Ye must be born again ???

[Hitch]

Is this true is being born-again really a must?


Hitch

[Sozo]

Hitch:
Is this true is being born-again really a must?


Hitch

Joh 3:3

Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

[Hitch]

Sozo:


Joh 3:3

Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Why do you think this applies to the church?

H

[GrayPilgrim]

1 Tim 3:16--
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"

[Sozo]

Hitch:
Why do you think this applies to the church?

H

I think it applies to everyone.

[smilax]

GrayPilgrim:
1 Tim 3:16--That would be II Timothy.

[Hitch]

Thanx friends ,,,seems the Paulists have avoided this question again.

I've asked Bob Hill and others whether or not they are born-again and none have answered. No denials no affirmations. And in some cases the same poster did answer other questions from my original.

take care

Hitch

[smilax]

For those who aren't sure as to what Hitch is referring to, this question is mainly for those of the persuasion that the Twelve and Paul were in different dispensations, thus making the apostolic stuff completely irrelevant. And this would imply that Christians under Paul's church do not need to be born again.

If I remember correctly, some of this camp interpret "born again" to refer to salvation by faith plus water baptism and thus relegate the partial-works/sacramental salvation to the apostolic dispensation.

To say the least, this seems farfetched.

[truthman]

The term actually means 'born from above', but I still am not.

My membership in the Body of Christ is based on adoption (Ephesians 1), not birth, and I am called a new creation and a saint.

truthman

[Darth Xena]

I want to hop in here. I would say strenously that I disagree with the Acts 9ers on the whole basis of their system... but the fact is that they would believe that they are "born again" if we allow the defintion to speak rather than the terminology. I do not believe in semantical salvation, and this is what I mean. If the Acts 9er is pouring a different meaning into the phrase "born again" then those of us participating here so far do, then they are not denying the same thing that we affirm, and that is important so that we are not burning straw men.

What we mean by the phrase is the spiritual regeneration that happens at conversion, and all Acts 9ers affirm that even if they deny that is what "born again" means. So, while saying that some Acts 9ers may deny that we need to be born again sounds really horrible, the fact is that I think that the force is lessened signifcantly when we move beyond terminology and realize that they affirm that same concept that we as nonActs 9ers do.

[Hitch]

So, while saying that some Acts 9ers may deny that we need to be born again sounds really horrible, the fact is that I think that the force is lessened signifcantly when we move beyond terminology and realize that they affirm that same concept that we as nonActs 9ers do. Salvationis not the issue DeeDee. Its the murder of the Scriptures to fit dogma. Even to the point of teaching that the very words of our Lord are not applicalbe. Soft peddling it doesnt change what is it .

This is a shame and comes from the enemy not from above. It is 'really horrible' to slice the Scriptures when the Apostles applied the Scriptures to the church over the nation. It is enough to see that which Christ says MUST is devalued to nothingness. But then what quote from Jesus can X9ers offer? What great insight from , John ,Hebrews? Peter? Nothing.

But thats not enough they try to steal these treasures from the rest of the church. And but what authority? I've asked for the Scripture that declares that only Paul's letters apply to the church.... they will not answer. There is no authority for this theft. It is a deception and an outrage.

Alll to support fabricated notions of nationalism contrary to the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit.


So yeah DeeDee X9ers saying we need NOT be born-again really does sound horrible. But what really is horrible is the logic behind it that dares to even suggest that our Lord's own Word he came here to speak is no more than geneology or a list of names.

Hitch

[smilax]

I think what he's concerned about is seeing this some day:Matthew xxiv, 35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away*."

* This verse is part of the apostolic dispensation and thus no longer applicable.

[Hitch]

smilax:
I think what he's concerned about is seeing this some day: Matthew xxiv, 35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away*."
Perf

H

[Ric]

Hitch:
Is this true is being born-again really a must?

Hitch

:read: John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. " (NIV)

:read: John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (NIV)

[Hitch]

Ric:


:read: John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. " (NIV)

:read: John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (NIV) I cant think of anything more true ,more eternal and more a wedding gift for His Bride.

H

[Darth Xena]

Dear Hitch:

I understand your point, and you know that I agree with it. My only concern was this, that we though not play with semantics. The fact is that Acts 9ers ARE born again by the defintiion that you and I would use. In saying that they are not, we may give the false impression that they are not saved or deny spiritual regeneration. Neither of those things would be true. When an Acts9er denies being born again, they are pouring a different connotation into the word.

