Regeneration and the Renewing of the Holy Spirit

Logical conclusions require the same starting point or same foundation or else they are not logical at all. Your starting point is not his starting point and so what you demand is logical he denies is logical. One must accept your starting point in order for your conclusion to be logical. So threatening to stop discussing with him because he does not accept your logical conclusions is demanding that he first accept your starting point? Thus you are demanding he accept your position or you will not continue speaking to him! Again, how stupid is that?

Again, you are presuming your starting point in this question. Original sin acknowleges previous spiritual life of the HUMAN NATURE as created in Adam and then lost in the fall and every one DERIVED from Adam are DERIVED from that spiritually dead human nature. Hence, to be "renewed" in the image of God is to have restored what was lost "in Adam." Hence, original sin is based upon the unity of humanity as ONE HUMAN NATURE existing in one person - Adam - and other humans being DERIVED from that same human nature by natural generation.

You are putting words in the mouth of Christ he did not say! Jesus did not acknowledge three births but only two. He did not claim that Nicodemus had already been born of the flesh and Spirit but needed to be born of the Spirit "again."

He only acknolwedged one previous birth not two! Jesus acknowledged the truth of being born "of the flesh" as the first birth man experiences but then desribed a second birth that Nicodemus needed to experience "of the Spirit" and it is this second birth as contrasted to the first birth that Jesus says "born AGAIN."

There is nothing in that exchange between the two men that even hints that the Lord Jesus inferred THREE births instead of two. He is simply claiming that another birth besides human birth is needed and thus he must be born "again."

So, it is not inability on our part to use reason and common sense, we simply do not ADD a third birth to this passage when only TWO are declared by the text. Hence, our line of logic is just fine. However, you line of logic rests upon soemthing the text and context NEVER SAYS, never INCLUDES but YOU ADD!

 

Well, since you know already that I believe that man died spiritually in Adam, I do not know how it is that I have a need to believe the simple (apt word...lol! just kidding) principle you mention.

I have consistently tried to get across the fact, and it is fact, that Christ, Paul, and other Apostles make it clear that man, though physically alive, is in need of life.

This is...death.

This is...separation from God

When one dies physically, they are separated from their physical body, familiar surroundings, family, but, when it comes to being separated from something, the primary thrust of scripture, from genesis to Revelation is...separation from God.


Man must come to Christ that he might have life. Not that man needed it again, but that he might have life...period. (John 5:40)Man has physical life, but has no relationship with God at birth. How it is thought that a child can get through childhood, reach an age where he hears, understands, and fulfills the law (which is of course the underlying doctrine espoused), I don't know. If this were possible, then Christ is dead in vain, according to scripture.


Jesus said He came that man might have lfe, and that, more abundant. And look up more abundantly before saying it means they already have life in Christ, which, why one would suggest, I don't know. (John 10:10)

And I will post these verses in full:



John 20:31

King James Version (KJV)

31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


Written that man who has no life...might have it.



1 John 5:13

King James Version (KJV)

13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


Written that believers might know that they have eternal life...and may rest their hopes in His name.


It is okay if you respond no longer to me, really, I understand. It is clear that there are several biblical concepts and teachings that perhaps are just not understood yet. And this is one of them. Another would be the New Testament, and the promises of God concerning man and redemption.

But I will leave you with a previously posted passage, that you might think on it, and reconcile it with the doctrine presented:



Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)

1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

The reference to the blood of bulls and goats, the temporal, temporary atonement given to man until the Cross, speaks of the law, and here, it says so using that very term.

We do not have to wonder theoretically if the law could grannt eternal life, for if it could not take away sin, then the "comer" still retains sin, and if he still has that sin, he does not meet the righteous requirement of God for righteousness which leads to eternal life.

When Christ said, "Do this and you shall live," this man walks off the pages of scripture to return to his "life," which, would have involved this man offering sacrifice for...his sin.

That sin was not taken away by the sacrifice he offered, as we see here, but his only hope was Christ...that he might have life.

Until the concept of life is expanded to understand that men outside of relationship to and with God do ot have the life of God, but are alienated from that life...one will undoubtedly cling to a righteousness found under the First Covenant which, as Israel is charged, is their own righteousness.

Not the righteousness of God.

When we look at the new birth, we understand man must be born again, not of flesh (the first), but of spirit...of God. To insist that man must die spiritually before he can be made alive spiritually is an argument that is vague. And when one refuses to see that man died in Adam, who brought death to all men, it is even easier to remain in this error. One must refuse to recognize such passages, and that must be very difficult. For there are so many.

God bless.