Featured Are there even biblical arminians posting On The baptist Board?

A born again Christian is one who is converted to faith in Christ.

Nicodemus knew it was a birth, born again when he ask do we have to go back in the mothers womb.

I believe it is both born again and born from above. We have to become a new creation and the new creation is from being born again by His enduring word that came from above through Jesus Christ.

I am not talking about cleaning the outside while in the inside we only care about our self, and no change within us.

 

No problem actually....will do, if you can explain WHY. And by that, I do not mean...ignore the verse, and merely post an amalgam of proof-texts which Calvinists assume state otherwise...but engage that passage itself, and explain WHY it does not mean what it obviously seems to mean...Unfortunately...what it obviously SEEMS to mean...is that, Paul was indeed "Once ALIVE"...but, yet, after "SIN revived....he DIED". There are only so many available options for explaining this away. This verse, used in context, could NOT be simpler or clearer. Mind you, I am actually open to alternative explanation here, but repetition of confessional assumption, or ignoring the passage and bombarding with a "fire for effect" of a multiplicity of "proof-texts"....which we are told to assume teach that this verse.....contained in the BIBLE...is not in fact a verse which exists...in the BIBLE. you cannot say that a verse in the Bible is "unbiblical". You can only explain how it does not, in fact, imply what it OBVIOUSLY seems to imply.

Please explain to me, WHY I should not post what appears to be the clear and simple meaning of a verse which was as much inspired as any verse in Scripture you don't actually loathe.

 

Yes, this is the Calvinist argument, that Romans 7:9 does not mean what it actually says, that Paul was ALIVE once without the law. Paul never says he or anyone is born dead as Calvinists falsely teach.

Yep, their only argument is that scripture does not mean what it OBVIOUSLY says. They cannot explain why Jesus said the prodigal son was ALIVE AGAIN, because they teach a man was never alive.

They must even resort to changing the definition of words. The word "regenerate" means to be made alive AGAIN, yet they redefine it to be made alive for the first time. If men are born dead in sin, and are only alive when they believe, then they would be "generated" not "RE-generated". Words have meaning. To be regenerated means a person is made alive AGAIN.

They will simply say their scholars have never held these interpretations as though that makes them correct. They cannot actually address scripture, because scripture REFUTES Calvinism.

 

This is a distinction which is patently obvious to all Arminians...They understand the differnce between "Spiritual Death" and "Physical Death"....What you are doing is suggesting that "SPIRITUAL Life" and "SPIRITUAL Death" are different, but not "PHYSICAL Death" and "Spiritual Death"....Think about it JBH.....You are trying to "have your cake and eat it too." You cannot separate Physical life and Spiritual life and also simultaneously equivocate between Physical death and Spiritual death. Think again, about what you are saying please.

 

I do not deny that Jesus said we must be born again, born of the Spirit, I absolutely agree with that.

What I disagree with is that men are born dead in sin. Paul said he was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died.

Paul had to be alive to die. Non-living things cannot die. This is simple basic logic, yet it eludes you and goes right over your head. When the prodigal son repented and returned to his father, twice Jesus said he was ALIVE AGAIN. Now that is as simple and clear as it gets. Obviously the boy was once alive, just as Paul says in Romans 7:9. The boy went out in sin and spiritually died. When he repented and returned to his father, Jesus said he was alive again. It is you that refuses to see what scripture plainly and obviously says and shows. It is you that refuses to listen to scripture.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

There it is, plain as day, Jesus said the prodigal son was alive again. Your disagreement is not with me, it is with Jesus Christ himself. If you desire to listen to Augustine and Calvin, that is your privilege, but I prefer to listen to Jesus. It is not like I am pulling some wild idea out of the air, you can read and see for yourself what Jesus said.

Again, I do not deny that Jesus said we must be born again of the Spirit, but what I disagree with is that scripture teaches we are born dead in sin. The scriptures do not teach this at all, they teach that men are born spiritually alive, and that men die spiritually when they sin AFTER birth.

You are the one who has no scripture to support your view, I have already shown scripture that clearly supports my view. My view is BIBLICAL.

 

Here is another verse that came to mind Winman...

Jam 1:15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

 

Hos,

lets begin here:

 

False, scripture says Jesus took on the NATURE of the seed of Abraham. Jesus had the nature of post-fall man. I have shown you Reformed commentators who have agreed with this in the past. You are quite aware of this but cling to error anyway.

Now, if men are not born sinners, then there is no problem, Jesus would not be born a sinner. It is only because of your false doctrine that you and others must resort to fantastic inventions such as the Immaculate Conception. One false doctrine leads to another.

