In reading through that commentary and the verse I Peter 1:23 in the context of that, I get the general feeling that God is making a specific point because virtually everything man constructs is corruptible, fallible, perishable. So in contrast to man's works, God is presenting His work in the new birth. This is not a work that will fade away, crumble with age, or fall apart. In contrast with every other part of life which mankind can corrupt, here's a work of God that mankind cannot corrupt. In this it stands unique.
In reading through that commentary and the verse I Peter 1:23 in the context of that, I get the general feeling that God is making a specific point because virtually everything man constructs is corruptible, fallible, perishable. So in contrast to man's works, God is presenting His work in the new birth. This is not a work that will fade away, crumble with age, or fall apart. In contrast with every other part of life which mankind can corrupt, here's a work of God that mankind cannot corrupt. In this it stands unique.
All you've been doing is resisting consideration of the reasoning why YOUR viewpoint could possibly be wrong.
My viewpoint is that now I've seen someone else question whether salvation is permanent, as well as myself, and I want to be able to determine, for myself, which is correct. That's why I am not at all curious about what you think is the underlying issue, or the social ramification, of either line of thought.
3 hours ago, Rocky said:
IF you genuinely wanted to more fully understand, you would have to legitimately consider the points presented to you with genuine curiosity.
My wanting to understand which view on salvation is the correct one has little to do with the points you have presented to me. Like I said, they may be valid points, but they aren't the point I'm focusing on. What I don't understand is why you keep insisting that I consider them. I won't.
There are plenty of references you being made alive who were dead in trespasses and sins. Made alive spiritually with freedom to walk in newness of life as we become confirmed to the image of his son who is the firstborn from among the dead.
27 minutes ago, Taxidev said:
I had never even considered this before. You are correct. That expression is only in 1 Peter 1:23.
7 minutes ago, OldSkool said:
Born again, or born from above 1st occurs in John 3.
5 minutes ago, Taxidev said:
Yes, but TLC and I were looking at Paul's writings, which didn't have it. Only 1 Peter 1:23. I know, that's not Paul.
Though the particular expression born from above is not used by Paul, he handles the concept in depth in Romans through Thessalonians.
You did say the expression born again only appears in 1 Peter. Im saying it specifically appears in John 3 as the prophecy of the new birth was unveiled to Israel by Jesus of Nazareth, a prophesy fully realized on the day of Pentecost as holy spirit descended on the apostles as cloven tongues of fire.
My viewpoint is that now I've seen someone else question whether salvation is permanent, as well as myself, and I want to be able to determine, for myself, which is correct. That's why I am not at all curious about what you think is the underlying issue, or the social ramification, of either line of thought.
My wanting to understand which view on salvation is the correct one has little to do with the points you have presented to me. Like I said, they may be valid points, but they aren't the point I'm focusing on. What I don't understand is why you keep insisting that I consider them. I won't.
You seem not to understand life. It may be commendable that you are honest about not being curious, but it's not. The answer may be staring you directly in the face and you refuse to even consider it.
It's analogous to having Jesus Christ himself walk by, try to talk with you and you saying you can't be bothered.
Seriously? How is that pretending? "To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure." That's a pretty straight forward response - what I understand, and what I don't.
How would you have phrased it?
My 7th/8th grade History teacher (same teacher both years) would have refused to accept it. She had a rule which I've been thinking about a lot during the past few years. Our definitions were not allowed to recurse. That is, we were never allowed to use a word to define itself. (There's never a guarantee your audience knows the meaning of the word, otherwise why ask you what it means?) Most of the time, that was easy to work around. We all hit a snag on defining "fur trader" without using the word "fur". I wrote down "animal pelt" and others ended up using "hairy skin of the animal." So, if she asked you what a fur trader was, and you said it was a trader who traded in furs, she wouldn't have accepted that answer.
