Regeneration/Born-Again

[itsjustdave1988]

bene7:

The phrase, “fall from grace” is from the Book of Galatians (Gal. 5:4). It describes those who have left the *grace teachings of salvation *through faith alone and are trying to now be saved through self-efforts, law keeping. To “fall from grace” means to abandon the truth of Paul’s gospel that one is saved by grace through faith alone.

I think you are not reading Galatians carefully enough. Observe:

Gal 3:26-28:
“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. … you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

These are SAVED CHRISTIANS, who are TRULY REGENERATED in Christ!!! Yet, Paul speaks disappointedly to the churches of Galatia, those he described as being “baptized in Christ” and as being “sons of God because of their faith in Christ.”

Those he is specifically addressing are TRUE CHRISTIANS. Your thesis that they are merely rejecting the “grace teachings” of Jesus is absurd and completely contrary to what Paul himself claims.

Paul describes these Christians as those to whom God has provided the Spirit, working miracles among them. (Gal 3:5). Paul clearly tells us that these are saved Christians who he is writing to: “Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Gal 4:6) The same Spirit sent into Paul’s heart was sent into the hearts of the assembly of Christians of Galatia to which Paul is writing to. If these Christians are not saved, neither is Paul.

They really were “baptized in Christ” which means they not only had the teachings of Christ but the REAL GRACE of Christ. Yet, what does Paul say about them?

**Gal 4:9, 11: "how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? … I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain." **

---

---

Paul is concerned that these once saved "sons of God" have returned to the works of Judaism, renouncing the gift they have been TRULY given. If eternal security is true, why would Paul “fear” for them? In what way could Paul have “labored in vain” for these “sons of God”? Aren’t they guaranteed salvation? Nothing they do or don’t do, to include returning to the works of Judaism matters with respect toward their eternal salvation after being saved, right? Were they not “baptized in Christ” and adopted as sons of God as Paul affirms?

Paul is not only warning these “sons of God” of the consequences of returning to the works of Judaism, but also of the consequences of returning to the “desires of the flesh.” Paul warns these saved Christians, these “sons of God” from Galatia that if they practice such things, they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

***Gal 5:19-21 “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident … which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” ***

How could they not inherit the kingdom of God if “once saved always saved” is true? We know they are “once saved” because Paul himself testifies to that fact. Yet, we also know that they are at risk of not inheriting the kingdom of God by Paul’s own testimony, which proves OSAS is a false unbiblical theology.

Paul tells them unequivocally that those who return to the works of Judaism “have been severed from Christ” and have “fallen from grace” (Gal 5:4). Scripture is clear that this can happen, even to those who are without a doubt “baptized in Christ.”

He chastises them for returning back to weak and worthless things. Paul tells us that he must now labor again to form Christ in them. It is clear that these Christians in Galatia were once regenerated in Christ but now, like Peter, have become offended (skandalizo). They need to be again converted (epistrepho), which is the very reason Paul is writing to them, to labor again to form Christ in them, although the were clearly once baptized in Christ.

It doesn’t seem that these once saved sons of God are, in Paul’s opinion, assured of salvation.

 

[Agricola]

Dear Kendy,

I think it’s probably important for you to have an understanding of what a sacrament in, and what baptism is, before you can understand the effect of being “regenerated” or “born again” in a Catholic sense. I’ll do my best to explain (the Baltimore Catechism does a great job, but I don’t have a copy of it currently available to me).

A sacrament is a sign that brings about that which it signifies. Baptism signifies death to sin and rebirth in the Spirit. In it our sin (original sin and our actual sins committed in the past) is forgiven and our souls are emprinted with a lasting character which makes us open to the grace of God and the reception of the other sacraments. This character is, I think, the key difference between the Protestant and the Catholic views of being “born again”.

A person may fall, and sin, and separate himself from the grace of God, but this character remains. Even an apostate retains this character. We are called to build upon this character all our lives and to persevere (as others have mentioned).

The transformation one undergoes in baptism is analagous to physical death and birth. These are things which only happen once in a lifetime. The results are lasting.

If one comes to understand the wonderful gifts that God has given us in the sacraments, it brings new depth to the relationship between us and our creator. Investigate the sacraments and you’ll find what you are looking for with regards to your original question.

I hope this helps you.

