The New Birth

I thought we should let Scripture inform our conclusions?

There we go again when human logic!

Scripture has "repentance and faith."

Because a person must first "change the mind" (repent) about God, sin, self, and place faith in Christ who died for our sins, was buried, and raised again as our hope of the new life, to be saved.

"Repentance and faith" is the witness of Scripture.

All you have to do is put your human logic aside and simply accept what Scripture says.

 

He addressed Jesus Christ as Lord, something an unsaved person would not do, and something he never would have done in the past. You can't reconcile that with what Paul says here:

1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
--and Paul said:
Acts 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
Acts 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

The Lord, as in the Lord Jesus Christ, is a title that belongs only to Christians, never used of the unsaved. Paul, unlike his past life, was now calling Christ Lord. A change had been wrought in his life. He was saved.

This is the account given of his journey:

Acts 22:11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

In Acts 9 the account is the most detailed:
Acts 9:7-9 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
--First, there is nothing there that speaks of his emotional state, absolutely nothing.
--Second, blindness does not equate being miserable. Fanny Crosby was blind most of her life and refused to be miserable. She wrote a good percentage of the hymns in our hymn books, and was always a joy to be around. She had a sweet spirit about her. Read her biography.
--Third, he had just had a great burden of sin lifted off his heart. He would be rejoicing, not miserable.
--Fourth, you are reading your pre-conceived theology into just one verse in Acts 22, making an argument out of silence.

-Your "thinking" is wrong because it is just according to the COC brainwashing.
One reason was told to Ananias:
Acts 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
--This was just a foreshadow of the sufferings that were to come.
Another reason was given in Paul's theology:
"Tribulation worketh patience..." Paul would need much patience.
Look at your messed up theology in asking such a question.
Only a Christian would fast and pray. That is evidence that he was saved.
The unsaved don't fast and pray, all the while pretending to be Christians. They may fast and pray for another reason to another god. But why would one pretending to be a Christian do it. Paul was the real thing; a genuine believer.

This really shoots your theology in the foot doesn't it. Paul was saved at least three days before he was baptized definitely showing that baptism was not a part of his salvation. It was separated by three days.

Your second problem is a gross misunderstanding of Acts 22:16, not bothering to look into the Greek tenses of the verbs involved.

The last phrase of the verse could be better rendered "having called upon the name of the Lord." The command was to be baptized. His sins were washed away, "having called on the name of the Lord," which he had already done.

That is the heresy of baptismal regeneration, no where taught in the Bible. Paul called on the name of the Lord earlier on, on the road to Damascus. Why do you cling to the superstition of the Hindus that water can wash away sins?

 

I usually stay out of these and find them rather boring but for some reason I can't resist. I first must admit than I have questions regarding the CoC doctrine. If one repents and believes but them adds to the Gospel are they saved? I only know 2 who follow CoC. One has a great witness and the other has a terrible witness.

I do think that we under-emphasise Baptism in our Churches. We say one need not be Baptized to be saved, yet say one must be Baptized to be a member of the church (local). I find that rather strange. We also read where Jesus command baptism and find that we know we are saved if we keep his commands. Another oddity...

Back to the OP. I am in the minority because I belive Jesus is talkin about a natural birth (water) and a spriritual birth (spirit). IMO it is the only thing that makes sense in context. Nicodemus ask how can he be born again? Jesus responds with the answer in v5 and repeats it in v6 using another analogy. Either way, it definitely does not mean Water Baptism.

Yes, there are some verses, which if you interpet them in such a way, that could make it look like WB is a requirement. But to do so you must ignore other verses that clearly show faith in Christ as the means to salvation.

Can the Holy Spirit reside in an unsaved individual?

 

No, he never did. The water is emblematic of the Word, as Peter so clearly points out.

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.
--You can't keep ignoring Scripture. There are only two agents by which a person is born again: one is the Word; the other is the Holy Spirit. Both are necessary.

No he wasn't. Do some study on the verse, its grammar and syntax. Find out what it is really saying, not just the KJV. Look at the Greek. Paul was not told to wash away his sins in baptism. That is a false statement. If that was true, then Paul wasn't saved for three days, and according to you Paul wasn't even saved at the end of his life. Paul wasn't saved when he wrote all 13 of the epistles of the Bible. He never was saved, and still isn't. He is in hell today, according to your theology.
Let me demonstrate your theology to all who read.
When asked about the relation of baptism to salvation, (that is being saved by faith), here is what was said. First my exact question to you was:

Now here is your reply to me.