So, knowing this, and knowing that the same issues of understanding occur all through life, I return to answer your question. To be asked what "incorruptible seed" means to you, and to answer with "it's seed that's incorruptible" is just to shuffle the order of the words you were asked. It answered nothing. If I had no answer at all, I would have left it unstated. If I was game to try to explain it, I would explain, that, to me, it means "[meaning of seed] that can't be [meaning of corrupted.]" Either is a legitimate answer, One just avoids answering if you don't have an answer, one is an answer. (There's also "I don't know", which is a legitimate answer but people seem to loathe to resort to it.)
I find this sort of thing is actually an ex-twi thing more than anyone else- when dealing with adults. I've seen so-called leaders resort to dodging when asked questions about the party line when they were forced to agree with it while knowing it made no sense. They dodged in harmony, too. In fact, I was preparing to snail-mail some Saltine crackers to various leaders in reply to those comments when they suddenly all stopped parroting that same line and seemed to all reverse position. Then again, I encountered a different cult where they all parroted the same things as each other also, so it's really more a cult and ex-cult thing than uniquely twi.
I had never even considered this before. You are correct. That expression is only in 1 Peter 1:23.
The phrase "born again" is in I Peter 1:23, John 3:3 and John 3:7.
(KJV) =================
3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
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.
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?
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.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.===========
Looks like John 3:7 and 3:8 are implying an equivalency between "born again" (literally "born from above") and "born of the Spirit."
Wow. You're equating yourself with Jesus Christ? That is seriously arrogant.
No. He was pointing out that you're so locked into one or 2 things and only those, and trying to see if the answer is A or if the answer is B, while others are trying to present answers C-E. Wisdom often doesn't show up on demand. In fact, I've found insight tends to sneak in disguised as something else. "Some people can read "War and Peace" and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."
If I was game to try to explain it, I would explain, that, to me, it means "[meaning of seed] that can't be [meaning of corrupted.]"
Okay, understood. I was just trying to differentiate between the "seed" being incorruptible and the "born again" being incorruptible. Both were in that sentence. Sorry.
The phrase "born again" is in I Peter 1:23, John 3:3 and John 3:7.
Yes, but TLC and I were looking at Paul's writings, which didn't have it. Only 1 Peter 1:23. I know, that's not Paul either, but Romans is where I had begun my search, since that is Paul.
you're so locked into one or 2 things and only those, and trying to see if the answer is A or if the answer is B, while others are trying to present answers C-E.
So, do you think the answer to the question "Can salvation be lost?" can be something besides yes or no?
Furthermore, aside from a brief (and probably misunderstood) reference to being as of one born out of due time, I have yet to find any mention of anyone being "born again" (of anything) anywhere in Paul's writings.
There are plenty of references you being made alive who were dead in trespasses and sins. Made alive spiritually with freedom to walk in newness of life as we become confirmed to the image of his son who is the firstborn from among the dead
Yes, but dead unto sin and alive from the dead or alive unto God isn't necessarily the same as being "born again." In other words, I'm suggesting that "born again" carries with it a different and very distinct nuance of meaning that (merely) being made alive doesn't have or carry with it. Birth implies a bringing forth into existence something new.
Interestingly, not only is the Lord Jesus Christ noted as being "the only begotten," it's pointed out in Acts 13:33 the exact day when it is said he was begotten. So, I'm inclined towards thinking that "born again" might actually be one of the least understood and most overused phrases in all Christendom. None of us have experienced death (i.e., the end of the life that is in the blood) and resurrection (the start of new life, which is spirit.) Christ did, and now lives within us - something that we mostly know far, far too little of. Some day, yes, the life that we now have in the flesh shall pass or be changed, when we too, shall experience something similar to what he that is firstborn from the dead did. But, until then... it's his new (eternal) life that's the quickening within us. Which is undoubtedly why the scriptures speak of our (real, but still future) life as being hid with Christ (in God.) There is nothing that can be known or learned of it aside from that which can be learned and known of (the risen) Christ.
So, do you think the answer to the question "Can salvation be lost?" can be something besides yes or no?