 

We can take a look at it. I do not lothe any scripture. If I loathe anything it is the constant wresting of scripture that you guys like to do.


In Romans 6...and Romans 7 Paul is addressing our relationship to God's law. that is the topic being addressed. He is not speaking of regeneration, or explaining a new idea about us being born sinless until we die from God's law. This suggestion is so foolish i cannot believe you want it explained. That idea is miles away from the topic, unscriptural, and in direct contradiction to all doctrinal portions of the bible.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

For I-- There seems to be no doubt that the apostle here refers to his own past experience. Yet in this he speaks the sentiment of all who are unconverted, and who are depending on their own righteousness.

Was alive - This is opposed to what he immediately adds respecting another state, in which he was when he died. It must mean, therefore, that he had a certain kind of peace; he deemed himself secure; he was free from the convictions of conscience and the agitations of alarm. The state to which he refers here must be doubtless that to which he himself alludes elsewhere, when he deemed himself to be righteous, depending on his own works, and esteeming himself to be blameless, Philippians 3:4-6; Acts 23:1; Acts 26:4-5. It means that he was then free from those agitations and alarms which he afterward experienced when he was brought under conviction for sin. At that time, though he had the Law, and was attempting to obey it, yet he was unacquainted with its spiritual and holy nature. He aimed at external conformity. Its claims on the heart were unfelt. This is the condition of every self-confident sinner, and of everyone who is unawakened.

Without the law - Not that Paul was ever really without the Law, that is, without the Law of Moses; but he means before the Law was applied to his heart in its spiritual meaning, and with power.

But when the commandment came - When it was applied to the heart and conscience. This is the only intelligible sense of the expression; for it cannot refer to the time when the Law was given. When this was, the apostle does not say. But the expression denotes whenever it was so applied; when it was urged with power and efficacy on his conscience, to control, restrain, and threaten him, it produced this effect. We are unacquainted with the early operations of his mind, and with his struggles against conscience and duty. We know enough of him before conversion, however, to be assured that he was proud, impetuous, and unwilling to be restrained; see Acts 8; 9. In the state of his self-confident righteousness and impetuosity of feeling, we may easily suppose that the holy Law of God, which is designed to restrain the passions, to humble the heart, and to rebuke pride, would produce only irritation, and impatience of restraint, and revolt.

Sin revived - Lived again. This means that it was before dormant Romans 7:8, but was now quickened into new life. The word is usually applied to a renewal of life, Romans 14:19; Luke 15:24, Luke 15:32, but here it means substantially the same as the expression in Romans 7:8, "Sin ...wrought in me all manner of concupiscence." The power of sin, which was before dormant, became quickened and active.

I died - That is, I was by it involved in additional guilt and misery. It stands opposed to "I was alive," and must mean the opposite of that; and evidently denotes that the effect of the commandment was to bring him under what he calls death, (compare Romans 5:12, Romans 5:14-15 that is, sin reigned, and raged, and produced its withering and condemning effects; it led to aggravated guilt and misery. It may also include this idea, that before, he was self-confident and secure, but that by the commandment he was stricken down and humbled, his self-confidence was blasted, and his hopes were prostrated in the dust. Perhaps no words would better express the humble, subdued, melancholy, and helpless state of a converted sinner than the expressive phrase "I died." The essential idea here is, that the Law did not answer the purpose which the Jew would claim for it, to sanctify the soul and to give comfort, but that all its influence on the heart was to produce aggravated, unpardoned guilt and woe.

 

Show us that Scripture in English....not Greek............Or, else...NO, I will not "begin here"...It is the "beginning here" part that I don't accept. I am not challenging your conclusions. I am challenging your fundamental premise...."Infants are guilty". Infants "have sinned"...do it in English please...not Greek. Do you have an in-depth knowledge of Greek???? Me neither. So tell us what you know to be true in English without assuming the correctness of your particular brand of Greek-scholar.....I am sure someone can conjure up yet one more "Greek scholar" who says otherwise...In fact, I am appealing to some myself....the King James Bible Traslators, and none of them were stupid. They already told us what the "Greek" says in "English" (it was their job actually) and they got paid for it. Show us the verse accurately translated into English (since neither you nor I know how to so much as to actually order a beer and a burger in koine Greek) which has convinced you that infants have personally sinned.

 

That is what the text says literally....You can check anywhere.

here is youngs literal.....

23 for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God


all....all conceived persons...for all time.....there will never be a person here who did not sin in Adam....who did not die in Adam...

