Born Again, and again, and again, and again,

[CopticChristian]

coptic,

Jesus was the one who invented the expression “born again.” Dont you realize that?

For us, infant baptism simply means we accept the child into the church as part of Gods Kingdom. Jesus said “Let the children come. They are of the Kingdom.” We do not consider it some kind of vaccination. It is the acknowledgement of the church of a new partner in Christ. Peace, JohnR

Rig,

We have no idea what Jesus said because he spoke Aramaic. What we do know is that in Greek it is written he said “born anew” or “born from above”

anóthen: from above
Original Word: ἄνωθεν
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: anóthen
Phonetic Spelling: (an’-o-then)
Short Definition: from above, from the beginning, again
Definition: (a) from above, from heaven, (b) from the beginning, from their origin (source), from of old, (c) again, anew

The translation is more likely not born again. The expression was made or said by Jesus. The notion of being born again is a Protestant belief as I stated. Don’t confuse what Jesus said with what it is you think it means.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Here is a good article that discusses it at length: cpcnewhaven.org/cms/uploads/Pelagian%20Controversy.doc

Here also is Finney’s statement on original sin, in which he argues that man is born morally neutral: gospeltruth.net/1851Sys_Theo/st38.htm

Thanks, I’ll read those.

I’ve read before some of what he wrote about original sin, but I didn’t see him saying anything distinctly Pelagian. But I’ll read the links you provided.

 

[CopticChristian]

Thanks, I’ll read those.

I’ve read before some of what he wrote about original sin, but I didn’t see him saying anything distinctly Pelagian. But I’ll read the links you provided.

Abide,

Sounds like another one bites the dust…Finney becomes Pelagian and Tertullian becomes a Montanist…what’s the Lord to do with these guys?

 

[highrigger1]

Rig,

We have no idea what Jesus said because he spoke Aramaic. What we do know is that in Greek it is written he said “born anew” or “born from above”

anóthen: from above
Original Word: ἄνωθεν
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: anóthen
Phonetic Spelling: (an’-o-then)
Short Definition: from above, from the beginning, again
Definition: (a) from above, from heaven, (b) from the beginning, from their origin (source), from of old, (c) again, anew

The translation is more likely not born again. The expression was made or said by Jesus. The notion of being born again is a Protestant belief as I stated. Don’t confuse what Jesus said with what it is you think it means.

coptic,

You are making an issue when there is not. Born anew means the same as born again. Scripture says born again and so protestants took that terminology. What is the surprise? Jesus invented it and not the Methodists or anyone else.

I know exactly what it means. Jesus speaks of being born of water and the spirit in the same conversation with Nicdemus. This phrasology comes directly from Ezekiel 36:25. I dont even have to look it up. Protestants see that as applying to anyone who accepts the gospel message. since Ezekiel meant it applied when the messiah came. That is why Jesus referenced it.

Born of the spirit means being physically born by a God who gives life through his breath.

Born of water means the sprinkling of God giving the Spirit of God to the person. Peace, JohnR

 

[AbideWithMe]

Coptic—The first link from IggyAntiochus doesn’t show on my Android tablet. I still haven’t found any full blown Pelagianism from his writings.

 

[CopticChristian]

coptic,

You are making an issue when there is not. Born anew means the same as born again. Scripture says born again and so protestants took that terminology. What is the surprise? Jesus invented it and not the Methodists or anyone else.

I know exactly what it means. Jesus speaks of being born of water and the spirit in the same conversation with Nicdemus. This phrasology comes directly from Ezekiel 36:25. I dont even have to look it up. Protestants see that as applying to anyone who accepts the gospel message. since Ezekiel meant it applied when the messiah came. That is why Jesus referenced it.

Born of the spirit means being physically born by a God who gives life through his breath.

Born of water means the sprinkling of God giving the Spirit of God to the person. Peace, JohnR

Abide,

You are concluding what you believe. Baptism for the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic East and West have practiced Baptismal regeneration for a long time and take the water seriously.

Jews had a Baptismal purification, John the Baptist was baptizing, Jesus was Baptized, Jesus told the disciples to go and tell people to come to Altar call and recieve the spirit…no he did not he told them to go Baptize and Paul in Romans 6 says don’t you know for as many of you that have been buried with him in Baptism…etc…and Peter says this water

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

This is what John Chrysosotom says in the 4th or 5th century so I am going to go with him.

