I have found that most eway people, that were taught the keys to biblical research, very very very rarely come up with any theories about scripture on their own. We were taught very sound research techniques, but we still don't use them.
Most people I know that are xway still run with the pack, of xway believers, teaching recycled way doctrine.
We were taught that we were literally born again when we confessed Rom.10:9,10. No one ever pointed out the key word in these verses...SHALL. Not now, but later, it implies something that hasn't happened yet.
Actually, I tend to agree with you that TWI and fundamentalists/evangelicals generally have that concept wrong. First of all, the word used is the word "saved" not "born again" or "born from above" or "born" anything. So I agree with you, we shall be saved (in the future tense).
Jesus is the firstfruits from the dead...His mortal body was changed to a spiritual body, right? Has this happened to you? Me niether. This sounds like a new birth to me. Not accepting Jesus, I can unaccept Him whenever I want to...So I havent been changed...I still am aging, have to bathe, eat and sleep. Same Old, right? When He was raised, He was literally BORN AGAIN....
No, he was not BORN AGAIN, he was raised from the dead.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, right?
Sure
Can you return your mother's womb and be born again, Mark? No, me neither. So, if I get born again, it's not going to be by flesh, remember that which is born of the flesh is flesh....It has to be spirit.
This sounds like the discussion in John 3.
When I get a spiritual body...I will be born of the spirit, again. This time I will be a spirit body.
So, where did I get this weird foot doctrine, Mark?
You tell me...I just made it up? Or I read MY bible and let the holy spirit show me something, instead of all these way knockoffs.
Please don't ever assume that the doctrine I believe has anything to do with TWI or any Protestant group. You will make a significant error in your judgement if you fall into that trap. As far as your beliefs, I am not making any assumptions at all.
Incredible you say?
You disagree? That's OK....You cany put new wine into old bottles, or you will bust your brain.
My blood pressure isnt up. I am blessed to be able to share something with you, and if you don't agree, I hope it has provoked you to think a l ittle at least...Think a new thought, and develop your own.
I have, thanks. That's why I totally reject any heretical Protestant doctrine.
Oh, btw, here's something to consider:
If Jesus was "born again" when he was raised from the dead, then what about all the people who have been raised from the dead.
For example:
Mat 27:51-53 (NASB) And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
And then Lazarus (Jhn 11:44 (NASB) The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus *said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go.") (You can read the rest if you want)
The point is that stipulating your assertion that one is "born again" when one is raised from the dead (which I don't agree with, but that's a different argument), your assertion that Jesus was the only one born again has to be incorrect, in light of the above two sections. Q.E.D.
Is baptism a sacrament? According to most denominations, it is. There are some denominations who do not believe that baptism does anything in of itself, but they practice it out of obedience, a public confession of faith (in those cases, I am not sure that it would be considered a sacrament ?
Mark, in those kind of cases I've heard it referred to as an "ordinance", along with communion, public marriage vows, etc.
Its use in such instances is as you say, an outward declaration of an inner grace. Or, in the words I've heard it, a public profession of faith one has in Christ for salvation.
An aside: I thought the sticking point concerning "anabaptists" and the source of their name, was their rejection of infant baptism, a perfectly reasonable position it seems to me.
The difference between a "sacrament" and a "ordinance" is singificnat IMHO.
As I posted above, the concept of a sacrament implies a spiritual happening on the interior as the physical action happens on the outside. "Buried with Him in Baptism," "Who God has joined together...," etc. The benefit comes from the doing of it.
An ordinance implies, on the other hand, compliance with a directive done for the directive's sake, while not necessarily conferring any spiritual benefit to the doing of it.
I, for one, think that this is a HUGE difference.
The Anabaptists are a group that practice re-baptism. Yes, you're right that this primarily involved a rejection of infant baptism.
As far as it being a reasonable position, if you subscribe to an "ordinance" view of the practice, then you'd likely have a point. However, if you subscribe to the "sacramental" view of the practice, then their position makes little sense (again, IMHO).
Yes, I see the difference. And I do think it significant.
The anabaptists were not rebaptising. They were baptising for the first time, for they viewed infant "baptism" as a ritual at odds with scripture and logic and therefore not a baptism at all.
The anabaptists were not rebaptising. They were baptising for the first time, for they viewed infant "baptism" as a ritual at odds with scripture and logic and therefore not a baptism at all.
I understand, from their perspective, that the person they (no-offense) were re-baptizing were not, from their perspective, being re-baptized, as they did not recognize the validity of the earlier baptism. The question I would have is if they would accept a baptism performed by another church? If a person was baptized as a teen or an adult in say, for example, a Lutheran church or an Episcopal church, would they accept that baptism?
The point I was originally (1 or 2 pages ago) trying to get at with Danny was that there was no need to be baptized again. There are a number of groups who practice "anabaptism" (anabaptists as opposed to Anabaptists) and it was about those groups that I was speaking...I guess I should have been clearer in what I originally said.
Hmm, it probably varies group to group. For instance, my water baptism was done by a group that recognized other baptisms, but only of according to the formula they recognized.
I'm not familiar with all "anabaptists" (quite a few today could fall under that now-archaic heading) but have some familiarity with the Mennonites. If my reading comprehension & memory were/are up to snuff (a big if!) the Mennonites recognize other adult baptisms as valid, but reject infant baptism as a thing of significance.
As far as my personal experience, if I had something happen at my baptism, I'm unaware of it. But I know I do when I receive communion. Each time. I'm thinking my faith/expectations color the result on either side.
As far as my personal experience, if I had something happen at my baptism, I'm unaware of it. But I know I do when I receive communion. Each time. I'm thinking my faith/expectations color the result on either side.