God bless,

Agricola

 

[Redbandito]

Kendy:

Well, it makes sense, but it doesn’t strike me as particularly transformative in the way that I understand the word. At best, it seems like you are saying that “being a new creature” means cooperating with grace, which is not insignificant, but also not revolutionary from my perspective.

I realize that this isn’t biblical evidence, but I think this personal example will explain what I imagine when I say transformative. After coming to the Lord, I got together with a friend who had been out of town for a weeks and he noted that there was something different about the tempo of my voice, the way at seemed usually at peace, and I felt all of these things, like I was literally transformed into something different.

If you recall in our last thread, I talked about having a distaste for sins that I had previously found impossible to resist. I guess, that’s why it’s weird to me that someone would even suggest that I would want to continue to persist living in sin because I am so comforted in my salvation; That’s no longer who I am.
Kendy

Kendy, I really don’t agree with you that this is an either/or. I was ABSOLUTELY TRANSFORMED by the sacraments. I feel a LITERAL weight off my back every single time I receive the sacrament of reconciliation. When I receive the Eucharist, I feel different. So, I don’t think the subjective part you brought up is opposed to the objective doctrine we are speaking about. What I simply told you is that when we are “regenerated” we are brought into God’s family. The Holy Spirit begins to “dwell within us” (don’t forget what that phrase means). My whole soul is transformed as to be able to contain the Holy Spirit, and my character is completely changed. I hardly think that is a little thing. That is everything! God literally begins working on my soul, and he does this with me cooperating. That is the miracle. God does not have to take away my free will to cooperate with His grace. That is how significant the transformation is. He has completely re-shaped me.

Secondly, I think you are looking too much at the subjective and not enough at the objective. The fact of the matter is this: IF God did indeed establish ONE Church and that is the Catholic Church, and all the matters over faith and morals within this Church are true, than it is ONLY within this Church that we can find the FULFILLMENT of our faith. Now, in trying to find this, we must be aware of the subjective. However, the objective is the higher standard here. Look to the objective first. When you establish what you need to there, the subjective will follow. And I agree that you were transformed into something different. That doesn’t answer the question that we’re looking at though.

Finally, on your last paragraph, I believe you are missing the point. You are still arguing from a perspective of OSAS. In other words, you assume that what you are now will continue to be the case forever. It just may be the case that it does go that way for you. However, we must not forget what Paul told us in 1 Cor 10, “11These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. 12So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!” Thus, while you are this way now, there is always the possibility that will fall into mortal sin, separate yourself from sanctifying grace, and ultimately that desire to fight against sin will be lost. I have witnessed it happening to people. You follow me?

 

[Kendy]

itsjustdave1988:

I think you are not reading Galatians carefully enough. Observe:

Gal 3:26-28:
“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. … you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

These are SAVED CHRISTIANS, who are TRULY REGENERATED in Christ!!! Yet, Paul speaks disappointedly to the churches of Galatia, those he described as being “baptized in Christ” and as being “sons of God because of their faith in Christ.”

Those he is specifically addressing are TRUE CHRISTIANS. Your thesis that they are merely rejecting the “grace teachings” of Jesus is absurd and completely contrary to what Paul himself claims.

Paul describes these Christians as those to whom God has provided the Spirit, working miracles among them. (Gal 3:5). Paul clearly tells us that these are saved Christians who he is writing to: “Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Gal 4:6) The same Spirit sent into Paul’s heart was sent into the hearts of the assembly of Christians of Galatia to which Paul is writing to. If these Christians are not saved, neither is Paul.

They really were “baptized in Christ” which means they not only had the teachings of Christ but the REAL GRACE of Christ. Yet, what does Paul say about them?

Gal 4:9, 11: "how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? … I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain."

---

---

Paul is concerned that these once saved "sons of God" have returned to the works of Judaism, renouncing the gift they have been TRULY given. If eternal security is true, why would Paul “fear” for them? In what way could Paul have “labored in vain” for these “sons of God”? Aren’t they guaranteed salvation? Nothing they do or don’t do, to include returning to the works of Judaism matters with respect toward their eternal salvation after being saved, right? Were they not “baptized in Christ” and adopted as sons of God as Paul affirms?

Paul is not only warning these “sons of God” of the consequences of returning to the works of Judaism, but also of the consequences of returning to the “desires of the flesh.” Paul warns these saved Christians, these “sons of God” from Galatia that if they practice such things, they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

***Gal 5:19-21 “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident … which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” ***

How could they not inherit the kingdom of God if “once saved always saved” is true? We know they are “once saved” because Paul himself testifies to that fact. Yet, we also know that they are at risk of not inheriting the kingdom of God by Paul’s own testimony, which proves OSAS is a false unbiblical theology.