It depends. We've neither defined "salvation" nor what it would mean to be "lost". Based on the possibilities, I DO think the answer can be something besides yes or no- in fact, depending on what you mean, the answer can be both yes AND no, depending on what would be "lost".
It's a little like discussing whether "immortality" would be a blessing or a curse. A blessing, if one has good health and excellent physical condition forever. A curse, if one has immortality but not eternal youth, meaning one's body got older and older, and at age 350 would totally look and perform like it's350 years old. Without agreeing on what "immortality" meant, either could be the result, or something else.
Before beginning the body of the paper, we thought it would be helpful to briefly
summarize the conclusions of our study.
1. Every person receives the promise of salvation at the moment they confess the Lordship of Jesus and believe in their heart he has been raised from the dead. At that moment they receive the gift of holy spirit, a “seal” indicating they belong to God. God will keep His promise of salvation provided that they continue in faith.
Maybe this has sat here too long for anyone to have given it any more thought or take issue with it, but if so, then so be it. Then I will. Because if that encapsulates the conclusions of his study, then it's obviously a downright shoddy piece of work. How so, you ask? Okay then, since you asked (or, were surely going to)... right out of the gate it is spun towards and reeks of uncertainty. Who thinks or says that the best that anyone ever has or can receive is "the promise" of salvation? So, you're not really saved. Nope, not yet. That's why that word promise is in there. It means you don't have it yet, as it's only something that can or will happen in the future. But... is that right?
Nope. Without defining what one is saved from or to, I think not. And not according to Paul either (unless he's talking about or referring to Israel, or the change yet to come, or the wrath that is yet to come, or something else yet to come.) Why else would these next few verses say that we are saved?
1 Cor 1
[18]For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
2 Cor 2
[15] For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish.
Eph 2
[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
2 Tim 2
[9] Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Tit 3
[5] Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost
When and where does he point out and plainly say that (or how) we have already been saved and/or ARE saved now?
In other words, it greatly smacks of having an idea already in mind that he's going to find and use certain selected scriptures to prove, rather than honestly looking for what the truth here might be (or really is)...
Yes, but dead unto sin and alive from the dead or alive unto God isn't necessarily the same as being "born again." In other words, I'm suggesting that "born again" carries with it a different and very distinct nuance of meaning that (merely) being made alive doesn't have or carry with it. Birth implies a bringing forth into existence something new.
Really good point. I personally believe there are several descriptive figures used illistating various facets of salvation. At the end of the day those born from above are born of holy spirit, which is a new creation in Christ. Made alive spiritually where we were once born dead in trespasses and sins, we are now alive unto God and able to walk in newness of life. Im paraphrasing and quoting various concepts regarding the new creation of Christ in you, or Christians. (I dont care if vpw misused that phrase and sold snake oil with it.)
I don't see or find this phrase in scripture. Neither does it fit with my understanding and perspective on what it means (or might mean) to be "born," so I question its veracity. Seems I've probably moved quite some distance away from what some here have evidently coined as "Way-brained" thinking. (But I'll let you in on something... I was told rather point blank at the first research fellowship of twi that there was absolutely nothing "off the table" or so sacred that it couldn't be questioned. However, that appears to have changed some time after my departure from HQ... so speaking for myself alone, perhaps because of that - and because of my genetic nature - it's undoubtedly been far easier for me to look at and consider certain things from a different perspective than most. Which doesn't necessarily mean I'm more right. However, the effect of it does make it much more challenging for me to communicate how I often times see and/or think of things...)
47 minutes ago, OldSkool said:
Im paraphrasing and quoting various concepts regarding the new creation of Christ in you, or Christians.
Yeah, I get that. I'm simply not convinced the ministry's lingo was always right on point when referring to or talking about the new creation of Christ in you. Fact is, I heard a lot of variance in it coming out from different corners of the room, without a great deal of depth or understanding behind it. There is one body, and one spirit, and one Lord... right? But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. So where did the idea come from that each of us has our own newly created little "mini-me" of a Christ inside of us?