I know what you mean in regards to "feelings" with regards to participating in the sacraments. There are times when I participate in a sacrament and feel absolutely nothing...for example, each time I receive communion, its not like the earth moves, as an example. But I realize a "lack" if I go for a significant period of time without. Having said that, though, I still believe in their efficacy, whether I "feel" different or not after having participated. One thing I'll say, though, as I grow spiritually, I do perceive the effect of the sacraments in my life.
Infant baptism has its roots in the practice of dedication at the temple. I think it is more for the parents signifying they will bring the child up right. The baby is clueless and cannot make the decision for itself.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
14
6
21
6
Popular Days
Sep 13
11
Sep 15
11
Sep 17
11
Sep 26
8
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 14 posts
Sunesis 6 posts
markomalley 21 posts
irisheyes 6 posts
Popular Days
Sep 13 2005
11 posts
Sep 15 2005
11 posts
Sep 17 2005
11 posts
Sep 26 2005
8 posts
markomalley
Actually, I tend to agree with you that TWI and fundamentalists/evangelicals generally have that concept wrong. First of all, the word used is the word "saved" not "born again" or "born from above" or "born" anything. So I agree with you, we shall be saved (in the future tense).
No, he was not BORN AGAIN, he was raised from the dead.Sure
This sounds like the discussion in John 3.Please don't ever assume that the doctrine I believe has anything to do with TWI or any Protestant group. You will make a significant error in your judgement if you fall into that trap. As far as your beliefs, I am not making any assumptions at all.
I have, thanks. That's why I totally reject any heretical Protestant doctrine.
Oh, btw, here's something to consider:
If Jesus was "born again" when he was raised from the dead, then what about all the people who have been raised from the dead.
For example:
Mat 27:51-53 (NASB) And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
And then Lazarus (Jhn 11:44 (NASB) The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus *said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go.") (You can read the rest if you want)
The point is that stipulating your assertion that one is "born again" when one is raised from the dead (which I don't agree with, but that's a different argument), your assertion that Jesus was the only one born again has to be incorrect, in light of the above two sections. Q.E.D.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rachel
Mark,
I don't care what you think about my beliefs.
You are not to bright, are you?
Rachel
Sirguessalot....
Is that you or Daniel Jackson?
Save the clocktower, and Daniel Jackson.
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Rachel,
If you don't care what I think about your beliefs then why have you kept on responding?
Spell much? If you're going to insult my intelligence, I'd think you'd at least spell the slam properly!
Edited by MarkLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Mark, in those kind of cases I've heard it referred to as an "ordinance", along with communion, public marriage vows, etc.
Its use in such instances is as you say, an outward declaration of an inner grace. Or, in the words I've heard it, a public profession of faith one has in Christ for salvation.
An aside: I thought the sticking point concerning "anabaptists" and the source of their name, was their rejection of infant baptism, a perfectly reasonable position it seems to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Evan,
Thanks so much for the great discussion points.
The difference between a "sacrament" and a "ordinance" is singificnat IMHO.
As I posted above, the concept of a sacrament implies a spiritual happening on the interior as the physical action happens on the outside. "Buried with Him in Baptism," "Who God has joined together...," etc. The benefit comes from the doing of it.
An ordinance implies, on the other hand, compliance with a directive done for the directive's sake, while not necessarily conferring any spiritual benefit to the doing of it.
I, for one, think that this is a HUGE difference.
The Anabaptists are a group that practice re-baptism. Yes, you're right that this primarily involved a rejection of infant baptism.
As far as it being a reasonable position, if you subscribe to an "ordinance" view of the practice, then you'd likely have a point. However, if you subscribe to the "sacramental" view of the practice, then their position makes little sense (again, IMHO).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Yes, I see the difference. And I do think it significant.
The anabaptists were not rebaptising. They were baptising for the first time, for they viewed infant "baptism" as a ritual at odds with scripture and logic and therefore not a baptism at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I understand, from their perspective, that the person they (no-offense) were re-baptizing were not, from their perspective, being re-baptized, as they did not recognize the validity of the earlier baptism. The question I would have is if they would accept a baptism performed by another church? If a person was baptized as a teen or an adult in say, for example, a Lutheran church or an Episcopal church, would they accept that baptism?
The point I was originally (1 or 2 pages ago) trying to get at with Danny was that there was no need to be baptized again. There are a number of groups who practice "anabaptism" (anabaptists as opposed to Anabaptists) and it was about those groups that I was speaking...I guess I should have been clearer in what I originally said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Hmm, it probably varies group to group. For instance, my water baptism was done by a group that recognized other baptisms, but only of according to the formula they recognized.
I'm not familiar with all "anabaptists" (quite a few today could fall under that now-archaic heading) but have some familiarity with the Mennonites. If my reading comprehension & memory were/are up to snuff (a big if!) the Mennonites recognize other adult baptisms as valid, but reject infant baptism as a thing of significance.
As far as my personal experience, if I had something happen at my baptism, I'm unaware of it. But I know I do when I receive communion. Each time. I'm thinking my faith/expectations color the result on either side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I know what you mean in regards to "feelings" with regards to participating in the sacraments. There are times when I participate in a sacrament and feel absolutely nothing...for example, each time I receive communion, its not like the earth moves, as an example. But I realize a "lack" if I go for a significant period of time without. Having said that, though, I still believe in their efficacy, whether I "feel" different or not after having participated. One thing I'll say, though, as I grow spiritually, I do perceive the effect of the sacraments in my life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Infant baptism has its roots in the practice of dedication at the temple. I think it is more for the parents signifying they will bring the child up right. The baby is clueless and cannot make the decision for itself.
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.