Paul tells them unequivocally that those who return to the works of Judaism “have been severed from Christ” and have “fallen from grace” (Gal 5:4). Scripture is clear that this can happen, even to those who are without a doubt “baptized in Christ.”

He chastises them for returning back to weak and worthless things. Paul tells us that he must now labor again to form Christ in them. It is clear that these Christians in Galatia were once regenerated in Christ but now, like Peter, have become offended (skandalizo). They need to be again converted (epistrepho), which is the very reason Paul is writing to them, to labor again to form Christ in them, although the were clearly once baptized in Christ.

It doesn’t seem that these once saved sons of God are, in Paul’s opinion, assured of salvation.

Is it possible that you are eternal saved, but simply not living your Christian life fully? Is it possible that Paul is afraid not for their salvation but that they will make a mockery of the gospel and fail to do the work that which God has saved them for?

Just wondering…

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

Agricola:

Dear Kendy,

I think it’s probably important for you to have an understanding of what a sacrament in, and what baptism is, before you can understand the effect of being “regenerated” or “born again” in a Catholic sense. I’ll do my best to explain (the Baltimore Catechism does a great job, but I don’t have a copy of it currently available to me).

A sacrament is a sign that brings about that which it signifies. Baptism signifies death to sin and rebirth in the Spirit. In it our sin (original sin and our actual sins committed in the past) is forgiven and our souls are emprinted with a lasting character which makes us open to the grace of God and the reception of the other sacraments. This character is, I think, the key difference between the Protestant and the Catholic views of being “born again”.

A person may fall, and sin, and separate himself from the grace of God, but this character remains. Even an apostate retains this character. We are called to build upon this character all our lives and to persevere (as others have mentioned).

The transformation one undergoes in baptism is analagous to physical death and birth. These are things which only happen once in a lifetime. The results are lasting.

If one comes to understand the wonderful gifts that God has given us in the sacraments, it brings new depth to the relationship between us and our creator. Investigate the sacraments and you’ll find what you are looking for with regards to your original question.

I hope this helps you.

God bless,

Agricola

I don’t find anything particularly objectionable here as a protestant. Perhaps, I would attribute these things more to being “born again” in that I think this preceeds baptism.

Kendy

 

[Redbandito]

Kendy:

The tempo of your voice? What does that have to do with anything? I think you projected this change and he observed it. It may have been related to your regeneration, but was not a direct result of it. Certainly you wouldn’t propose the observability of a voice change as an indication of regeneration, would you?

Kendy: Oh, fair enough . I certainly don’t intend to imply that everyone who is regenerated as a voice change. It would be sloppy thinking and bad theology. I was only trying to give an example in which my inward change had an outward effect. Perhaps, a more accurate way would be that I seemed less rushed and gentler in the way I spoke.

I too have experienced this, though not completely with respect to certain sins. Avoidance of sin comission is not the end, however. You must now become more conscious of sins of omission…this is where I struggle now.

Kendy: Sure, but I think being more conscience is part of the transformation. And I don’t mean a one time sudden change to sainthood because I notice increasingly in myself. I might be watching a television show that I had watched for a long time, but suddenly I see the characters in a new light and it suprises me because I didn’t always think this way.

Kendy

I don’t think we’re separate on this issue. The same thing has happened to me, and I completely agree that this is a “process” of transformation that occurs after regeneration. The question is whether WE can stunt this growth and prevent sanctification from occurring through our sin.

 

[bene7]

Redbandito:

Kendy, the New Covenant is the fulfillment and transformation of the Old Covenant, not the abolition. In OT times, Jews entered their children into covenant with God by circumcising their sons on the 8th day. Could the child have faith for himself? Of course not! The parents were obligated to have the faith for him and raise him by instructing him in the faith.

Oh Red, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The New Covenant is not at all the “fulfillment” of the Old. The “Old Covenant” was the Law of Moses made with national Israel. The writer of the Book of Hebrews makes it VERY clear that the Old had become “obsolete” with the establishment of the New via the cross of Christ, through His blood. And speaking of Christ he writes to those Hebrews:

HEB 8:6 “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.”

It’s a whole New Covenant, Red, not a “transformation” of the Old.