Let me give an example... I know some messianic Jews that deny being a Christian. That is because they have associated that word with denying their Jewishness, anti-Semitism, whatever, but the fact is that if we apply the correct meaning of Christian, they most certainly are.

I agree that wrenching Christ's words out of applicability to us is a bad doctrine. A very bad doctine. I stand beside you in defending against it. I just want to be fair and not leave any false impressions. You and I as preterists run into the same sort of thing a lot of times where someone says things that leave an unfair impression. That is all I am trying to avoid. You know my doctrinal agreement with you on this issue is firm.

[Hitch]

We are also Reformed and rely on profession. If their own false doctrine neccessitates their public denial of something as precious as our Lord's own spoken Word then so be it. It is not for us to soften the consequences of such deplorable actions .

Historicaly someone 'recieves' a funny doctrine. After a while the absolute screwyness of it no longer revolts the believers. As time passes the defence of it becomes dogma and a cult is born. And at some point we, as in you and I, must accept the professions that come, and if that profession publicly refutes 'Ye Must be born- again' we are bound to accept it as it is. the door swings both ways.

take care

Hitch

[Reba]

Very eye opening thread. . .


Anyone who places the blood in there viens (natural birth) over that of being born again is correct is saying they are not christian.



'Truthman' would rather hold to 'NOT intering the kingdom of GOD' then believe the words of CHRIST.



again a very eye opening thread

[Reba]

Deedee said

"What we mean by the phrase is the spiritual regeneration that happens at conversion, and all Acts 9ers affirm that even if they deny that is what "born again" means. So, while saying that some Acts 9ers may deny that we need to be born again sounds really horrible, the fact is that I think that the force is lessened signifcantly when we move beyond terminology and realize that they affirm that same concept that we as nonActs 9ers do."



Deedee help me understand . . . I well know we grow and develop as Christians. I have respected your writings for a while now and I am surprised to see you put the above in print. It sounds like a politician running for office trying to agree with everyone to gain votes.


Is HIS word authority or not?

[Rubia Warren]

Er....I wouldn't go so far as to compare it to a politician pandering for votes, Reba. She did explain herself pretty well, and had a point, especially when she likened it to messianic jews, for example. Hitch also has some good points. Since I am pretty ignorant to the Acts 9 thingie, I am interested to see someone with that belief respond to this thread.... it may just be as Dee Dee said- semantics.

[Hitch]

La Rubia:
Er....I wouldn't go so far as to compare it to a politician pandering for votes, Reba. She did explain herself pretty well, and had a point, especially when she likened it to messianic jews, for example. Hitch also has some good points. Since I am pretty ignorant to the Acts 9 thingie, I am interested to see someone with that belief respond to this thread.... it may just be as Dee Dee said- semantics. what is said on not said is only the tell. What really matters is the cards in the hand. The legal deck for NT games begins with Mat and contains everthing from there to the Apocalypse. Adding or removing cards renders the game illegal, by scewing the results.

Just imagine the outcry if a government entity was on this forum telling us that most of the NT is not recognized as 'for the church', but it law based and jewish?

take care

Hitch

[Darth Xena]

Dear Reba:

Let me try and explain myself clearer. I know Hitch disapproves of my position, and you may as well, and that is okay. But my goal is fairness in accurately representing those with whom we disagree. I do that for everyone.... not just Acts 9ers, why? Because I expect it to be done for me. I am well aware of the inaccuracies that are flung at preterists which makes me sensitive not to do the same to others.

The key issue here in a salvational sense is NOT what terminology we are using but what meanings we are pouring into the terminology. When you and I say born again, we mean the spiritual regeneration that happens at conversion. Acts 9ers do not mean that, they pour a different meaning into the word, so they are NOT denyng the same thing we affirm. We BOTH believe in spiritual regeneration and that is my only point. I am trying to move past the semantics. Both groups are spiritually regenerated despite our disagreement over passages and terminology.