You still do not think that I am going to heaven just because I didn't get baptized immediately after I put my trust in Christ.
The same thing happened to Paul. He did not get baptized immediately after he put his trust in Christ. Just like me he waited. He waited 3 days. I waited two months. The extent of the time period really doesn't matter does it. If I am still unsaved 30 years later, then Paul, who was martyred about 25 years later was still unsaved also. It only stands to reason. Thus Paul, according to your theology couldn't possibly have been saved all those years that he wrote the inspired Word of God. What he wrote then wouldn't be inspired. You better tear all those epistles out of your Bible since there is no possible way that they could be inspired, being written by an unsaved man, right?

The Bible states by faith and faith alone.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--There is no baptism there. The implication is faith alone. There is nothing to do but to be saved by faith; justified by faith: faith alone.

Baptism is a work. You have a works based salvation, by which no man can be saved.

Repentance is the flip side of faith, and is a part of faith. It is not a work.
Faith is not a work, and cannot be a work. How can trusting someone be classified as a work. It is not something that one does. However baptism is a work; it is something that you do; it is an act.

My salvation is by grace through faith, and not by works.
It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.
There are no works involved in my salvation; but there are in yours--the work of baptism.

You take away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ; an insult to Christ.
You imply that his atonement was not enough to cover your sins. You have to help him pay for your sins as well, by being baptized.

 

HP: First, you display a very bad habit of name calling. You could have simply disagreed with JSM17 and then made your point. There is no need to call anyone arrogant on this list. If they are, let the reader decide that for themselves.

I as well disagree with JSM17 on the baptism issue, but I will not make the mistake DHK makes and falsely accuses him of indicating that he, by the position he has taken, has to help Christ pay for his sins. That is nowhere implied in anything JSM17 has stated. That again is nothing but a false accusation without the least shred of evidence. DHK, your consistent refusal to distinguish between grounds and conditions shows a lack of understanding on your part, and generally ends, as in your last post, in a false accusation and a personal attack. Certainly I do not believe the condition of water baptism is a condition of salvation, but again he has simply set forth a false condition, and nothing in his position necessitates anything you have indicated.

Conditions do not pay for anything, and they are not meritorious in nature. They in no way compete with the grounds of salvation, nor do they in any way help God pay for sins or help God in His atonement. That is simply a false notion you would do well to rethink and reshape your understanding of. Conditions, false or real, are never thought of a payment for anything, or helping God pay for anything, nor ever thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of.’ Conditions are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which.’ That again does not indicate payment or help with payment whatsoever.

Again, your tactic, as evidenced in your post, that simply creates a false end to the others argument and suggests that your attached conjecture by necessity must be true, is not in keeping with reality, nor does it by any means help your position to go down that rabbit trail of error, one iota.

 

Perhaps you are offended because you believe the same thing. In other posts you talk of an "obedient faith" that is necessary to be saved. So, although it may not be "the work of baptism," it is works. You also believe that works are necessary for salvation. Any person that believes that works are necessary for salvation does not believe that the blood of Christ is sufficient enough to take away all our sins, and that includes you.
Yes, I can understand your frustration and offense at my post as it applies to you.

One doesn't have to come out and say it word for word. If one says that a person must keep the Ten Commandments to be saved, then he believes in salvation by works, and the conclusion is that the blood of Christ is not sufficient enough to atone for our sins. That is true of every person that believes in salvation by works. It is true of yourself. You don't have to say it outright. It is a logical conclusion. Jesus paid for all our sins: past, present and future. There is no sin that Jesus did not pay for. If he paid for them all; then why does one think they must pay the penalty themselves with their own works. Is "It is finished," the words that Jesus spoke while on the cross, spoken in vain? What works can you do that will help Jesus atone for your sins? It is the gift of God, not of works.

No you don't believe it is water; but you do believe it is an "obedient faith" which is just as bad. Salvation is not of works, as you demand it is. Why do you take away from the blood of Christ, thinking that you can pay for your own salvation? You can't do it. Only Christ can save; only Christ can pay for your sins. Your works of righteousness are as filthy rags (Isa.64:6).

Considering that salvation is unconditional it is a position you need to rethink. Every condition you put on salvation is a work--something that takes away from the blood of Christ; the work that he has done on the cross. There are Catholics in the province of Quebec that crawl on their hands and knees up the many stairs of to a statue of Ste. Anne, after having made a pilgrimmage, thinking that that sacrifice will help atone for their sins. Is that Christianity? They think it is. It is just another variation of what you believe but taken to a greater extreme. Works do not save: whether you look at as a condition for salvation, or to maintain salvation. Works have nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.

