're not careful. I feel that traditional type churches have a much greater indoctrination aspect associated with them. It's not about scripture and Jesus, it's about their church teachings and submission.
Sorry, I'm not interested in that. Even if my current AOG church suddenly came out with some ridiculous stuff like that, I would immediately look for another and start going there. I'm not loyal to any church, only Jesus.

There are worse things on this earth than the AOG.

 

[Clare73]

The Key to Understanding Paedobaptism: Romans 6:3-4

3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become [a]united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be [b]in the likeness of His resurrection….​

Baptism is a Christological event. Because Baptism has its foundation in Christ’s death and resurrection (Ro. 6:3-4),
it must be Gospel.

That explains a lot. . .

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate their error.

I do not think that it does. It is always the case that the onus of proof is with the side that makes the assertion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Indeed. . .which baptism is not, hence my response.

Regeneration is a sovereign, as-unaccountable-as-the-wind operation of the Holy Spirit, governed by nothing but his sovereign unaccountable choice (Jn 3:3-8).

So regeneration just happens spontaneously? A person, in the middle of no where, never having heard the Gospel may just spontaneously become born again because of a sovereign choice God made?

What do you do with Romans 10:14-17?

Likewise, "sacrament" is not in the Greek text. The word in the Greek text is "mystery," which the NT specifically specifies as

God's promise to sum up all things in Christ (Eph 1:9),
inclusion of both Jews and Gentiles in the NT church (Eph 3:3-6),
the change that will take place at the resurrection (1 Co 15:51),
the plan of God by which a remnant of both Jew and Gentile will be included in his kingdom (Ro 11:25),
the secret wisdom (1 Co 2:7) of the death of Christ (1 Co 2:1),
the incarnation (1 Tim 3:16).

Man does not have the authority to change the nomenclature and its application (above) in the word of God written.
Nowhere in the Greek NT is baptism referred to as mysterion.
That is an invention of man.

Still obsessing over this I see.

Taking such liberties with the word of God written results in erroneous doctrine, such as baptism is regeneration.
There is no faith without the new birth, for one can't even see the kingdom of God without the new birth (Jn 3:3-5).
Baptism follows regeneration, the new birth, it does not cause it.
Just as circumcision followed one's birth as a descendant of Abraham, it did not cause it.

Baptism is not the cause of regeneration, just as circumcision is not the cause of being a descendant of Abraham.
Just as circumcision was a symbol of being in the descendants of Abraham, so Baptism is a symbol of being in the body of Christ.

As being in the OT people of God by descendancy from Abraham was not caused by circumcision,
so being in the body of Christ by faith is not caused by baptism.

As circumcision was a cutting off of the flesh, so baptism is a putting off of the flesh (sinful nature),
paralleled in Col 2:11-12, they being signs thereof, not causes thereof, respectively.

That is the meaning of baptism as presented in the NT.

You seem to have things a little backward. It was never about being a physical descendant of Abraham, it was about Covenant--and circumcision was the sign and seal of the Covenant. It was circumcision that made one an Israelite, not race, biology, or pedigree. Ruth was a Moabite, and yet she became part of the Covenant people, her sons and grandsons and great-grandsons were circumcised, Israelites. From her came Jesse, and David, and eventually Jesus Christ our Lord.

It was circumcision that made one a child of Abraham in the Covenant God established in ancient times.

In the New Covenant there is a new circumcision, one made without hands, it's Baptism. That's what Colossians 2:11-12 is about. Baptism is analogous to circumcision. And here we see, in circumcision, a perfect example of the sacramental.

You might want to try reading your Bible a bit more closely.

"And God said to Abraham, 'As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall My covenant be in your flesh and everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.'" - Genesis 17:9-14

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

I do not think that it does. It is always the case that the onus of proof is with the side that makes the assertion.

The person making the assertion is in no position to know that someone else's objection is.

The assertion stands until an objector Biblically demonstrates it to be false.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, the assertion stands until it is Biblically demonstrated to b false.

Jesus had a childhood best friend named Jerry. Jerry of Nazareth.

Biblically demonstrate that this is false. As you just said "The assertion stands until it is Biblically demonstrated to be false."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

So regeneration just happens spontaneously? A person, in the middle of no where, never having heard the Gospel may just
spontaneously become born again because of a sovereign choice God made?

Have you ever read Jn 3:3-8?

That is precisely what it presents. . .the Holy Spirit's choice being as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

What do you do with Romans 10:14-17?