That being said, I find it to be a terrible error to split the NT the way that they do. I have never, ever made any bones about that. But to just without qualification say that Acts 9ers deny being born agian or are not born again, I find is being somewhat reckless with the issue. It is not as simple as that. It is like a futurist simply saying that preterists believe that Christ came again in 70AD. Is that true? Yes, but without qualification it can be misleading to anyone who reads that who may then think we deny that Christ is coming again, or who think that we belive that Christ came bodily in AD70.

If this makes me a politician so be it. I strive for the same fairness that I wish to be shown, especially with those with whom I disagree.

[Hitch]

The key issue here in a salvational sense is NOT what terminology we are using but what meanings we are pouring into the terminology


Speaking for the originator:


The key issue here has nothing whatever to do with salvation. Only DeeDee has even brought up that issue. There are no posts, excepting DeeDee's that even bring up salvation.

The X9ers have been invited (thats why the question is in this area) to speak for themselves and as many as wished to have responded.

Take care


Hitch

[Darth Xena]

Hitch I was just trying to clarify that is all. I know that when most people hear that someone denies being born again, they immediatley think of salvation. I just wanted to make that clear, that is all. I am sorry if my comments were an unwelcome intrusion. I will now promptly butt out.

[Act9_12Out]

No, I am not born again, born from above or otherwise. I was not water baptized for salvation (which John 3:1-5 implies), nor will I ever be. I am a Christian in the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit was the agent who baptized me into His body,The New King James Version

1 Corinthians 12
12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.The Holy Spirit sealed me for the day of redemption,The New King James Version

Ephesians 1
1:13
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
1:14
who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Ephesians 4
4:30
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.I am an adopted son, and a new creation in Christ Jesus. I am now a son of God. I am not "born again" through the water and the Spirit (John 3:1-5).The New King James Version

Ephesians 1
1:5
having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Romans 8
8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
8:15
For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
8:16
The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
8:17
and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

*What is the adoption? Why has the Holy Spirit sealed me?

Romans 8
8:23
Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.Again, I am a new creation in Christ Jesus...The New King James Version

2 Corinthians 5
5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Galatians 6
6:15
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.I find it interesting that Paul (the minister for the body of Christ) is the only Apostle who speaks to the issue of the sealing of the Holy Spirit, the adoption, and Christians being a "new creation" in Christ. Paul never alludes to Christians being born again, or a necessity to be born again...

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Hitch]

LOL It doesnt take much to see being a new creation comes through the new birth. But whats reality compared to dogma anyways.



H

[Hitch]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Hitch:

I understand your point, and you know that I agree with it. My only concern was this, that we though not play with semantics. The fact is that Acts 9ers ARE born again by the defintiion that you and I would use. In saying that they are not, we may give the false impression that they are not saved or deny spiritual regeneration. Neither of those things would be true. When an Acts9er denies being born again, they are pouring a different connotation into the word.

Let me give an example... I know some messianic Jews that deny being a Christian. That is because they have associated that word with denying their Jewishness, anti-Semitism, whatever, but the fact is that if we apply the correct meaning of Christian, they most certainly are.

I agree that wrenching Christ's words out of applicability to us is a bad doctrine. A very bad doctine. I stand beside you in defending against it. I just want to be fair and not leave any false impressions. You and I as preterists run into the same sort of thing a lot of times where someone says things that leave an unfair impression. That is all I am trying to avoid. You know my doctrinal agreement with you on this issue is firm. Ok So what spirit is behind he notion that say,,, the Gospel of John is not for the church but was for the jews? And just how openly contrary to Jesus own word can oine be and still make a valid calim to be a follower.?

Can I truthfully say I worship Christ and openly refuese everything he said personally while at the same time making public devotion to Paul and disregarding all the other Apostles and ,as above, even what Jesus actually said?

When does this become Paulianity? If you quote only Paul. Teach that Paul's letters are ABOVE quotes from Jesus Christ . And divide the Scriptures into ever smaller applicable elements, reservering vereration only for Paul, when no such command is found anywhere in Scripture in fact 180 degrees contrary,....what do you do?

You make fun of the RCC for doing that same thing wrt Mary.

Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

All I can say is... "Typical."

You refuse to offer Scriptural proof for your position and refuse to respond to any Scripture that refutes your position. You make untrue claims as to my Theological position, and continually use ad-homenim arguments. For example, you say,an I truthfully say I worship Christ and openly refuese everything he said personally while at the same time making public devotion to Paul and disregarding all the other Apostles and ,as above, even what Jesus actually said?You have just confirmed that you know nothing about the mid-Acts position. I believe that all Scripture is "God breathed" and is useful for many things.The New King James Version

2 Timothy 3
3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,Let me see if I can formulate a simple example of how I interpret the Bible...