HEB 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete.

And this New Covenant by which even the Gentiles are justified before God is not entered into through baptism, but faith alone:

ROM 5:-1-2 “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.”

“Hence, also, He (Jesus) is able to SAVE FOREVER those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25)." That still leaves the question. WHO are those who draw near to God through Him?

My goodness, if you don’t know the answer to that, then it’s quite possible then that you’re not one of them, not “born again” And the reason you lack the ability to comprehend the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, which all true believers have entered into through by faith in Him.

I agree that those “who persevere til the end will be saved”,

I never said that. I said true believers will persevere in faith - not always perfectly, and, like Peter, not always strongly. But Christ, their High Priest in Heaven, always lives to make intercession for them. And just as He strengthened Peter, He also strengthens those who are His, bought with the price of His shed blood (read 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 1 Peter 1:17-21)

Actually, the verse you’re referring to is Matt. 24:13. But in context Christ is talking about the “end of the age” (vs. 3) and addressing those Jews who are living at that specific time. “Saved” is not to be understood in a soteriological sense, but those who persevere through all those “end of the age” troubles, described in that chapter, will be saved from physical death. No where in Scripture is anyone ever “saved” (i.e., redeemed, justified) by/through self-endurance, but by grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-10).

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Redbandito]

itsjustdave1988:

I think you are not reading Galatians carefully enough. Observe:

Gal 3:26-28:
“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. … you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

These are SAVED CHRISTIANS, who are TRULY REGENERATED in Christ!!! Yet, Paul speaks disappointedly to the churches of Galatia, those he described as being “baptized in Christ” and as being “sons of God because of their faith in Christ.”

Those he is specifically addressing are TRUE CHRISTIANS. Your thesis that they are merely rejecting the “grace teachings” of Jesus is absurd and completely contrary to what Paul himself claims.

Paul describes these Christians as those to whom God has provided the Spirit, working miracles among them. (Gal 3:5). Paul clearly tells us that these are saved Christians who he is writing to: “Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Gal 4:6) The same Spirit sent into Paul’s heart was sent into the hearts of the assembly of Christians of Galatia to which Paul is writing to. If these Christians are not saved, neither is Paul.

They really were “baptized in Christ” which means they not only had the teachings of Christ but the REAL GRACE of Christ. Yet, what does Paul say about them?

Gal 4:9, 11: "how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? … I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain."

---

---

Paul is concerned that these once saved "sons of God" have returned to the works of Judaism, renouncing the gift they have been TRULY given. If eternal security is true, why would Paul “fear” for them? In what way could Paul have “labored in vain” for these “sons of God”? Aren’t they guaranteed salvation? Nothing they do or don’t do, to include returning to the works of Judaism matters with respect toward their eternal salvation after being saved, right? Were they not “baptized in Christ” and adopted as sons of God as Paul affirms?

Paul is not only warning these “sons of God” of the consequences of returning to the works of Judaism, but also of the consequences of returning to the “desires of the flesh.” Paul warns these saved Christians, these “sons of God” from Galatia that if they practice such things, they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

***Gal 5:19-21 “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident … which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” ***

How could they not inherit the kingdom of God if “once saved always saved” is true? We know they are “once saved” because Paul himself testifies to that fact. Yet, we also know that they are at risk of not inheriting the kingdom of God by Paul’s own testimony, which proves OSAS is a false unbiblical theology.

Paul tells them unequivocally that those who return to the works of Judaism “have been severed from Christ” and have “fallen from grace” (Gal 5:4). Scripture is clear that this can happen, even to those who are without a doubt “baptized in Christ.”

He chastises them for returning back to weak and worthless things. Paul tells us that he must now labor again to form Christ in them. It is clear that these Christians in Galatia were once regenerated in Christ but now, like Peter, have become offended (skandalizo). They need to be again converted (epistrepho), which is the very reason Paul is writing to them, to labor again to form Christ in them, although the were clearly once baptized in Christ.

It doesn’t seem that these once saved sons of God are, in Paul’s opinion, assured of salvation.

Very well written Dave!

 

[Redbandito]

Kendy:

Is it possible that you are eternal saved, but simply not living your Christian life fully? Is it possible that Paul is afraid not for their salvation but that they will make a mockery of the gospel and fail to do the work that which God has saved them for?