I don't have a tactic except to point out the heresy that works cannot save: whether they be baptism or any other work such as an "obedient faith." Works do not save. Faith in Christ does. If one is not saved through faith in Christ then he is not saved at all.

 

Post deleted by HP:

 

.

HP: Understanding clearly DHK’s position that “DHK: all men are liars” makes it a small thing when he makes this sort of comment. …….or comments like the following.

 

The COC belief in the necessity of baptism for salvation [which eventually led to the heresy of baptismal regeneration] would be more defensible if they would explain why when a person, according to COC doctrine, loses his salvation for whatever reason, baptism is not required for their regained salvation. As far as I am concerned unless they can explain this anomaly in their doctrine their argument that baptism is required for salvation not only is not Biblical, it is foolish.

Rather than argue with JSM17 about the necessity of baptism for initial salvation require him to explain why baptism is not required for those who presumably lose their salvation and then are saved a second, or third, or fourth, or on and on ad infinitum.

I have challenged JSM17 to do so and he has ignored that challenge. Why allow him to monopolize discussion on this forum leaving the above question unanswered?

 

HP: I personally have no idea how one in the COC would answer, but I see your comments as stemming from a misunderstanding of the nature of salvation. It is also true that those promoting OSAS have their difficulties in multiple salvations as well. OSAS provides fodder for great confusion in the church and even denial of ones standing before God. Here is a scenario I have personally witnessed.

A person gets saved that believes in election from a Calvinistic position. He believes that when a person gets saved that they come into the understanding that they have been foreordained or predestined to eternal life by God from the foundations of the world. Their salvation is best thought of as not when they got saved, but rather their salvation is best understood as simply the time that they came to a full realization that they have in reality been saved all along, it is just that now they came to understand it for themselves or become cognizant that in reality had been fixed for all of eternity.

Having now this salvation experience, coming into the realization that they have always been one of the elect, they proceed down the path of life again. Some time after, they fall into sin and condemnation sets into their heart. For a while they try and convince themselves that there is no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus, but the condemnation is relentless. They end up discouraged due to the knowledge that there life is not consistent with their faith, and end up falling by the wayside discouraged.

They are now in a real pickle. When the alter call is given they know in their heart that they need to get right with God, but they do not know what they should testify to. If they were really saved there should have been no condemnation, which they know in reality they certainly have, so they cannot testify that they were saved. They know they cannot say they fell from grace and needed to be resaved, for that is not believed possible in the Church they are in attendance to, so we hear this strange testimony instead. I have heard those that have been in the Church for years, teaching and even elders and deacons in the church, that stand up after conviction sets in over a besetting sin, and testify like this. “I thought I was saved years ago, but today I realize that I was never saved, but I got saved today.”…..and so on ad infinitum. The end result of complete discouragement after they have claimed something they had to abandon, just to repeat the cycle over and over again or lie to themselves as to their state before God, knowing full well that while they profess OSAS their heart condemns them.

Certainly that does not ‘have’ to be the case but I have seen it for myself to be the case in OSAS circles.

Back to JMS17 and the COC. For all I know they might well believe as I do, that salvation is not ‘lost’ until they pass from this world to the next with a heart of unrepentance, therefore no need of being baptized again. One would simply repent and get back on the right road again. One can certainly get sidetracked by the enemy of our souls for a time, but all is not 'lost' until one remains in a state of refusing to repent and turn from their sins until they pass from this life to the next in judgment. Their salvation might have gotten off track, their assurance clouded, but was not lost, was not hopeless, until the time of repentance and turning was gone forever.

Once one has committed their life to Christ, their salvation is not lost until no hope remains to get back on the right track. This notion of loosing and gaining ones salvation ad infinitum is a figment of the OSAS’ers imagination, IMHO of course. I will allow the COC individuals to answer for themselves.

 

I see that you have learned quite well from your COC preachers and teachers - the same old arguments that are actually mishandling of Scripture.

First up, James is writing to folks who are already believers (read v.14).

Second, Abraham was already justified as a man by faith alone in God (Gen. 15:6).

His faith is what was now put to the test. That's the genius of James argument from v.14.

We are justified by faith alone, but this justifying-faith is evident in our works. That's what James is arguing.

Which also agrees with what Paul says in Eph. 2:8-10:

We are saved by grace when we believe (v. 8), but this saving is unto good works which God have prepared in advanced for us to do (v. 10).