Does that prohibit the Holy Spirit from making a sovereign choice to quicken the heart of someone who hears the preaching?

No one spiritually hears or sees anything regarding the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3-5, 1 Co 2:14, Ro 8:7-8) until the Holy Spirit sovereignly quickens him in the new birth, which is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8).

Still obsessing over this I see.

And Paul obsessing over adding circumcision to faith as necessary for salvation. . .

You seem to have things a little backward. It was never about being a physical descendant of Abraham, it was about Covenant--and circumcision was the sign and seal of the Covenant.

Which Covenant (Ge 9:8-17, 15:9-21)--to which was later added (Gal 3:19) the Sinai covenant (Ex 19-24)--was made only with Abraham and his descendants, with no one else apart from the faith of Abraham, and of which descendency circumcision was the necessary sign, without which one was cut off (Ge 17:10-14).

It was circumcision that made one an Israelite,

Contraire. . .

It was descendence from Abraham, which sign was circumcision (Ge 17:10-14), that gave one entitlement to the Abrahamic covenant.

If you didn't apply the sign, you did not qualify because you were in violation of the covenant (Ge 17:14).

not race, biology, or pedigree. Ruth was a Moabite, and yet she became part of the Covenant people,

So how many women were circumcised?

All those of the faith of Abraham (Ge 15:5-6) were made a part of the people of God if they so wished.

her sons and grandsons and great-grandsons were circumcised, Israelites. From her came Jesse, and David, and eventually Jesus Christ our Lord.

It was circumcision that made one a child of Abraham in the Covenant God established in ancient times.

Contraire. . .

You are not in agreement with the OT account.

Circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Ge 17:10-14), a sign that you were in the covenant, without which sign you were not in the covenant.

In the New Covenant there is a new circumcision, one made without hands, it's Baptism.

Correct. . .and complete the analogy.

Like circumcision was a sign of the OT Abrahamic covenant, so baptism it is a sign of the NT Christian Covenant,
that one is in the body of Christ, as circumcision was a sign that one was in the descendants of Abraham.

 

[Clare73]

Jesus had a childhood best friend named Jerry. Jerry of Nazareth.

Biblically demonstrate that this is false. As you just said "The assertion stands until it is Biblically demonstrated to be false."

Scripture being the final authority for faith and doctrine, this assertion is found nowhere in Scripture and therefore enjoys no Biblical authority.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Scripture being the final authority for faith and doctrine, this assertion is found nowhere in Scripture and therefore enjoys no Biblical authority.

It's sounding a lot like you get to make an assertion without biblical support and require others to demonstrate it is false using the Bible, but other people have to demonstrate their position from the Bible while you get to just dismiss it.

Turns out the final authority for Clare73 is Clare73.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

It's sounding a lot like you get to make an assertion without biblical support and require others to demonstrate it is false using the Bible, but other people have to demonstrate their position from the Bible while you get to just dismiss it.

Turns out the final authority for Clare73 is Clare73.

< sigh >

I note the characteristicly nebulous "sounding a lot like" in lieu of a specific Biblical demonstration in response to post #147.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Scripture being the final authority for faith and doctrine, this assertion is found nowhere in Scripture and therefore enjoys no Biblical authority.

The FINAL AUTHORITY is always God. Specifically, God the Holy Spirit speaking the Word of God from the Father.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

MODERN AMERICAN EVANGELICAL INTERPRETATION ROMANS 6:3-4

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become [a]united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be [b]in the likeness of His resurrection….

By human fiat, AE's declare Romans 6 as an identification with Christ. This is a recent understanding of what Romans 6 means. I had never heard of this definition before I joined CF. They cite no Scripture support for this definition and don't even define it extra Biblical. They just declare Romans 6 is an identification with Christ as such.

Just what does identification with Christ mean? No one knows. Seems to me this is nothing more than "word salad" or a knee jerk "mantra" without studying the text itself.

Questions:

• Can I identify with Christ in his baptism? Yeap.
• Can I identify with Christ in the Lord's Supper? Yeap.
• Can I identify with Christ in his virgin birth? Yeap.
• Can I identify with Christ in John 3:16? Yeap.
• Can I identify with Christ in any verse in the NT that speaks about Jesus? Yeap.

Because "identification with Christ" are just words with no meaning....it is compatible with anything and everything in the NT, of which no distinction is possible. I call it gibberish.