The Thief on the Cross

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

I love it when folks isolate verses to teach doctrines. Yes if we read just this verse only believing in the name of the Son of God we know we have eternal life. That would be wonderful Jfrog. Except thats not all he said.


18We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

20And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

21Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

So does that mean if I sin, I'm not really born of God????? I thought all the scripture says is that we have to believe

1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

But yet verse

but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

So if a person IS born of God, that means that the person will keep himself and the wicked one will not touch him.

Not what say ye? I have lots of more arguments from other verses in 1 John alone. I believe every word of 1 John, including the verse you posted.

Do you ever sin? If so then by your interpretation of 1 John 5:18 you are not born of God. You say I used isolated verses. If I really did then explain what the verses I used really mean and where my reasoning went wrong because the only thing you've done is cite a verse's implications that you don't even agree with and to cite a verse as if it says something which you don't even agree with doesn't make for honest discussion.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

First this isn't my own view. I want to believe water is natural birth! That means all those who refused to be baptized for whatever reason would be ok.

It just doesn't add up

I didn't claim water was natural birth. I just claimed that no matter which way you view that verse it doesn't quite add up. So my point was that you shouldn't discount someone's opinion just because it didn't quite add up. I can even find places where my opinion doesn't quite add up but I'll give you my personal opinion anyways. I view being born of water and spirit as being completed at faith on Christ.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

One pastor replied to this theory.. what about dry birth babies? THere always seems to be an exception.

Stop taking what was said so literally. If Jesus was differentiating between being born of flesh and Spirit by saying water and spirit then clearly his statement wasn't disqualifying dry birth babies but instead he would have simply been using the language and assumptions of Nicodemus to elaborate that it was people who would enter the kingdom of God and those people would have to also be born of Spirit.

[Apprehended]

Jesus would never be inconsistent in his teachings. With what he said to Nicodemus is exactly in line with his words In Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..."

In keeping with the words of Paul, there is only ONE baptism (Eph. 4:5). He further states in I Cor 12:13 that that one baptism is the baptism into the Lord's body by one spirit. Baptism by water in the name of Jesus according to Paul, grants justification to the believer. This is absolutely imperative since there is no admission into the body of Christ not having received justification. The baptism of the Spirit together with the water baptism constitutes that ONE baptism which is the baptism into the body of Christ.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Amazing since Bro Haywood is believing something that even the early church fathers proposed. Birth of water was always historically interpreted as baptism until the Reformation. Even Martin Luther interpreted it that way.

No. You err saying "always." While it is true that many in the developing Roman Catholic Church held this view, many did not. Besides, what matters is what the Scripture says and not the contortions people have gone through over the centuries in their misapprehension of Holy Writ.

If "water" in John 3:3-5 is NOT the first birth, then where is the "First Birth" in this whole text of comparisons? The First Birth is constantly compared with the Second Birth ("Born Again").

John 3:6 - That which is born of the flesh is flesh (First Birth). That which is born of the Spirit is spirit (Second Birth).

John 3:12 - "Earthly things" (First Birth) and "heavenly things" (Second Birth).

Why do you chose to introduce a third category into the discussion? ("Almost born-again but now you have to talk in tongues!"). You have been born from your mother's womb, haven't you? If so, then you should understand the "earthly things." But if you fail to understand the "earthly things," then I suppose Jesus' lament that he offers to Nicodemus may be in order. "How shall I tell you of heavenly things?"

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

First this isn't my own view. I want to believe water is natural birth! That means all those who refused to be baptized for whatever reason would be ok.

It just doesn't add up

Since there appears to be a very large number of people that you are familiar with who "refused to be baptized," could you illuminate me concerning their beliefs? Personally I have never met a Christian who "refused to be baptized." Those that I know who "refused to be baptized" tended to be Hindus, Muslims, Jews or some other faith apart from Christianity.