God did not write the bible in english, but He had it written in greek for this very reason.....the tenses of the verses are more exact.....

it is a past completed action...it happened at one exact point in time.

The point in time is the fall.Dying thou shalt surely die. It happened:thumbsup:

 

You are pathetic, The Biblicist explained to you just last week that I do not believe Jesus had a sin nature. You know that. You are either the most forgetful person ever to post at BB or intentionally dishonest. Which is it?

Scripture says Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, was made like unto his brethren in ALL THINGS, and was in ALL POINTS tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Jesus was subjected to exactly the same effects of the fall that all men were.

He came to save us from our sins. What does that have to do with the discussion?

You don't have a problem with Adam and Eve being created sinless do you? Why not?

Your argument is bogus. Adam and Eve were sinless and created in a perfect world, yet sinned the first time they were tempted. What makes you think that we who are born into an utterly corrupt world with thousands of temptations would do any better?

It is not amazing that all men sin, what is amazing is that Jesus lived as a man for 33 years in this corrupt world with thousands of temptations and NEVER sinned. THAT is what is amazing.

Fact is, the scriptures say ALL MEN have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The scriptures do not say that Adam's sin was imputed to all men as you falsely teach.

 

Yes, this is the problem, a person who does not know Greek has no way of knowing if the interpretation offered is correct. I doubt Iconoclast knows Greek and has any idea of whether his explanation is correct.

Not only that, but you can find numerous passages of scripture where supposed Greek scholars disagree.

Fact is, in Romans 7:9 Paul clearly says he was once alive without the law. This one verse alone refutes Original Sin, for if all men were born dead in sin, then no man could ever say he was ALIVE. But that is exactly what Paul tells us.

If men are born dead in sin, then the prodigal son could not have been alive AGAIN as Jesus said. But that is exactly what Jesus said TWICE.

These guys don't have scripture on their side, scripture refutes Original Sin.

 

In all of this post, you failed to answer a few of my questions in the post you were quoting from:

1) In conception, where does the soul come from? Is it part of the maturation process of embryo, zygote, fetus, infant, or does the soul come from God?

2) If said soul comes from God, and it comes in an already "dead in trespasses and sins", then God created said soul with sin mixed in, making Him the Author of said sin?

3) If one is born spiritually dead, then how can someone/anyone be made alive again, a la regenerated......which means to be made alive again?


Until you answer these questions, I can not further engage in this discussion.


IOW, I want YOUR opinion, and not the opinions of your Reformed people.

 

In all my years on here, this is one of the BEST posts I have EVER read. It may not be the best(can't think of one that was better, btw), but it sure is "top five"........:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

Willis,

I do not think it is wise to use winman as a source for biblical definitions'

Regeneration
[ 1,,G3824, palingenesia ]
new birth" (palin, "again," genesis, "birth"), is used of "spiritual regeneration," Titus 3:5, involving the communication of a new life, the two operating powers to produce which are "the word of truth," James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23, and the Holy Spirit, John 3:5-John 3:6; the loutron, "the laver, the washing," is explained in Ephesians 5:26, "having cleansed it by the washing (loutron) of water with the word."

The new birth and "regeneration" do not represent successive stages in spiritual experience, they refer to the same event but view it in different aspects. The new birth stresses the communication of spiritual life in contrast to antecedent spiritual death; "regeneration" stresses the inception of a new state of things in contrast with the old; hence the connection of the use of the word with its application to Israel, in Matthew 19:28. Some regard the kai in Titus 3:5 as epexegetic, "even;" but, as Scripture marks two distinct yet associated operating powers, there is not sufficient ground for this interpretation. See under EVEN.

In Matthew 19:28 the word is used, in the Lord's discourse, in the wider sense, of the "restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21, RV), when, as a result of the second advent of Christ, Jehovah "sets His King upon His holy hill of Zion" (Psalms 2:6), and Israel, now in apostasy, is restored to its destined status, in the recognition and under the benign sovereignty of its Messiah. Thereby will be accomplished the deliverance of the world from the power and deception of Satan and from the despotic and anti-christian rulers of the nations. This restitution will not in the coming millennial age be universally a return to the pristine condition of Edenic innocence previous to the Fall, but it will fulfill the establishment of God's covenant with Abraham concerning his descendants, a veritable rebirth of the nation, involving the peace and prosperity of the Gentiles. That the worldwide subjection to the authority of Christ will not mean the entire banishment of evil, is clear from Revelation 20:7-Revelation 20:8. Only in the new heavens and earth, "wherein dwelleth righteousness," will sin and evil be entirely absent.