That the need of water is absolute and indispensable, you may learn in this way. On one occasion, when the Spirit had flown down before the water was applied, the Apostle did not stay at this point, but, as though the water were necessary and not superfluous, observe what he says; “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” Acts 10:47

What then is the use of the water? This too I will tell you hereafter, when I reveal to you the hidden mystery. There are also other points of mystical teaching connected with the matter, but for the present I will mention to you one out of many. What is this one? In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead. As it is easy for us to dip and to lift our heads again, so it is easy for God to bury the old man, and to show forth the new. And this is done thrice, that you may learn that the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost fulfills all this

No. I believe you and other Protestants have given it a new meaning.

If you were a 1st century Jew and you were introduced to Baptismal regeneration having known about Baptism it would have been an easy transition into the New Covenant as opposed to

Going to the Coliseum and seeing the Gladiators playing rock music and asking for an altar call.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Coptic–You accidently posted to me instead of Highrigger.

 

[highrigger1]

Abide,

You are concluding what you believe. Baptism for the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic East and West have practiced Baptismal regeneration for a long time and take the water seriously.

Jews had a Baptismal purification, John the Baptist was baptizing, Jesus was Baptized, Jesus told the disciples to go and tell people to come to Altar call and recieve the spirit…no he did not he told them to go Baptize and Paul in Romans 6 says don’t you know for as many of you that have been buried with him in Baptism…etc…and Peter says this water.

coptic,

I certainly dont conclude what I dont believe. I am aware that baptism is in the NT.

This is what John Chrysosotom says in the 4th or 5th century so I am going to go with him.

No. I believe you and other Protestants have given it a new meaning.

If you were a 1st century Jew and you were introduced to Baptismal regeneration having known about Baptism it would have been an easy transition into the New Covenant as opposed to

Going to the Coliseum and seeing the Gladiators playing rock music and asking for an altar call.

You have made some assertions without any support. Fact is the christians of the NT and afterwards had many different views of baptism. What we have today is a conglomeration. Your argument that ONLY your view is right is incorrect.

Baptism is an outward symbol of entry into Gods Kingdom. It is nothing without faith.

Peace, JohnR

 

[CopticChristian]

coptic,

I certainly dont conclude what I dont believe. I am aware that baptism is in the NT.

You have made some assertions without any support. Fact is the christians of the NT and afterwards had many different views of baptism. What we have today is a conglomeration. Your argument that ONLY your view is right is incorrect.

Baptism is an outward symbol of entry into Gods Kingdom. It is nothing without faith.

Peace, JohnR

J,

Provide me the many forms, dates and groups you speak of…

You believe that it is an outward sign however I conclude based on what I said what I said…It is an an outward sign of an inner change…that is what Sacrament is…

 

[billt9]

Once, only, “although in our moving on to perfection” (sanctification) we fall short again and again (as does every Christian). As St. Paul said (from memory), “I do not do what I want to do and I do what I don’t want to do, and I am the worst sinner of all.” He said it, not to excuse or make us feel better about ourselves, because it was true for him, as it is for me and for us all.

 

[JustaServant]

Again, these are some valid criticisms of Charles Finney. However, a good deal of the Reformed criticism of him was that he was falling into what some Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists perceived to be the errors of Rome…among them the idea that salvation is synergistic.

Noooot really. According to Ian Murray’s “Revival & Revivalism” the main issue they had with Finney was his Pelagianism. It should also be mentioned that Arminians, not just Calvinists took issue with Finney’s methods.
I highly recoment Murray’s book. He gives very detailed and long quotations that show the concern Protestant leaders had at the time with the wildfire popularity of Finney.
He was sort of the Joel Osteen of his day.

 

[JustaServant]

What I’m “describing” is the potential for non-evangelical Christians to misinterpret evangelical religious experience. I agree that what I described is part of ongoing salvation, which was the point I was making–that many evangelicals do not believe that you can be born again multiple times. Those evangelicals that do believe that you can be born again “again and again and again” are mistaken.

I never said they did.

 

[CopticChristian]

Once, only, “although in our moving on to perfection” (sanctification) we fall short again and again (as does every Christian). As St. Paul said (from memory), “I do not do what I want to do and I do what I don’t want to do, and I am the worst sinner of all.” He said it, not to excuse or make us feel better about ourselves, because it was true for him, as it is for me and for us all.

Bilt,

What you are quoting from memory is what the Catholic Church calls concupiscence. A proper reading of the letter to the Romans reveals that Paul is discussing the death of the Old Covenenat to Judaizing Christians from Romans 3-11 and in Romans 6 explains how Baptism changes all that not circumcision. He goes not to discuss the law and our propensity to sin or our sin nature in what you recall.

