People point to the "incorruptible seed" verse as proof that the holy spirit within is that seed, but that's not what the verse says. You're better off looking at Ephesians, where it's called a token of our inheritance, than this particular verse. Fascinating, is what it is.
but (235) neuter plural of allos – other – (from PFAL- of the same kind?- in this case the similarity is that the context is sources of seed- two different ones are being identified- does this sound right?)
of incorruptible,(one word)
by (1223) dia- by means of- denoting the channel of an act
the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Therefore it seems to me that this verse is saying that The Word of God is not the incorruptible seed itself- it is the means or channel of implanting the incorruptible seed.
quote: God plants the seed which is the incorruptable Word of God. As it grows in us we have faith and are reborn or born again becoming a new creature.
Throw in here that Jesus Christ is the word of God. We aren't just talking about the words, plural, of God found in the Bible, but THE word of God, by which all things are made and sustained.
Explanation about what I mean by "seed" having to be figurative:
Just as a reference to "the hand of God" is figurative, anthropopatheia, since God doesn't have literal hands; God doersn't have literal sperm, or seed, so it seems like a reference to "seed" would also be anthropopatheia.
quote:Therefore it seems to me that this verse is saying that The Word of God is not the incorruptible seed itself- it is the means or channel of implanting the incorruptible seed.
Why then is the Word of God the seed itself in the parable in Luke 8 and not the seed itself 1 Peter 1:23? Why is the word of God not as "channel" in Luke 8? What is this parable in Luke 8 refering to if not the new birth?
Mat 13:19 (KJV)
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth [it] not, then cometh the wicked [one], and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
The seed is "that which was sown" which is the Word of God" - not the result of the sowing.
1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
If we equate born again with salvation then it seems to me that "preaching" is the means of for sowing the seed (Word of God).
The Greek pulrals are fine and dandy but at best with that - all you can get is an inferrence. However, The Word is clearly called seed in several verses. The Word is also obvioulsly incorruptible (endureth for ever) Are we maybe getting a bit to heady and not looking at what is clear?
Why would Jesus Christ be preaching a parable about the seed and being born again if people could not even have it until Pentecost?Maybe the seed spoken of in the parables aren't the same thing as the incorruptible seed of 1st Peter.
quote:Why would Jesus Christ be preaching a parable about the seed and being born again if people could not even have it until Pentecost?
Who says they couldn't be born again before Pentecost? My take is that he preached the parable about the seed and being born again because they COULD be born again.
Some presume the seed to be the holy spirit and then conclude, based upon that presumption, that being "born again" was not available until Pentecost.
However, if the Word of God is the seed as it states in Luke then it would not be the case. Folks then could be born again before Pentecost. It would then make sense as to why Jesus would preach about being born again then.
Pentecost opens the door for receiving the holy spirit.
Wierwille equated being born again with receiving the gift of the holy spirit, which seems in error to me now.
"being born again" Is certainly an accurate phrase.
If the Word is the seed then it must act like seed and take time to grow. Jesus gave them the Word as it says in John and they kept it and it grew as God gave the increase.
Laying aside twi's administration teaching for a moment puts a different light on what Jesus was doing. And what was happening in his disciples.
Is it running off topic to say that Wierwille's born again=baptized in the Holy spirit=filled with the Holy spirit=baptized in the name of Jesus Christ doesn't wash and is shot though with contradictions?
Like most of Wierwille's Greek, he didn't know what he was talking about with pletho & pleroo. He gave the words specialized meanings to suit his proposed theology. Ack. Leaving aside the Greek clears many misconceptions
"Is it running off topic to say that Wierwille's born again=baptized in the Holy spirit=filled with the Holy spirit=baptized in the name of Jesus Christ doesn't wash and is shot though with contradictions?"
Perhaps the equals part doesn't work. I think it doesn't all have to happen at the same time. After the 70 returned and said Lord even the devils are subject to us. Jesus said rejoice rather that your names are written in the book of life. Sounds permanent to me.
So -- the 70 had the Word, David had the Word, yet David asked that the spirit wouldn't be taken from him, as it was from Saul.
If the Word is the Incorruptible Seed, (rather than the new birth), how could it be "corruptible" at one time, and not another. It certainly doesn't seem permanent then, in Ps 51:11. Although, I may be missing something here.
