The Thief on the Cross

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I recently heard one preacher bring forth the idea of birth of WATER being natural birth since we were contained in WATER in the womb, he reasoned. The water breaks, and we are born. But he brought something interesting out. He said the natural birth of the mother is just as necessary as the birth of the Spirit because MANKIND, not angels, etc., alone can ENTER THE KINGDOM. To enter the Kingdom we must have a physical body which we got through natural birth of water (according to him), and then secondly the birth of Spirit. Adam kept his physical body but lost his contact with the Spirit and never consumed the fruit of Life.

So it is as though man is HALFWAY there. We are all born of water and have a physical BODY. But now we need birth of SPIRIT. Having BOTH allows us to enter.

Thoughts? Apprehended?

In part this is correct but God also uses the natural as the appointed time of the Spiritual as well. Thus from water we realize Spiritual as well through faith in the operation of God. Col 2. The water AND blood flowed from his side. In this they are united. Three bear witness not just one and notice two are related to what came from his side.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by mfblume
I recently heard one preacher bring forth the idea of birth of WATER being natural birth since we were contained in WATER in the womb, he reasoned. The water breaks, and we are born. But he brought something interesting out. He said the natural birth of the mother is just as necessary as the birth of the Spirit because MANKIND, not angels, etc., alone can ENTER THE KINGDOM. To enter the Kingdom we must have a physical body which we got through natural birth of water (according to him), and then secondly the birth of Spirit. Adam kept his physical body but lost his contact with the Spirit and never consumed the fruit of Life.

So it is as though man is HALFWAY there. We are all born of water and have a physical BODY. But now we need birth of SPIRIT. Having BOTH allows us to enter.

Thoughts? Apprehended?

The preacher that you heard explaining this is he, like so many others are forgetting Jesus said, "flesh and blood shall not inherit the KOG." Being fleshly born, or in their minds, born of the water, is not a factor at all. Water immersion in the name of Jesus is only a passage way to spirit immersion. This is true since the spirit of Truth is a quality that can be possessed or inherited by any who are willing to accept Truth (a spirit) by submitting to it. This is seen in a person who believes with their whole heart that Jesus Christ is Lord God Almighty and the Son of God in redemption, which confession is made by being identified with Him in baptism...the waters of separation calling on the Name of the Lord, the circumcision of the heart. Hence, flesh and blood born of a woman (placenta) is not a factor since it will not inherit the KOG, except for the purpose of confusion which minimizes the absolute, imperative need.

[mfblume]

Not saying I agree with the man, but I think he was saying that the Kingdom is for human beings, since God created man to have dominion. And I think he was trying to explain that mankind is born of water through natural birth, and then requires new birth. If a person never had first birth, they could never have new birth. Angels cannot be born again. So, by saying born of water, that preacher claimed Christ was trying to emphasize this kingdom is for mankind alone, but certainly not through that natural birth alone. It's sorta like God having to make a body for Adam and then breathe His breath of life into the man.

It's probably not right to say man is halfway there,but when understood only in light of the fact that only human beings were intended to have dominion in earth it is valid.

Concerning the term FLESH AND BLOOD, as in "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom", I learned that is a paraphrase the bible uses in referring to mortal man. Not literal skin and red fluid. Jesus told Peter that flesh and blood had not revealed His identity to him, and Paul said he conferred not with flesh and blood to get his revelation. Paul also said we fight not against flesh and blood. Mortal mankind. In 1 Cor 15, Paul would therefore be saying mortal humanity cannot inherit the Kingdom when he said flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom. Therefore, the mortal body shall put on immorality.

Interesting thoughts, all!

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not saying I agree with the man, but I think he was saying that the Kingdom is for human beings, since God created man to have dominion. And I think he was trying to explain that mankind is born of water through natural birth, and then requires new birth. If a person never had first birth, they could never have new birth. Angels cannot be born again. So, by saying born of water, that preacher claimed Christ was trying to emphasize this kingdom is for mankind alone, but certainly not through that natural birth alone. It's sorta like God having to make a body for Adam and then breathe His breath of life into the man.

It's probably not right to say man is halfway there,but when understood only in light of the fact that only human beings were intended to have dominion in earth it is valid.