14For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

  21I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

 

[highrigger1]

J,

Provide me the many forms, dates and groups you speak of…

You believe that it is an outward sign however I conclude based on what I said what I said…It is an an outward sign of an inner change…that is what Sacrament is…

coptic,

Raymond Brown lists them in his books. Here is how he sums up the circumstances.

“As I mentioned they had baptism and the eucharist(NT times). Yet our theology
of baptism and our theologyof the eucharist would be a composite of ideas that
might have been quite separate in New Testament times,in the sense that no
one given community would have had all those ideas. The early Christians would
havehad different forms of church leadership, which were developing rapidly
toward the end of the first century.”
Raymond Brown, Q 101, questions and Answers on the Bible. P 135 Imprimature

He counts at least seven separate strains of christianity in the NT. Get one of his books for furher explanation. Peace, JohnR

 

[AbideWithMe]

Noooot really. According to Ian Murray’s “Revival & Revivalism” the main issue they had with Finney was his Pelagianism. It should also be mentioned that Arminians, not just Calvinists took issue with Finney’s methods.
I highly recoment Murray’s book. He gives very detailed and long quotations that show the concern Protestant leaders had at the time with the wildfire popularity of Finney.
He was sort of the Joel Osteen of his day.

JustaServant----

I hadn’t heard of Iain Murray before. My concern is this: in regards to Finney and Pelagianism, so far —in my admittedly limited reading----I’m finding that criticism is coming from Presbyterians such as the well-known R.C. Sproul, who accuses Finney of espousing nearly Catholic-like doctrine in that Finney rejects imputed righteousness and has a synergistic view of salvation. Sproul says that Finney’s legacy among modern evangelicals has led them to betray the Reformation and become too Roman in their views regarding synergism as opposed to monergism. I see Iain Murray is also a Presbyterian leader, and the “Pelagian Controversy” document in the link from IggyAntiochus is from a Presbyterian church. (Unfortunately I still can’t read the document on my tablet.) With no offense intended to Calvinists, it would be helpful to see a clear charge of Pelagianism from a non-Calvinist source.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Here is a good article that discusses it at length: cpcnewhaven.org/cms/uploads/Pelagian%20Controversy.doc

Here also is Finney’s statement on original sin, in which he argues that man is born morally neutral: gospeltruth.net/1851Sys_Theo/st38.htm

IggyAntiochus—

I’m not able to read the first link on my tablet, but I did read the second one. It went to a writing by Finney on depravity, so I wasn’t sure if I was reading the right one, but in what I read he wasn’t espousing Pelagianism. I’ll read more writings from Finney on that site, though…thank you.

 

[CopticChristian]

coptic,

Raymond Brown lists them in his books. Here is how he sums up the circumstances.

“As I mentioned they had baptism and the eucharist(NT times).** Yet our theology
of baptism and our theologyof the eucharist would be a composite of ideas that
might have been quite separate in New Testament times,in the sense that no
one given community would have had all those ideas**. The early Christians would
havehad different forms of church leadership, which were developing rapidly
toward the end of the first century.”
Raymond Brown, Q 101, questions and Answers on the Bible. P 135 Imprimature

He counts at least seven separate strains of christianity in the NT. Get one of his books for furher explanation. Peace, JohnR

What you should understand is that the Our is Catholic and not to suggest that it extends to Protestant.

 

[fbl9]

IggyAntiochus—

I’m not able to read the first link on my tablet, but I did read the second one. It went to a writing by Finney on depravity, so I wasn’t sure if I was reading the right one, but in what I read he wasn’t espousing Pelagianism. I’ll read more writings from Finney on that site, though…thank you.

 

[Anna_Scott]

coptic,

I certainly dont conclude what I dont believe. I am aware that baptism is in the NT.

You have made some assertions without any support. Fact is the christians of the NT and afterwards had many different views of baptism. What we have today is a conglomeration. Your argument that ONLY your view is right is incorrect.

Baptism is an outward symbol of entry into Gods Kingdom. It is nothing without faith.

Peace, JohnR

John,
I know this was addressed to Coptic, but where are you getting the idea that Baptism is an outward symbol of entry into God’s Kingdom?

Peace,
Anna

 

[highrigger1]

What you should understand is that the Our is Catholic and not to suggest that it extends to Protestant.

Coptic,

I get it. Probably protestant baptism is derived in a similar manner but not the same as Catholic. So the premise stands. There were various opinions in the nt. Peace, JohnR