(But I'll let you in on something... I was told rather point blank at the first research fellowship of twi that there was absolutely nothing "off the table" or so sacred that it couldn't be questioned. However, that appears to have changed some time after my departure from HQ... so speaking for myself alone, perhaps because of that - and because of my genetic nature - it's undoubtedly been far easier for me to look at and consider certain things from a different perspective than most. Which doesn't necessarily mean I'm more right. However, the effect of it does make it much more challenging for me to communicate how I often times see and/or think of things...)
And i really appreciate you for your perspective. Its cool for us to have different perspectives on a topic. We are covering so many aspects of salvation that it would behoove us to not derail salvation being lost or not. Ive spent a decade unraveling twi in my own heart that nothing is off limits for me to discuss and enjoy various points of view. I enjoy the process and find myself appreciating others to a greater degree, even if i disagree, or am disagreed with. Cheers!
The phrase "born again" is in I Peter 1:23, John 3:3 and John 3:7.
(KJV) =================
3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
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.
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?
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.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.===========
Looks like John 3:7 and 3:8 are implying an equivalency between "born again" (literally "born from above") and "born of the Spirit."
TLC,
if you'll check your Greek, or, for that matter, your Concordance, you'll see that the "again" in "born again" is "anothen", which translates into "from above" sensibly and consistently. (Check your Concordance. Check your Interlinear. Check your Greek Lexicon. "Consistently.")
John 3:7 and John 3:8 sure look like they're saying that "born again/born from above" and "born of the Spirit" are the same thing, phrased differently.
Yes, but TLC and I were looking at Paul's writings, which didn't have it. Only 1 Peter 1:23. I know, that's not Paul either, but Romans is where I had begun my search, since that is Paul.
Ever consider that twi pushed this "only read the Epistles" thing, and left out a LOT? The Gospels were not "written aforetime". THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN AFTER PENTECOST. ACTS WAS WRITTEN AFTER PENTECOST.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
26
72
50
Popular Days
Jun 4
31
Jun 3
17
Jun 8
13
Jun 7
12
Top Posters In This Topic
TrustAndObey 32 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 72 posts
Taxidev 50 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2018
31 posts
Jun 3 2018
17 posts
Jun 8 2018
13 posts
Jun 7 2018
12 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he cert
waysider
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of
OldSkool
Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering
chockfull
In reading through that commentary and the verse I Peter 1:23 in the context of that, I get the general feeling that God is making a specific point because virtually everything man constructs is corruptible, fallible, perishable. So in contrast to man's works, God is presenting His work in the new birth. This is not a work that will fade away, crumble with age, or fall apart. In contrast with every other part of life which mankind can corrupt, here's a work of God that mankind cannot corrupt. In this it stands unique.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I had never even considered this before. You are correct. That expression is only in 1 Peter 1:23.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
THAT, is quite a statement!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
My viewpoint is that now I've seen someone else question whether salvation is permanent, as well as myself, and I want to be able to determine, for myself, which is correct. That's why I am not at all curious about what you think is the underlying issue, or the social ramification, of either line of thought.
My wanting to understand which view on salvation is the correct one has little to do with the points you have presented to me. Like I said, they may be valid points, but they aren't the point I'm focusing on. What I don't understand is why you keep insisting that I consider them. I won't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Born again, or born from above 1st occurs in John 3.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Yes, but TLC and I were looking at Paul's writings, which didn't have it. Only 1 Peter 1:23. I know, that's not Paul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Though the particular expression born from above is not used by Paul, he handles the concept in depth in Romans through Thessalonians.
You did say the expression born again only appears in 1 Peter. Im saying it specifically appears in John 3 as the prophecy of the new birth was unveiled to Israel by Jesus of Nazareth, a prophesy fully realized on the day of Pentecost as holy spirit descended on the apostles as cloven tongues of fire.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You seem not to understand life. It may be commendable that you are honest about not being curious, but it's not. The answer may be staring you directly in the face and you refuse to even consider it.