Just wondering…

Kendy

Nope! If you look at the context, it would not be reasonable to conclude this. Paul makes quite clear that he is talking about their salvation in this statement, “19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” He makes it fairly clear that they will not “inherit the kingdom of God” if they continue to live in sin, even though they have already become “sons of God”.

 

[Kendy]

Kendy, I really don’t agree with you that this is an either/or. I was ABSOLUTELY TRANSFORMED by the sacraments. I feel a LITERAL weight off my back every single time I receive the sacrament of reconciliation. When I receive the Eucharist, I feel different. So, I don’t think the subjective part you brought up is opposed to the objective doctrine we are speaking about. What I simply told you is that when we are “regenerated” we are brought into God’s family. The Holy Spirit begins to “dwell within us” (don’t forget what that phrase means). My whole soul is transformed as to be able to contain the Holy Spirit, and my character is completely changed. I hardly think that is a little thing. That is everything! God literally begins working on my soul, and he does this with me cooperating. That is the miracle. God does not have to take away my free will to cooperate with His grace. That is how significant the transformation is. He has completely re-shaped me.

**Kendy: Then it seems that we are in agreement. Perhaps, we can now transition to how to how this happens unless, of course, you object **

Secondly, I think you are looking too much at the subjective and not enough at the objective. The fact of the matter is this: IF God did indeed establish ONE Church and that is the Catholic Church, and all the matters over faith and morals within this Church are true, than it is ONLY within this Church that we can find the FULFILLMENT of our faith. Now, in trying to find this, we must be aware of the subjective. However, the objective is the higher standard here. Look to the objective first. When you establish what you need to there, the subjective will follow. And I agree that you were transformed into something different. That doesn’t answer the question that we’re looking at though.

**Kendy: I agree with you in looking to the objective. I was only trying to make more tangible, bring down to Earth if you will. This I think reflects what I was saying earlier about catholic communication.

Anyway, I don’t want to go there with you on the “One True Church” right, Red. That’s another thread.**

Finally, on your last paragraph, I believe you are missing the point. You are still arguing from a perspective of OSAS. In other words, you assume that what you are now will continue to be the case forever. It just may be the case that it does go that way for you. However, we must not forget what Paul told us in 1 Cor 10, “11These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. 12So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!” Thus, while you are this way now, there is always the possibility that will fall into mortal sin, separate yourself from sanctifying grace, and ultimately that desire to fight against sin will be lost. I have witnessed it happening to people. You follow me?

**Kendy: So, here’s how the game is played. I argue OSAS, you tell me why I am wrong.

But seriously, I am still having a difficult time with how far can you fall from grace now that you have been transformed? What does it mean to be transformed if you can just go back to exactly what you were before? And if you can’t go back to exactly what you were before (can’t be untransformed), how could is it that you can behave as if you were never transformed?

The only thing I have noticed in my life is that even when old habits creep up, I am no longer as comfortable with sin as I use to be. My deterrent from falling is that sin is no longer as pleasurable. I think what transformation does is it changes your perception so that you increasingly see sin as the ugly thing that God has always seen it to be.**

Kendy

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

Oh Red, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The New Covenant is not at all the “fulfillment” of the Old. The “Old Covenant” was the Law of Moses made with national Israel. The writer of the Book of Hebrews makes it VERY clear that the Old had become “obsolete” with the establishment of the New via the cross of Christ, through His blood. And speaking of Christ he writes to those Hebrews:

HEB 8:6 “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.”

It’s a whole New Covenant, Red, not a “transformation” of the Old.

HEB 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete.

And this New Covenant by which even the Gentiles are justified before God is not entered into through baptism, but faith alone:

ROM 5:-1-2 "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."My goodness, if you don’t know the answer to that, then it’s quite possible then that you’re not one of them, not “born again” And the reason you lack the ability to comprehend the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, which all true believers have entered into through by faith in Him.I never said that. I said true believers will persevere in faith - not always perfectly, and, like Peter, not always strongly. But Christ, their High Priest in Heaven, always lives to make intercession for them. And just as He strengthened Peter, He also strengthens those who are His, bought with the price of His shed blood (read 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 1 Peter 1:17-21)

Actually, the verse you’re referring to is Matt. 24:13. But in context Christ is talking about the “end of the age” (vs. 3) and addressing those Jews who are living at that specific time. “Saved” is not to be understood in a soteriological sense, but those who persevere through all those “end of the age” troubles, described in that chapter, will be saved from physical death. No where in Scripture is anyone ever “saved” (i.e., redeemed, justified) by/through self-endurance, but by grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-10).