Not being fractious, I think I see an inconsistency, although I do admit that original premise that Goey posted here does make sense.
If the Spirit was taken away from David, did he still have incorruptible seed? -->
what's incorruptible is that Word of God sown in the hearts of men, even David, who forsook the Word in the Uriah incident and asked that holy spirit be not taken from him.
But now we are talking about when Jesus was here on earth bringing everlasting life with him.
I wouldn't say "the Word is the Incorruptible Seed, (rather than the new birth)". But hand in hand that Word will spring forth and birth will happen in time. Unless like in Luke the devil steals it or the cares of this world or thorns choke it to death and stuff like that.
I think the two are linked. The Word and the Spirit. As the Word is sown in the heart so the Spirit begins to grow until birth. When and how long it takes for each person is a question mark.
Sink the plow deep in the mind to uproot the stones and thorns so that the Word can be received in good ground and bring forth fruit.
The Word is Spirit and power. The words of the Word are spiritual.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life
Recommended Posts
TheInvisibleDan
So quite simply, "Incorruptable Seed" is - a metaphor?
That makes good sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've been saying this for years.
People point to the "incorruptible seed" verse as proof that the holy spirit within is that seed, but that's not what the verse says. You're better off looking at Ephesians, where it's called a token of our inheritance, than this particular verse. Fascinating, is what it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Goey, what can I say? We are on a long inexorable slide to orthodoxy. Feels good to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Goey
Yes I have read that but here what I believe
The word of God comes into us (Like the seed of man goes into a woman)
Then mixes with believing and the two make a seed (like the man's seed mixes with the woman seed)
The seed begins to grow a child called holy spirit (like to two seeds make a baby)
Later the holy spirit is born into Immority ( like the baby is born into an son or dauther)
One happens after the birth time comes about 9 months but other one comes at the set time of the return of Christ
with love and an holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckeer
A quick check from strongs concordance on the prepositions used in 1 Peter 1:23 from the Blue Letter Bible
http://www.blueletterbible.org
1:23 Being born again,
not (3756) no, not- the absolute negative- ou
of (3757) out of away from- denoting origin - ek
corruptible seed,
but (235) neuter plural of allos – other – (from PFAL- of the same kind?- in this case the similarity is that the context is sources of seed- two different ones are being identified- does this sound right?)
of incorruptible,(one word)
by (1223) dia- by means of- denoting the channel of an act
the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Therefore it seems to me that this verse is saying that The Word of God is not the incorruptible seed itself- it is the means or channel of implanting the incorruptible seed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Throw in here that Jesus Christ is the word of God. We aren't just talking about the words, plural, of God found in the Bible, but THE word of God, by which all things are made and sustained.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Interesting point G.
Wierwille pushed the point that the "seed" was literal, when if you think about it, since it's spirit, the reference would have to be figurative.
I imagine this would have implications as to the spirits being permanant, and not "conditional" as we were taught in PFAL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Explanation about what I mean by "seed" having to be figurative:
Just as a reference to "the hand of God" is figurative, anthropopatheia, since God doesn't have literal hands; God doersn't have literal sperm, or seed, so it seems like a reference to "seed" would also be anthropopatheia.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
ckeer:
Thank you for clearing that up. Much appreciated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Why then is the Word of God the seed itself in the parable in Luke 8 and not the seed itself 1 Peter 1:23? Why is the word of God not as "channel" in Luke 8? What is this parable in Luke 8 refering to if not the new birth?
Mat 13:19 (KJV)
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth [it] not, then cometh the wicked [one], and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
The seed is "that which was sown" which is the Word of God" - not the result of the sowing.
1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
If we equate born again with salvation then it seems to me that "preaching" is the means of for sowing the seed (Word of God).
The Greek pulrals are fine and dandy but at best with that - all you can get is an inferrence. However, The Word is clearly called seed in several verses. The Word is also obvioulsly incorruptible (endureth for ever) Are we maybe getting a bit to heady and not looking at what is clear?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Why would Jesus Christ be preaching a parable about the seed and being born again if people could not even have it until Pentecost?Maybe the seed spoken of in the parables aren't the same thing as the incorruptible seed of 1st Peter.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Greek is fine & dandy, ckeer, but you'll do better just reading for scope & context. I see it lead astray far more often than clarify.
