Nice, base your eternal destiny on a footnote.
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
>Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:50:13 -0400
>
>Footnotes in the New King James and NASV show born "from above" to be a
>viable translation and my Brown/Comfort Greek interlinear English
>translation actually uses "born from above" rather than "born again."
>
>JD
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:27:34 -0600
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
>
>
>Bill in Black
>----- Original Message -----
>From: ShieldsFamily
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 5:47 PM
>Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
>
>
>Izzy is red:
>
>
>
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
>Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 4:44 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
>
>
>
>As it pertains to the question of "regeneration" and being "born again,"
>the church, and especially the "rivalist" (Revivalist) Yikes! thanks, no
>offence intended. Perhaps this was one of those Freudian slips :>) church
>in America since the early 19th c., has done much to shift the emphasis of
>these terms away from their biblical root and source in Jesus Christ, to
>the activities of individual believers. With this shift has developed a
>whole new and biblically foreign way of speaking about matters pertaining
>to salvation. Such as Perichoresis or Trinity? These actually find their
>origin back in the 3rd and 4th centuries. But your point is well taken.
>Much stress has been placed on the "new birth" as an immediate
>life-changing religious experience. David touched upon this in his
>discussion with you in regards to "the sinners prayer" and the vacancy of
>that practice in the New Testament witness. I?m hoping you read my post on
>that regarding the fact that I was referring to one praying a non-scripted
>type of prayer to receive Jesus as
> Lord and Savior.
>
>The language of "regeneration" is a great case in point. Contemporary
>Christians use this term to speak of the "conversion experience" and what
>happens in that event, as if it were often used in the NT in this same
>capacity; when in actual fact the term is used only twice and neither time
>in reference to conversion or "born again" experiences. I believe I?ve read
>you using that term, have I not? I probably have, if you are referring to
>'regeneration.' But then again, I consider this to be an act of God as set
>forth in Titus 3, so I'm not treating it as a "born again experience." I
>don't recall talking in terms of being "born again," but I may have; I
>would want to check the context. The truth is, the NT does not use the
>term, as modern evangelicals do, for that which goes on in the "heart" of
>new converts. It speaks only in terms of the great and vicarious
>regeneration Book chapter and verse please? Titus 3.4-7 which took place in
>Jesus Christ in his resurrection, as something which God alone in the Holy
>Spirit through Christ did f
>or humanity, and it speaks to the last day when the twelve will sit in
>judgment over Israel, and when all things shall be made new and rewards
>granted to those who have forsaken all to follow Christ. Yet we are
>accustomed to using this term in an entirely different way -- in a way that
>I would suggest has minimal if any referential correspondence to our
>conversion experience.
>
>Now let's talk about "born again" and what that means in the context in
>which it was used. The same word that is translated as "again" in John 3.3
>and 3.7, is used also in John 3.31. But in 3.31 it is translated not as
>"again" but as "from above": "He who comes from above is above all ..." I
>believe that this is how John's word needs to be understood in verses 3 and
>7, and this even though Nicodemus misinterprets Jesus' use of the word. How
>could Nicodemus make this mistake? In the Greek this word can mean several
>things; it can mean "from the beginning"; or "from the first"; or "from
>above"; or "anew" or "again." Nicodemus understood Jesus to be saying that
>he needed to be born "again"; therefore his question about returning a
>second time to his mother's womb. But Jesus was not speaking of being born
>a second time; he was speaking about being born "from above"; hence his
>reply that it takes both a physical birth and a birth of the Spirit to be
>one who is "born from above." Of course. However the term ?again? was
>used and should
>not be swept aside as irrelevant, either. It was used as a translation of
>John's word. The question is, is it the best translation? It is obvious
>that "again" will not work to translate the same word in 3.31. Thus, in the
>context of John 3, I think it best to stick with the idea of "from above"
>throughout the entire passage; that is, unless you want to argue that John
>would use the same word in his summary statement (verse 31), to mean
>something other than it meant when he used it in the main body of his
>narrative.
>
>
>
>And so, if we can gather anything through this exchange, we ought to
>conclude that this "born again" phenomenon is not nearly so clear cut and
>simple as we have been taught to believe. Jesus does not say exactly how it
>is that the "all" were to be born from above. Those questions are addressed
>more clearly in the epistles, those of Paul especially. Paul speaks
>explicitly to the fact that it was "together with Christ" that his readers
>were "quickened" out of death. We are quickened by the Holy Spirit when we
>become born again. But not before then, right? That?s when our spiritual
>eyes are opened, and our hearts are receptive to the things of God. Izzy,
>maybe you can help me out here, but it seems to me that your eyes would
>need to have been opened prior to this "born again" experience (that moment
>when you put your faith in Jesus Christ) or you never would have had the
>ability to even have the desire to be receptive to the things of God. Do
>you understand what I'm saying and can you help me out here?
>
>
>
>How were they "regenerated" if they were not dead in the first place? They
>were dead, Izzy, in the depravity of their fallen condition. That is
>exactly what people mean when we use the term ?spiritually dead?, Bill.
>Exactly what we mean. Oh, well, great, then you all agree with me :>) They
>could do nothing of themselves to address the fact that they were doomed.
>In that disparaging state Christ came and took upon himself their curse,
>humanity's curse, ultimately defeating it at the cross and in resurrection.
>When he rose again, he arose victorious over everything which had served to
>destroy humanity: sin, death, the devil, flesh, even God's Law. Now on the
>other side of all of that, he reigns in life eternal, without the
>possibility of falling captive ever again to the tyrants. This is
>elementary information for anyone who is saved, Bill?even for us ?fundies?
>as we are disparagingly called by some from your viewpoint. Do you think
>we think otherwise? No, of course not, I was simply completing a thought.
>
>We too were raised in his resurrection. This is precisely where we diverge.
> You believe ?we? to include everyone, whether they want to be included or
>not. I believe ?we? mean those who are ?in Christ? through receiving His
>sacrifice as their personal Lord and Savior. Yes, I am aware of that
>distinction. Paul tells us that Christ re-gathered all things (Eph 1.10)
>and that in him all things have their being or ontological There you go
>using one of those ?nonbiblical? words, Bill. I had said something the
>other day in reference to our ontological status in Christ, to which you
>responded that you didn't understand what I was talking about. I used the
>term here to give that first statement some context. Yes, we sometimes use
>non-biblical terms to speak to biblical concepts. My gripe has never been
>that we do this. My gripe is with the hypocrisy of those who do the same
>but berate others when they do it.
>
>
>
>(? Am I looking at the ontological me in the mirror, or at Izzy?s decaying
>physical body? Do people get cosmetic surgery for ontological bodies? J )
>... (In the spirit-man, Bill. Meanwhile my body gets a day older every day,
>and a day closer to the grave. But my spirit is renewed and growing every
>day. That?s why I?ll be happy to trade in the old model of my body for a
>new/improved version!) Yeah, I hear you there. I do hope God doesn't want
>any brickin' done when I get to heaven though. And don't say he'll probably
>stick me in the furnace! :>) I laid brick in Minnesota one winter,
>replacing burned-out walls inside of taconite furnaces. If I stood in one
>place too long, my boots would start on fire. Too hot for me!!
>
>Bill
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