Blessings,
Bene

As predicted you have not done anything but re-assert your opinions. Not to worry. Keep studying and praying, and God will take you where He wants you. I certainly am not going to get into a spitting contest as to who “doesn’t know what they’re talking about”.

One question though. If God made the OC “obsolete” and did not fulfill it in the New, did He not break the promises He made to Abraham and so forth? I think you might want to study a little bit more about the Passover. Jesus fulfilled all sacrifice. He did not JUST make it obsolete, He became “Our Paschal Lamb”(1 Cor 5:7).

Finally, Jesus did not come to “abolish the law, He came to fulfill it” (Matthew 5:17). I think you might want to study up on covenants a little more. And I would be careful about judging whether I am “born again”. Matthew 7 says, “1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” I am happy you believe your understanding of Scripture is infallible. However, as you are a fallible man, that is capable of fallible interpretation, I would be careful about casting the first stone. I could easily send your comments to me right back at you. Of course, that would do no good. Keep it charitable Bro.

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

Oh Red, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The New Covenant is not at all the “fulfillment” of the Old. The “Old Covenant” was the Law of Moses made with national Israel. The writer of the Book of Hebrews makes it VERY clear that the Old had become “obsolete” with the establishment of the New via the cross of Christ, through His blood. And speaking of Christ he writes to those Hebrews:

HEB 8:6 “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.”

It’s a whole New Covenant, Red, not a “transformation” of the Old.

HEB 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete.

And this New Covenant by which even the Gentiles are justified before God is not entered into through baptism, but faith alone:

ROM 5:-1-2 "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."My goodness, if you don’t know the answer to that, then it’s quite possible then that you’re not one of them, not “born again” And the reason you lack the ability to comprehend the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, which all true believers have entered into through by faith in Him.I never said that. I said true believers will persevere in faith - not always perfectly, and, like Peter, not always strongly. But Christ, their High Priest in Heaven, always lives to make intercession for them. And just as He strengthened Peter, He also strengthens those who are His, bought with the price of His shed blood (read 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 1 Peter 1:17-21)

Actually, the verse you’re referring to is Matt. 24:13. But in context Christ is talking about the “end of the age” (vs. 3) and addressing those Jews who are living at that specific time. “Saved” is not to be understood in a soteriological sense, but those who persevere through all those “end of the age” troubles, described in that chapter, will be saved from physical death. No where in Scripture is anyone ever “saved” (i.e., redeemed, justified) by/through self-endurance, but by grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-10).

Blessings,
Bene

BTW, Bene, try following the thread in the future. A lot of the points you made have been well refuted throughout this thread and the thread on justification by faith. Not trying to be hard on you, but I think it would help clear up some of your misunderstandings.

 

[Redbandito]

**Kendy: So, here’s how the game is played. I argue OSAS, you tell me why I am wrong. **

But seriously, I am still having a difficult time with how far can you fall from grace now that you have been transformed? What does it mean to be transformed if you can just go back to exactly what you were before? And if you can’t go back to exactly what you were before (can’t be untransformed), how could is it that you can behave as if you were never transformed?
Kendy

No, no, no. Again, be careful to present it correctly. Nobody said we can go back to “exactly what we were before”. Scroll up and re-read Dave’s and Agricola’s last posts. I believe they both deal with this to an extent. Remember, we are forever transformed once we become regenerate. That does not mean we are necessarily forever in a “state of grace” or “absolutely assured of salvation”. Make sure that you don’t mix terms.

On your last question, I think it is a good one. I will get to this in a little bit, because I believe it deserves a good answer.

The only thing I have noticed in my life is that even when old habits creep up, I am no longer as comfortable with sin as I use to be. My deterrent from falling is that sin is no longer as pleasurable. I think what transformation does is it changes your perception so that you increasingly see sin as the ugly thing that God has always seen it to be.

Kendy

That’s how it should be. This is probably because you have not fallen into mortal sin. Should you fall into mortal sin, that sin would separate you from God, and you would have cut off the very thing keeping you from persisting in that sin. (Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit is why you don’t find sin pleasurable anymore.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

I think you are not reading Galatians carefully enough. Observe:

Gal 3:26-28:
“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. … you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

These are SAVED CHRISTIANS, who are TRULY REGENERATED in Christ!!! Yet, Paul speaks disappointedly to the churches of Galatia, those he described as being “baptized in Christ” and as being “sons of God because of their faith in Christ.”