Concerning the term FLESH AND BLOOD, as in "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom", I learned that is a paraphrase the bible uses in referring to mortal man. Not literal skin and red fluid. Jesus told Peter that flesh and blood had not revealed His identity to him, and Paul said he conferred not with flesh and blood to get his revelation. Paul also said we fight not against flesh and blood. Mortal mankind. In 1 Cor 15, Paul would therefore be saying mortal humanity cannot inherit the Kingdom when he said flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom. Therefore, the mortal body shall put on immorality.

Interesting thoughts, all!

Certainly, man will put off the mortal and put on the immortal. Jesus was not saying that mortality will inherit the KOG. Far from it. The words of Jesus were entirely spiritual alluding to what will indeed inherit the KOG thus the necessity of being born again. His words, imo, was clear deleniation from flesh in an effort to distract Nicodemus form the thoughts concerning the flesh. God's kingdom is spiritual and nothing but what is spiritual will inherit that kingdom. To say that a man must first be born of a woman is almost too absurd to contemplate.

Another view would be to say to someone who is not someone yet born...he is still unborn, "you have to first be born of a woman before you can be born again." The absurdity is almost too mindless to think. It leaves the mind in a Gordian knot. I cannot conceive of Jesus playing those mind tricks.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I recently heard one preacher bring forth the idea of birth of WATER being natural birth since we were contained in WATER in the womb, he reasoned. The water breaks, and we are born. But he brought something interesting out. He said the natural birth of the mother is just as necessary as the birth of the Spirit because MANKIND, not angels, etc., alone can ENTER THE KINGDOM. To enter the Kingdom we must have a physical body which we got through natural birth of water (according to him), and then secondly the birth of Spirit. Adam kept his physical body but lost his contact with the Spirit and never consumed the fruit of Life.

So it is as though man is HALFWAY there. We are all born of water and have a physical BODY. But now we need birth of SPIRIT. Having BOTH allows us to enter.

Thoughts? Apprehended?

I would agree with this man's statements, here. I don't know who you are speaking of or if the preacher in question brings along any other "baggage" with his view... but what you have presented seems to be correct, to me.

Jesus' statement to Nicodemus was that Nicodemus (and presumably the rest of us as well) needed to be "born again."

Because of the way many languages used a metaphor to explain a succession of events, the statement made by Jesus was something of a double entendre. Both Greek and Aramaic (and Hebrew, Arabic and so many others) describe a succession of events as being "from the top" or "from the head."

In Greek, what Jesus said was that Nicodemus had to be "born anōthen." This mean literally, "from above" and thus, by analogy, "from, or following or succeeding the first."

In Aramaic, the language that Jesus and Nicodemus were most likely speaking, the literal and analogous meanings are the same. See http://www.v-a.com/bible/john_1-7.html#JOHN#3 - an online translation from an Aramaic Bible. Scroll down to read the footnote for John 3:3.

Because of this double entendre, Nicodemus either mistakes the statement Jesus makes in John 3:3, or he is replying with sarcasm when he talks about entering his mother's womb to be "born again." Either way, the discussion clearly involves two births. The "first birth" and a "birth" the follows later in life.

Thus, when Jesus says, "born of the water and the Spirit" in John 3:5, He is not saying that the "water and Spirit" birth are facets of the "new birth" as GT Haywood introduced sometime after 1919, and as the followers of Bro. Haywood have maintained since. Instead, Jesus is simply following the pattern of the dialog consistently throughout the entire conversations.

There are TWO BIRTHS. There is the FIRST BIRTH and THE SECOND BIRTH. If someone (such as Nicodemus at that point in time) had only experienced the FIRST BIRTH, then they needed to be BORN AGAIN, or in other words, they needed to experience the SECOND BIRTH. There are just two births in view throughout this conversation. The first birth and the second birth. Being born and being born again. Being born of "the water" (the FIRST BIRTH) and being born of the Spirit (the SECOND BIRTH).

Bro. Haywood's "Water and Spirit" doctrine makes a jumble of the entire third chapter of John.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I have another verse I would like you to consider: 1 John 5:13

13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

John writes so that those who believe may know they have eternal life. How great is that testimony! And how different is it from your claim that one knows he has eternal life only after he has repented, been baptized, and spoken in tongues as evidence of the Holy Ghost?

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.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Thus, when Jesus says, "born of the water and the Spirit" in John 3:5, He is not saying that the "water and Spirit" birth are facets of the "new birth" as GT Haywood introduced sometime after 1919, and as the followers of Bro. Haywood have maintained since. Instead, Jesus is simply following the pattern of the dialog consistently throughout the entire conversations.