James and Paul are in perfect harmony.

 

If only you believed this, but you don't. Responding to the words of God in faith; why are you not able to do that? Faith and faith alone.

Let's see you make your case without using James. You can't do it can you? You take James 2:24 out of its context, particularly the context of the book itself. The theme of James is "practical Christian living." It has nothing to do with salvation. Thus your argument is moot. Faith has an object. The object of my faith is Christ and Christ alone. I am saved by faith and faith alone in Christ and in Christ alone.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--Salvation is by God's grace. You say it is by works. The Bible says grace. The Bible also says that if it is by works it is not of grace. Therefore it is you that is wrong. You take away from the grace of God, from the blood of Christ that paid for our sins.

Faith doesn't work. If faith "works" it is not faith.

That is not true. They were commanded to look upon the serpent in faith alone. There was no work involved. They had to believe in simple faith that looking at that serpent would heal them, just as one has to believe in simple faith that "looking (believing) on Jesus will save them." The picture is the same. There is no work, only faith.

This has nothing to do with salvation. It is not a correct analogy. The Israelites were already saved. God gave them victory over a pagan city.

Apples and oranges. Naaman was an unsaved Syrian, and there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that he got saved. What are you trying to prove?

There were 10 lepers healed. Only one came back to thank Christ. How did they obey the Lord? Yet they received the blessings of God. Your theology is messed up.
God blesses all of us every day, even those of us who don't obey him.
In the words of Christ Himself:
The rain falls upon the just and the unjust alike.
The sun shines upon the just and the unjust alike.

You think that God only blesses the COC??
Perhaps you have never tasted the fullness of his blessing, and have no idea what you are really talking about.

 

JSM17

In Hebrews we read:

12:2. Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith. Salvation is entirely the work of the Triune God. You want to make man the author and finisher of his own salvation.

 

You quote half of one verse and try to make an argument from it?? Do you honestly think that people are going to believe your methods here are "rightly dividing the word of truth," or sound hermeneutics? I think not!

It is akin to the one who also says: "The Bible declares, 'There is no God.'" And he is right. For the Bible does declare, "there is no God." But as you pull Scripture out of context so that is pulled out of context. Look at the full verse:

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
--And indeed it is a food who takes Scripture out of its context.

Now look at the complete context of what is said in Acts 9:

Acts 9:5-6 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
--After Saul asks for the identity of the Lord, the Lord answers:
I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Now Paul knows who Jesus really is. He is Lord, the Lord Jesus.

What is his reaction?
1. He trembles.
2. He is astonished--meaning his heart is broken because of sin (Gill).
3. He immediately asks direction from the Lord and how to obey him.
4. He immediately obeys the Lord.

These are the marks of a new believer in Christ.

You are deceptive in that you quoted only one half of one verse to try and prove your point.

Your deceptiveness knows no bounds. If you just read the Scriptures you will find plenty of Scripture. Read the above answer that I gave you.

Paul did call upon the name of the Lord. He believed. And then he obeyed. What else would a born again Christian do. What other evidence would one need. Certainly not baptism. Baptism came three days after his conversion.

Yes, they are. When one believes they call upon the name of the Lord just like Paul did.

No, Paul does not say that. You are confused.

There are NO conditions. It is Christ that saves. His salvation is unconditional. Until you reach that conclusion salvation is impossible. Salvation is not of works. It is by grace through faith--the gift of God; not of works. as you say it must be. Every condition that you attach to salvation is a work. Every work takes away from the blood of Christ. It tells us that the belief of the COC is that Jesus death on the cross of Christ was not sufficient enough to pay for the sins of mankind; man must help Jesus to pay for our sins. And that is blasphemy.

No he did not. You don't study the Greek; but ignore it. The correct translation in Acts 22:16 is "after having called upon the name of the Lord."

It shows plainly that when one believes he calls upon the name of the Lord, which is evident everywhere in the Bible.

You differentiate between two things which are one and the same thing. You are straining at a gnat.

He doesn't. Remember the correct rendering: "after having called upon the name of the Lord."

He didn't. You just think he did.

 

Calling upon the Lord is seen either as an expression of prayer or an expression of worship, in Scripture.

That is why those who call upon the Lord from a heart of faith are saved.

 

It is apparently you who do not understand the nature of Salvation. Salvation is only by the Grace of God and is a once for all time event in the life of the elect. That is God keeps eternally secure those He chose to salvation before the foundation of the world and made accepted in the beloved, Jesus Christ [Ephesians 1:3-6].