Those he is specifically addressing are TRUE CHRISTIANS. Your thesis that they are merely rejecting the “grace teachings” of Jesus is absurd and completely contrary to what Paul himself claims.

You miss the whole point of Galatians:

Galatians 1:6-7
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

The Judaizers, as you, are espousing a Gospel of works, which is no Gospel.

You miss the whole point of the Scriptures.

Paul’s message of justification by faith is a fixed message, even from the O.T. (Rom 1:17). Again, as with the Judaizers, so have you missed the whole point of Scripture.

The implication of Paul’s statement is clear: irrespective of whatever else they may believe—including every tenet of the Apostles’ Creed—they who would teach others that in order to be justified before God and thus go to heaven when they die they must, in addition to trusting Christ’s saving work, “keep the law,” that is, perform meritorious good works of their own, are in actuality “false brothers” and stand under God’s condemnation. So, by implication, Paul’s harsh words are addressed to “false brothers.”

Justification is always by faith, and faith alone.

The Law and the Gospel of Christ cannot co-exist, the law must disappear before the Gospel (Gal 4:30ff).

As Bene7 said, the O.T. is obsolete. That is the ritual aspect of the law. The moral law is still binding, but no one can keep it, otherwise, justification would be by Law (Gal 3:19-22).

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

Actually, the verse you’re referring to is Matt. 24:13. But in context Christ is talking about the “end of the age” (vs. 3) and addressing those Jews who are living at that specific time. “Saved” is not to be understood in a soteriological sense, but those who persevere through all those “end of the age” troubles, described in that chapter, will be saved from physical death. No where in Scripture is anyone ever “saved” (i.e., redeemed, justified) by/through self-endurance, but by grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-10).

Blessings,
Bene

You have officially departed from exegesis in this paragraph and gone straight to isogesis. You are reading into the text what you want to see Amigo. Saved from physical death? Where is that in the context? I agree that He is discussing the “end of the age”, but this certainly does not lead to the jump that He is referring to physical death.

Secondly, you’re final statement is just completely untrue. You throw out Eph 2:8-10 as if we haven’t read it. And NOWHERE in Eph 2:8-10 does the word “alone” appear. Again, this is something you added in reading your theology back on to the Scripture. Again, the thread on Justification by Faith will answer a lot of your objections if you are truly open to the Gospel.

 

[bene7]

itsjustdave1988:

Gal 3:26-28:
“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. … you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

These are SAVED CHRISTIANS, who are TRULY REGENERATED in Christ!!! Yet, Paul speaks disappointedly to the churches of Galatia, those he described as being “baptized in Christ” and as being “sons of God because of their faith in Christ.”

Those he is specifically addressing are TRUE CHRISTIANS. Your thesis that they are merely rejecting the “grace teachings” of Jesus is absurd and completely contrary to what Paul himself claims.

I completely agree that those Paul was writing in Galatia were true Chrisitans, saved, regenerated believers.

Paul is concerned that these once saved “sons of God” have returned to the works of Judaism, renouncing the gift they have been TRULY given. If eternal security is true, why would Paul “fear” for them?

First of all these are predominately Gentile believers in Galatia. They’re not “returning” to Judaism, but Judaizers came in amongst them and lured them away from Paul’s gospel of grace. The Judaizers added to Paul’s message of Christ by saying that they also needed to be circumcised, i.e., become Jewish and keep the Mosaic Law, to be saved. Some believed them and had “fallen from GRACE,” from the gospel of GRACE which Paul had previously presented to them on his missionary journey, and they had believed. THAT WAS HIS FEAR.

He states in Gal. 5:9: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” The introduction of a little bit of error begets more error, and finally you end up with something that no longer resembles the original.

Paul is not only warning these “sons of God” of the consequences of returning to the works of Judaism, but also of the consequences of returning to the “desires of the flesh.”

NO, he exhorts them NOT TO walk by the flesh. “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Gal. 16). Only true believers can “walk by the Spirit.” He wouldn’t exhort them to walk by the Spirit if the Spirit was not in them.