Bro. Haywood's "Water and Spirit" doctrine makes a jumble of the entire third chapter of John.

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.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by jfrog

If what you say is true then it doesn't make sense that Jesus just stopped talking about being born of water if it was really part of the new birth. So next time make sure your own view makes sense before you start rejecting others for not making sense.

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

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by sandie

Bingo!
I've always thought the same exact thing. Who doesn't/didn't know that water is involved in natural birth....surely Jesus did.

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

[jfrog]

Part 1 of my response. The other will have to come later

Originally Posted by Monarchianism

JFROG -

That's basically what I am saying. I would use the phrase believes in Jesus instead of confesses to believe in God because the way you worded it seems to imply that the person doing the confessing might not be telling the truth about believing in God.

:: I say confesses, because confessing is not necessarily true faith. I can say I believe, but is it true? Even if you are truly born-again (which you'll naturally increase in faith), would you not confess? Anyone can confess. The only water I am aware of is that of wet-clear substance w/ no taste. Yet, you say that we are born of both after confessing, err.. believing. Some faith.

Baptisma = Immersion in WATER
Acts 2:38 - Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you.."
The response of those that heard this.. read on: Immersion in water, not just believing.
( Which, if you truly believe, you will be baptized ) ::

I said I wasn't talking about confessing so why do you keep bringing it up? I mean you can't refute what I've said without discussing the things I've said.

I don't believe in half-repentance. Either a person truly repents or he does not repent at all. But what do I mean by repentance? By repentance I mean turning away from sin. But how does a man turn from sin? A man turns from sin by turning toward Jesus. But how does a man turn toward Jesus? A man turns toward Jesus by having faith in Jesus. So to me repentance is simply having faith in Jesus. Does this repentance mean he will no longer sin? NO! He might still sin, BUT his faith in Jesus will cause him to sin less and less. There will be up's and down's though. The man might take 1 step forward and 2 steps back and then 2 steps forward and 3 steps back and then 3 steps forward and 1 step back and on and on but that doesn't mean the man didn't "fully repent" as you described it. He did repent by believing on Jesus even if he struggles to line up his life to Christ's teaching (as we all do to some degree. AMEN?) I do realize that this big long paragraph didn't really answer the question about "knowing if we have fully repented". I think my paragraph on baptism will answer that question.

:: Concerning Acts 2:38 and repentance - Strong's Concordance says:
3340 - to repent, to change any or all of the elements composing one's life: attitude, thoughts, and behaviours concerning the demands of God for right living:

Repenting requires more than simple believism. It says to "change one's life, attitude, thoughts." And you think faith alone cuts it? It's not faith if you don't prove your repentance.

I recently responded to that on this thread (though maybe it was to someone other than you). Sometimes faith takes time to produce works/fruit/proof. A lack of works/fruit/proof does not necessitate a lack of faith. However a lack of those things after a reasonable amount of time is an indicator that faith may be lacking but it is still not conclusive. Therefore my advice to such a person is to search themselves to see if their faith is true.


Matthew 3:8 - "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.."
Luke 3:8 - "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance.."

Works show faith. How do we repent? By having faith? Well, I'd like to see a verse where having faith is repentance. Faith doesn't bring repentance, sorrow does:

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Now this didn't say the precise words you were looking for: "that faith is repentance". But it did say that belief was counted for righteousness and I say that since we know repentance means to turn to righteousness then we can clearly see that it is faith which counts for our righteousness and thus also for our repentance.


II Corinthians 7:10 - "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death."

Is it true sorrow? The Church members will know.
See what this godly sorrow has brought in you:

II Corinthians 7:11 - "See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter."

James 4:8-9 - "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hand, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness." ::

1st of all, Paul was writing to already born again Christians. (Isn't that a great argument?). So, when he commented on their sorrow due to his first epistle which led to their repentance and salvation he was talking to people that were already born again Christians. So it seems to me that due to their already born again status the repentance that 2 Corinthians 2 mentions is a turning from works that born again Christians should not be doing. This is different than the repentance it takes to be born again which is turning from unbelief in Christ. Now don't get me wrong, the repentance of unbelief will lead (if given enough time) to the repentance that causes a Christian to turn from Unchristian works but those two repentances are not the same.