For these people the refusal to be baptized had nothing to do with the semantics of John 3. They just didn't believe the Gospel at all and chose to remain with the faith in which they were raised. Where are all these Christians that "refused to be baptized" that you speak of?

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Do you ever sin? If so then by your interpretation of 1 John 5:18 you are not born of God. You say I used isolated verses. If I really did then explain what the verses I used really mean and where my reasoning went wrong because the only thing you've done is cite a verse's implications that you don't even agree with and to cite a verse as if it says something which you don't even agree with doesn't make for honest discussion.

Thats my point! Of course we sin. That means that being born of God isn't just an event, that born again work continues in our life. You can't say a person is born of God when they believe but yet they are sinning. They contradict one another. Sinneth means to continue in sin, not commit a mistake. That is what John is trying to say and the only way to be delivered from sin's power.. is found in Romans 6! We have to bury the old man.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Since there appears to be a very large number of people that you are familiar with who "refused to be baptized," could you illuminate me concerning their beliefs? Personally I have never met a Christian who "refused to be baptized." Those that I know who "refused to be baptized" tended to be Hindus, Muslims, Jews or some other faith apart from Christianity.

For these people the refusal to be baptized had nothing to do with the semantics of John 3. They just didn't believe the Gospel at all and chose to remain with the faith in which they were raised. Where are all these Christians that "refused to be baptized" that you speak of?

Putting off is what I mean by refusal (not consenting to doing it at that time). I've met many who simply put it off because they don't really consider it that important or are scared of water, etc.

IF they are saved, it really isn't that important to them at the moment and they will schedule it at another time. That is not the apostolic practice.

How many of these people died before baptism because of putting something off. Are you saying this does not happen? It has happened quite a bit!

The language of John 3 is pretty clear. We are born or changed of water in baptism (Romans 6).. Paul's teaching is clear.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No. You err saying "always." While it is true that many in the developing Roman Catholic Church held this view, many did not. Besides, what matters is what the Scripture says and not the contortions people have gone through over the centuries in their misapprehension of Holy Writ.

If "water" in John 3:3-5 is NOT the first birth, then where is the "First Birth" in this whole text of comparisons? The First Birth is constantly compared with the Second Birth ("Born Again").

John 3:6 - That which is born of the flesh is flesh (First Birth). That which is born of the Spirit is spirit (Second Birth).

John 3:12 - "Earthly things" (First Birth) and "heavenly things" (Second Birth).

Why do you chose to introduce a third category into the discussion? ("Almost born-again but now you have to talk in tongues!"). You have been born from your mother's womb, haven't you? If so, then you should understand the "earthly things." But if you fail to understand the "earthly things," then I suppose Jesus' lament that he offers to Nicodemus may be in order. "How shall I tell you of heavenly things?"

The first birth is what Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about. Jesus was talking about a spiritual birth of water and spirit. Jesus said that which is flesh is flesh and that which is Spirit is spirit because he was contrasting the two births in Nicodemus' mnd. JEsus said you Nicodemus must be born of water and of Spirit.

Jesus would never tell someone that they would have to be born first naturally and then Spiritually to enter in the kingdom. How does that make any sense? Everyone is already born of water in that case.

Secondly I could quote many references historically.. study it.. the church was not aware of the doctrine you propose until much later. Baptism was always a necessity.


There is not such thing as half born. Where do you get that? If you repent and be baptized you will be saved. Its a promise that the Lord will never go back on. There is no such thing as half born people.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

The first birth is what Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about. Jesus was talking about a spiritual birth of water and spirit. Jesus said that which is flesh is flesh and that which is Spirit is spirit because he was contrasting the two births in Nicodemus' mnd. JEsus said you Nicodemus must be born of water and of Spirit.

Jesus would never tell someone that they would have to be born first naturally and then Spiritually to enter in the kingdom. How does that make any sense? Everyone is already born of water in that case.

Secondly I could quote many references historically.. study it.. the church was not aware of the doctrine you propose until much later. Baptism was always a necessity.