Paul then lists the “deeds of the flesh” and states “those who practice such THINGS shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (5:21). The “deeds of the flesh” spawn freely in an atmosphere of legalism, which they were falling into by following the Judaizers. Law exists for the purpose of restraint, but in the works (or fruit) of the Spirit there is nothing to restrain: love, joy, peace…etc. Paul was essentially warning them that to pursue Law was not a faith walk but to walk in the flesh. For, “the Law is not of faith” (i.e., faith based, Gal. 3:12). And when one pursues the flesh the “deeds of the flesh” are manifested. And he warned them that “those” (not “you”) who “practice” (by nature) such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Hence, such a walk was not befitting them who were brought into the kingdom of God by grace through faith alone.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

You miss the whole point of Galatians:

Galatians 1:6-7
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

The Judaizers, as you, are espousing a Gospel of works, which is no Gospel.

You miss the whole point of the Scriptures.

Paul’s message of justification by faith is a fixed message, even from the O.T. (Rom 1:17). Again, as with the Judaizers, so have you missed the whole point of Scripture.

The implication of Paul’s statement is clear: irrespective of whatever else they may believe—including every tenet of the Apostles’ Creed—they who would teach others that in order to be justified before God and thus go to heaven when they die they must, in addition to trusting Christ’s saving work, “keep the law,” that is, perform meritorious good works of their own, are in actuality “false brothers” and stand under God’s condemnation. So, by implication, Paul’s harsh words are addressed to “false brothers.”

Justification is always by faith, and faith alone.

The Law and the Gospel of Christ cannot co-exist, the law must disappear before the Gospel (Gal 4:30ff).

As Bene7 said, the O.T. is obsolete. That is the ritual aspect of the law. The moral law is still binding, but no one can keep it, otherwise, justification would be by Law (Gal 3:19-22).

Again, you have just re-asserted your flawed interpretation despite the overwhelming contextual evidence to the contrary. You seem to fall into error with a simple misunderstanding of what grace is and what it does.

It is true the ceremonial laws are obsolete, but WHY? Not because Christ abolished them, but because Christ has fulfilled them ALL! He has transformed them, just as He did the Passover. You are barking up the wrong tree with that position.

 

[sandusky]

Redbandito:

Again, you have just re-asserted your flawed interpretation despite the overwhelming contextual evidence to the contrary. You seem to fall into error with a simple misunderstanding of what grace is and what it does.

All I see you doing is re-asserting that others are re-asserting. My interpretation is correct.

Redbandito:

It is true the ceremonial laws are obsolete, but WHY? Not because Christ abolished them, but because Christ has fulfilled them ALL! He has transformed them, just as He did the Passover. You are barking up the wrong tree with that position.

Nothing was transformed from the Old Covenant, it was abolished. Thus it is called a “New”, “Better” Covenant (Heb 7:22; 8:6-13), in which, the old is said to be made palaioo, obsolete; it is abrogated.

That is what Scripture says.

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

All I see you doing is re-asserting that others are re-asserting. My interpretation is correct.

If you say so Pope Sandusky.

sandusky:

Nothing was transformed from the Old Covenant, it was abolished. Thus it is called a “New”, “Better” Covenant (Heb 7:22; 8:6-13), in which, the old is said to be made palaioo, obsolete; it is abrogated.

That is what Scripture says.

Really, I was under the impression that Jesus, Himself, stated the opposite. The NIV translation reads like this, “17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17). Maybe you are reading a different Bible.??? And again, I agree that it is obsolete, but you are not answering my point. It’s like you didn’t read a word that I wrote. WHY is it obsolete? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN FULFILLED! Just because it is obsolete or abrogated does not mean it was abolished. You’ve created a nice little false dichotomy there. It is not an either/or, it’s a both/and. Yes, the OC is obsolete, and yes it is fulfilled. You are just not right on this one. The quicker you bow down to Scripture, the less painful this will be.

 

[sandusky]

Redbandito:

Really, I was under the impression that Jesus, Himself, stated the opposite. The NIV translation reads like this, “17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17). Maybe you are reading a different Bible.??? And again, I agree that it is obsolete, but you are not answering my point. It’s like you didn’t read a word that I wrote. WHY is it obsolete? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN FULFILLED! Just because it is obsolete or abrogated does not mean it was abolished. You’ve created a nice little false dichotomy there. It is not an either/or, it’s a both/and. Yes, the OC is obsolete, and yes it is fulfilled. You are just not right on this one. The quicker you bow down to Scripture, the less painful this will be.

Thank you. It is obsolete, and not transformed. It no longer exists, as it is abolished.