It's analogous to having Jesus Christ himself walk by, try to talk with you and you saying you can't be bothered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Wow. You're equating yourself with Jesus Christ? That is seriously arrogant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
My 7th/8th grade History teacher (same teacher both years) would have refused to accept it. She had a rule which I've been thinking about a lot during the past few years. Our definitions were not allowed to recurse. That is, we were never allowed to use a word to define itself. (There's never a guarantee your audience knows the meaning of the word, otherwise why ask you what it means?) Most of the time, that was easy to work around. We all hit a snag on defining "fur trader" without using the word "fur". I wrote down "animal pelt" and others ended up using "hairy skin of the animal." So, if she asked you what a fur trader was, and you said it was a trader who traded in furs, she wouldn't have accepted that answer.
So, knowing this, and knowing that the same issues of understanding occur all through life, I return to answer your question. To be asked what "incorruptible seed" means to you, and to answer with "it's seed that's incorruptible" is just to shuffle the order of the words you were asked. It answered nothing. If I had no answer at all, I would have left it unstated. If I was game to try to explain it, I would explain, that, to me, it means "[meaning of seed] that can't be [meaning of corrupted.]" Either is a legitimate answer, One just avoids answering if you don't have an answer, one is an answer. (There's also "I don't know", which is a legitimate answer but people seem to loathe to resort to it.)
I find this sort of thing is actually an ex-twi thing more than anyone else- when dealing with adults. I've seen so-called leaders resort to dodging when asked questions about the party line when they were forced to agree with it while knowing it made no sense. They dodged in harmony, too. In fact, I was preparing to snail-mail some Saltine crackers to various leaders in reply to those comments when they suddenly all stopped parroting that same line and seemed to all reverse position. Then again, I encountered a different cult where they all parroted the same things as each other also, so it's really more a cult and ex-cult thing than uniquely twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The phrase "born again" is in I Peter 1:23, John 3:3 and John 3:7.
(KJV) =================
3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
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.
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?
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.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.===========
Looks like John 3:7 and 3:8 are implying an equivalency between "born again" (literally "born from above") and "born of the Spirit."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No. He was pointing out that you're so locked into one or 2 things and only those, and trying to see if the answer is A or if the answer is B, while others are trying to present answers C-E. Wisdom often doesn't show up on demand. In fact, I've found insight tends to sneak in disguised as something else. "Some people can read "War and Peace" and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Okay, understood. I was just trying to differentiate between the "seed" being incorruptible and the "born again" being incorruptible. Both were in that sentence. Sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Yes, but TLC and I were looking at Paul's writings, which didn't have it. Only 1 Peter 1:23. I know, that's not Paul either, but Romans is where I had begun my search, since that is Paul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
So, do you think the answer to the question "Can salvation be lost?" can be something besides yes or no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Yes, but dead unto sin and alive from the dead or alive unto God isn't necessarily the same as being "born again." In other words, I'm suggesting that "born again" carries with it a different and very distinct nuance of meaning that (merely) being made alive doesn't have or carry with it. Birth implies a bringing forth into existence something new.
Interestingly, not only is the Lord Jesus Christ noted as being "the only begotten," it's pointed out in Acts 13:33 the exact day when it is said he was begotten. So, I'm inclined towards thinking that "born again" might actually be one of the least understood and most overused phrases in all Christendom. None of us have experienced death (i.e., the end of the life that is in the blood) and resurrection (the start of new life, which is spirit.) Christ did, and now lives within us - something that we mostly know far, far too little of. Some day, yes, the life that we now have in the flesh shall pass or be changed, when we too, shall experience something similar to what he that is firstborn from the dead did. But, until then... it's his new (eternal) life that's the quickening within us. Which is undoubtedly why the scriptures speak of our (real, but still future) life as being hid with Christ (in God.) There is nothing that can be known or learned of it aside from that which can be learned and known of (the risen) Christ.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It depends. We've neither defined "salvation" nor what it would mean to be "lost". Based on the possibilities, I DO think the answer can be something besides yes or no- in fact, depending on what you mean, the answer can be both yes AND no, depending on what would be "lost".
