RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 07:22:25 -0700

Thank you for admitting that. iz

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:11 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death

Referring to "born again."   
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 03:50:21 -0500
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death

Were they referring to the first physical birth, JD? Or the second one? iz

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 5:50 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death

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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:27:34 -0600
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death

Bill in Black
----- Original Message -----
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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
 
<SNIP>
 
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. & lt; O:P>
 
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 for 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 -- i n a w ay 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 narrativ e.
 
<SNIP>
 
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? 
 
<SNIP>  
 
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 huma nity: 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 ?n onbiblical? 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. 
 
<SNIP>
 
(? 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 clo ser 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
 
 
 

Reply via email to