The New Birth

What a poor analogy. Are you seriously not seeing the work involved with having to obtain the million dollars?

The better analogy is:
Me: Hey, I want to give you a million dollars.
You: Awesome!
Me: All I need you to do is believe I died for you.
You: Really? That's it? That's too easy. I can't believe it's that easy. There must be something more to it....

 

That is easy! Give me the million, me and the devil will go to Vegas and have a grand 'ol time! It's all good...I believe...what happens in vegas, stays in vegas!

In XC
-

 

AliveinChrist,

I had commented to Marcia in an earlier post that "Others of us (who once believed as you do) have searched the scriptures many times and have seen that view ("water baptism for salvation") supported."

I went on to say: "It's also the consistent view of the Church up until the Reformation [when Zwingli defended the 'outward symbol only' view]."

To which you responded...

Care to back up that assertion with counter examples, from the first 1500 year of the Church, of anyone who held to the view that water baptism was only an outward 'symbol' that is chronologically disconnected from an inner regeneration that had already occured?

In the Scripture, properly interpreted, we find neither "justification by faith alone" (which is flatly contradicted by James 2:24, for starters) nor "water baptism being 'symbolic' (in the sense of being a sign disconnected from a reality which has already taken place)".

Anyone can make such an assertion, but where is your documentation that this was in fact the case? Without actual evidence your assertion is just wishful thinking--sorta' like the Mormons' assertions that theirs are the "true teachings of Christ" that vanished (without leaving a trace of evidence) shortly after the Apostles left the scene.

And we do have actual evidence of false teachers such as Gnostics, Ebionites, Marcionites, Sabellians, Arians, etc.

What we don't have is any evidence that there were any Christians who believed in "outward-'symbolic'-only" view of baptism. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that the Church taught (from the begining) that one is normally regenerated in the waters of baptism (and BTW, there is no hint of the view that the water in John 3:5 is amniotic fluid :smilewinkgrin

I'll await your evidence.

The problem is that the evidence suggests the what you say was "false" was actually the only view held in the Church. There is no documentary evidence to my knowledge of any Christians propounding the "outward-symbol-only" view, nor any evidence of even a debate on the issue.

*Contrast this with the ancient heresies in which there is both documentary evidence from the heretics themselves and the polemic counter-arguments from the Church defending orthodox teaching and acknowledigng the existence of these actual heresies. Even when we don't have extant writings of certain specific heretics, we often do have evidence there heresies existed based on the apologetic/polemical writings of the orthodox Christians--not so with any alleged "outward-symbol-only" view of water baptism.

Yes, "to the scriptures". However it does no good to go "to the scriptures, to the scriptures, to the scriptures" if one misinterprets, misinterprets, misinterprets these same scriptures. (The Apostle Peter actually warned against that kind of thing in his Second Epistle.) In the judgement of the historic Church, the advocates of the "outward-symbol-only" view of Baptism, as first propounded by Zwingli, are the ones misinterpreting Scriptures.

Indeed, which is certainly the case with the false traditions of men such as "justification by faith alone" and "water baptism is only an outward symbol (with no real connection to the inner regeneration)"

 

...all of which are NOT works, but are part of faith which Eph. 2:8-9 states is NOT a work.

 

:laugh:

Post deleted.

 

Looking at History, to see what the Early Christians did is a great way to help interept and understand the scriptures seeing as they were closest to the original text and teachings of the inspired Apostles and we can almost say that they could be considered exempt from 1 Timothy 4:1
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;"
Since the most Early Christians really couldn't be considered to be living "in the latter times" - BUT to look back at what they did should not be our sole source of truth (the sole source is the Bible).

 

Take a look at Hebrews 11.
All those there had GREAT Faith, agreed?
Again, lets take Noah for example. Noah had faith - but when he built the Ark according to God's command - he was working! Would you say that because he built that Ark he was saving himself and God was not the one saving him? Was he working his way to be saved from the flood?
Baptism is a work, or in better terms - an act of obedience.

 

They were doing works as a result of faith, but it's their faith that saved them (by grace). What they did after having faith is not part of being saved.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth :thumbs:

 

Looking at Historical doctrine, there is not a SINGLE theologian or apologist in the Early Church, which held to the Churches of Christ view on Baptism. Not one.