It's a little like discussing whether "immortality" would be a blessing or a curse. A blessing, if one has good health and excellent physical condition forever. A curse, if one has immortality but not eternal youth, meaning one's body got older and older, and at age 350 would totally look and perform like it's350 years old. Without agreeing on what "immortality" meant, either could be the result, or something else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Maybe this has sat here too long for anyone to have given it any more thought or take issue with it, but if so, then so be it. Then I will. Because if that encapsulates the conclusions of his study, then it's obviously a downright shoddy piece of work. How so, you ask? Okay then, since you asked (or, were surely going to)... right out of the gate it is spun towards and reeks of uncertainty. Who thinks or says that the best that anyone ever has or can receive is "the promise" of salvation? So, you're not really saved. Nope, not yet. That's why that word promise is in there. It means you don't have it yet, as it's only something that can or will happen in the future. But... is that right?
Nope. Without defining what one is saved from or to, I think not. And not according to Paul either (unless he's talking about or referring to Israel, or the change yet to come, or the wrath that is yet to come, or something else yet to come.) Why else would these next few verses say that we are saved?
When and where does he point out and plainly say that (or how) we have already been saved and/or ARE saved now?
In other words, it greatly smacks of having an idea already in mind that he's going to find and use certain selected scriptures to prove, rather than honestly looking for what the truth here might be (or really is)...
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Really good point. I personally believe there are several descriptive figures used illistating various facets of salvation. At the end of the day those born from above are born of holy spirit, which is a new creation in Christ. Made alive spiritually where we were once born dead in trespasses and sins, we are now alive unto God and able to walk in newness of life. Im paraphrasing and quoting various concepts regarding the new creation of Christ in you, or Christians. (I dont care if vpw misused that phrase and sold snake oil with it.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I don't see or find this phrase in scripture. Neither does it fit with my understanding and perspective on what it means (or might mean) to be "born," so I question its veracity. Seems I've probably moved quite some distance away from what some here have evidently coined as "Way-brained" thinking. (But I'll let you in on something... I was told rather point blank at the first research fellowship of twi that there was absolutely nothing "off the table" or so sacred that it couldn't be questioned. However, that appears to have changed some time after my departure from HQ... so speaking for myself alone, perhaps because of that - and because of my genetic nature - it's undoubtedly been far easier for me to look at and consider certain things from a different perspective than most. Which doesn't necessarily mean I'm more right. However, the effect of it does make it much more challenging for me to communicate how I often times see and/or think of things...)
Yeah, I get that. I'm simply not convinced the ministry's lingo was always right on point when referring to or talking about the new creation of Christ in you. Fact is, I heard a lot of variance in it coming out from different corners of the room, without a great deal of depth or understanding behind it. There is one body, and one spirit, and one Lord... right? But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. So where did the idea come from that each of us has our own newly created little "mini-me" of a Christ inside of us?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
And i really appreciate you for your perspective. Its cool for us to have different perspectives on a topic. We are covering so many aspects of salvation that it would behoove us to not derail salvation being lost or not. Ive spent a decade unraveling twi in my own heart that nothing is off limits for me to discuss and enjoy various points of view. I enjoy the process and find myself appreciating others to a greater degree, even if i disagree, or am disagreed with. Cheers!
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
That is a really great catch - I didn't see it. Thank you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
TLC,
if you'll check your Greek, or, for that matter, your Concordance, you'll see that the "again" in "born again" is "anothen", which translates into "from above" sensibly and consistently. (Check your Concordance. Check your Interlinear. Check your Greek Lexicon. "Consistently.")
John 3:7 and John 3:8 sure look like they're saying that "born again/born from above" and "born of the Spirit" are the same thing, phrased differently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ever consider that twi pushed this "only read the Epistles" thing, and left out a LOT? The Gospels were not "written aforetime". THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN AFTER PENTECOST. ACTS WAS WRITTEN AFTER PENTECOST.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.