Maybe jerry, but a simple reading of the context in peter points to the seed being the word of God.
Oh, and your point about Jesus being the Word Himself is excellent...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Who says they couldn't be born again before Pentecost? My take is that he preached the parable about the seed and being born again because they COULD be born again.
Some presume the seed to be the holy spirit and then conclude, based upon that presumption, that being "born again" was not available until Pentecost.
However, if the Word of God is the seed as it states in Luke then it would not be the case. Folks then could be born again before Pentecost. It would then make sense as to why Jesus would preach about being born again then.
Pentecost opens the door for receiving the holy spirit.
Wierwille equated being born again with receiving the gift of the holy spirit, which seems in error to me now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
"being born again" Is certainly an accurate phrase.
If the Word is the seed then it must act like seed and take time to grow. Jesus gave them the Word as it says in John and they kept it and it grew as God gave the increase.
Laying aside twi's administration teaching for a moment puts a different light on what Jesus was doing. And what was happening in his disciples.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved All
The birth has not come we are still an child in the belly of God like an child in the belly of its mother
The Old Testament believers were born at the first coming of Christ after Christ won over death
Christ went into the grave to get them and show them how to be born
There were children but could not be born until the victory was won by Christ
They are the dead in Christ and have been born first but we are the alive in Christ and our birth is still coming
Its God taking care of our every need like an mother with child in her belly takes care of the child every need
We were taught to believe for things like you have all ready receive them and that the way they believe for new birth
As any birth there a time peroid to be in the mother belly or for plants in the belly of the earth
Seed is one thing but birth is another
Seed is the mixing of God's word with believing
then a child of spirit begans to grow
with God all things are possible
with love and an holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Goey, vertical, that's my take as well. Now we're getting somewhere...this is good stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Is it running off topic to say that Wierwille's born again=baptized in the Holy spirit=filled with the Holy spirit=baptized in the name of Jesus Christ doesn't wash and is shot though with contradictions?
Like most of Wierwille's Greek, he didn't know what he was talking about with pletho & pleroo. He gave the words specialized meanings to suit his proposed theology. Ack. Leaving aside the Greek clears many misconceptions
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Sounds like it fits in nicely Evan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
TheEvan...
"Is it running off topic to say that Wierwille's born again=baptized in the Holy spirit=filled with the Holy spirit=baptized in the name of Jesus Christ doesn't wash and is shot though with contradictions?"
Perhaps the equals part doesn't work. I think it doesn't all have to happen at the same time. After the 70 returned and said Lord even the devils are subject to us. Jesus said rejoice rather that your names are written in the book of life. Sounds permanent to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
So -- the 70 had the Word, David had the Word, yet David asked that the spirit wouldn't be taken from him, as it was from Saul.
If the Word is the Incorruptible Seed, (rather than the new birth), how could it be "corruptible" at one time, and not another. It certainly doesn't seem permanent then, in Ps 51:11. Although, I may be missing something here.
Not being fractious, I think I see an inconsistency, although I do admit that original premise that Goey posted here does make sense.
If the Spirit was taken away from David, did he still have incorruptible seed?
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
what's incorruptible is that Word of God sown in the hearts of men, even David, who forsook the Word in the Uriah incident and asked that holy spirit be not taken from him.
But now we are talking about when Jesus was here on earth bringing everlasting life with him.
I wouldn't say "the Word is the Incorruptible Seed, (rather than the new birth)". But hand in hand that Word will spring forth and birth will happen in time. Unless like in Luke the devil steals it or the cares of this world or thorns choke it to death and stuff like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
dmiller, you're making an unwarranted connection there: having the seed, ie salvation, is not necessarily connected to having the Holy Spirit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
I think the two are linked. The Word and the Spirit. As the Word is sown in the heart so the Spirit begins to grow until birth. When and how long it takes for each person is a question mark.
Sink the plow deep in the mind to uproot the stones and thorns so that the Word can be received in good ground and bring forth fruit.
The Word is Spirit and power. The words of the Word are spiritual.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I do agree, VL, but dm was in essence equating the two, making them the same thing...
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.