 

What does it mean to be born again? what about the new birth?

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

This is the answer that Jesus gave to Nicodemus. If he wanted to see (or enter) the Kingdom of God (which was of utmost importance to any Jew), he must be born again.
What did that mean? Nicodemus didn't know. He was totally confused.

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
--That is a confused answer that he gives. He may be referring to the concept of reincarnation which was around at that time.

But Jesus does not reply in answer to his response. He goes back and continues from his own assertion.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
--This is the second time Jesus tells him that he must be born again. And he will yet tell him once more in verse 7

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
--Three times!! It is important that you be born again.
But how? How is a person born again?

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
--Jesus teaches us that there are two kinds of births: one is physical and one is spiritual. We are all born physically; that is how we got here. But not everyone is born spiritually. Thus the necessity of being born again, having a second birth, a new birth.

Now look at verse five again:
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
--There are two agents and only two agents by which a person can be born again or saved. One is water, and the other is the Spirit or Holy Spirit which I think we all agree on. The controversy is "what does 'water' refer to?"
There are three views:
1. Baptism. This is unsciptural for it would make salvation by works and not of faith. We are saved by the blood of Christ not by the water of baptism. We are Christians, not Hindus.
2. Is it symbolic of amniotic fluid. A possible answer but not plausible. I don't think that Nicodemus would be thinking about amniotic fluid. He was a Rabbi, a very well educated person, especially in matters of the OT.
3. Water does mean something. I believe, in harmony with Scriptures, that it refers to the Word of God. Nicodemus would have immediately thought of this as in verses such as Psalm 119:9,11; and so many other Scriptures which connect the Word of God with cleansing or water.

What is a very common function of water?
It is used for washing or cleaning.
Look in John 15:3

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
--Jesus teaches that it is the Word that cleanses us. Remember there are two agents and only two agents by which one is born again or saved. Here the water is symbolic of cleansing.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
--We are begotten, (born) with the Word. There are two agents by which a person is born again--the Word and the Spirit. Here James teaches us that we are born again by the Word of God.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
--This is the clearest passage yet. Peter comes right out and teaches us that we are born again by the Word of God. There is no question about it. The water refers to the Word of God. There are two and only two agents by which a man is born again--the Word of God and the Spirit of God.

One needs both. One cannot be born again without the Word of God; the gospel message. It is impossible. And one cannot be born again without the Spirit of God. That too is impossible. God uses the Spirit of God working through the Word of God to bring a sinner to Christ. That is what the new birth is all about.
Two agents: water and the Spirit: Word and the Holy Spirit.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

The above (^^) statement is just as true as the statement below based on the fact that no evidence has been provided to prove either one true or false.

- Once you start providing evidence and proof to back up statements such as the one you have made; then we can start a real debate that will get us someone concerning the Early Church's belief.

 

Actually, it is threatening in the context of the post. There is a difference between the present tense and the present perfect tense.

 

DHK, this is in response to your post #51.

I agree that Jesus' reference to water is likely a reference to the word. This is not water baptism. Your scripture references are on the money. May I add another, Ephesians 5:26, where Paul refers to the "washing of water by (or of) the word." The Spirit is the agent of regeneration, the word is the instrument.

I want to offer another view on Jesus comment "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Your view:

I think the word "see" means "understand."

I draw support for my view from I Corinthians 2:14: " But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Nicodemus just didn't understand.

Nicodemus worshiped God. He was the greatest teacher in all Israel. But he didn't understand. It was the same for Lydia, who worshiped God (Acts 16:14), but until the Lord "opened her heart," Paul's preaching made no sense to her.

Now, to be sure, Jesus did say a few seconds later "except a man be born of the water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

But "see" in v.3 means something else entirely. Here, I believe Jesus is referring to the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit.

 

I can see your point as the Greek word "eido" can mean: to perceive, to be aware of, to understand. So your interpretation is very plausible.

The Geneva Bible gives this footnote, however:
"That is, "go in", or "enter", as he expounds himself below in Joh 3:5."

Considering the context the latter is more likely. However, the Holy Spirit may have had both ideas in mind which he sometims does, even in one word.