Let's say that you and I have post office boxes next to one another at the local post office. You collect your mail, and the first envelope you grab is face down. you do not look at the addressee, and tear into the envelope. The letter reads,Dear sir,

You dentist appointment has been confirmed with Dr. Jones on Feb. 12, 2003 at 2:30 pm. Please call to confirm that you make you appointment.

Thank You, Dr. JonesNow, you realize that you have not made a dentist appointment, and your dentist is not Dr. Jones. You turn the envelope over and realize that the letter was addressed to me. Now, in reality, that letter has nothing to do with you personally, but gives you much information as to where I will be and what I will be doing on Feb 12. The Bible is the same way. I read the OT, Gospels and Circumcision letters with great enthusiasm, but realize that they are not my mail. The letters that are addressed to me as a member of the body are Paul's epistles. Believe it or not, Paul's epistles are also God breathed. Paul affirms that the gospel he preaches came directly from the ascended Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 1:1,12).

What you fail to realize and address is the fact that Jesus Christ's earthly ministry was for the nation of Israel.The New King James Version

Matthew 15
15:24
But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."As I have stated before, the blood of Jesus Christ is the only agent that can save any man. You fail to realize that throughout the OT and much of the NT, God is dealing with His special, chosen, sanctified people, Israel. That's why Jesus makes that statement in Matthew 15:24. Again, Israel rejected God, so God set them aside and raised up Paul as the minister for the body of Christ.The New King James Version

Romans 15
15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers,

Romans 15
15:16
that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles,ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.After God sets Israel aside, he starts the body of Christ. God's words (through the Apostle Paul) are the letters that are our mail. After the rapture of the body, God will again deal with Israel through the tribulation, millenium and eternal state. The circumcision epistles (Hebrews-Revelation) will be the mail that tribulation, millenial and eternal kingdom saints will read for their salvation.

Don't get me wrong... I can read and apply OT, gospel and circumcision material to my life for the Christian life. However, I would not apply those writings to me personally for my salvation.

I ask that you cease with the personal attacks, and address the issues at hand using Scripture to support your claims.

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

You address me personally when you say,LOL It doesnt take much to see being a new creation comes through the new birth. But whats reality compared to dogma anyways.Once again, you miss the mark. Someone who is "born again" is not a new creation. The analogy is that of a person being born into an already existing family. They are physical, ethnic descendants of God's special, chosen, sanctified family of Israel.

Adam was indeed a "new creation" and is called the son of God. Jesus Christ was a "new creation" as God placed Him in his mother's womb. Jesus Christ is God the Son. The angels are "new creations" and are referred to as sons of God. The body of Christ, who are adopted sons, put off Adam and put on Christ. They become a "new creation" and are called sons of God.

The nation of Israel and circumcision believers are never called a "new creation" and are never referred to as sons of God. They have been born from above and become members of the natural family, Israel.

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Reba]

acts9

How
The words of the LORD mean so little to so many. It does matter what Jesus said or do you think HIS words idle talk. Yup i agree you are not born again. So if you not in HIS kinghdom whos kingdom ya in?

[Hitch]

Hitch,

All I can say is... "Typical."

You refuse to offer Scriptural proof for your position and refuse to respond to any Scripture that refutes your position. You make untrue claims as to my Theological position, and continually use ad-homenim arguments. For example, you say,


What Scripture says the church was never prophesied ? Which one?


Where is it?


When did Jesus ever tell a Gentile to be circumscised?


Are you born-again?


What Scripture says all but Paul's letters are nationallly specific?Where is this passage?


Where does Paul say that only his letters are to the church?
What is the passage where is it?

Hitch


Now you were complaining abou the lack of Scripture? The above question have been up for days.

[Hitch]

I ask that you cease with the personal attacks, and address the issues at hand using Scripture to support your claims.

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder
Jesus said 'Ye must be born-again'


Need the reference? Is that 'Scripture'?

For all you whininig this thread is based on Scripture which you have vocally despised.

Hitch

[Hitch]

Act9_12Out:
Hitch,

You address me personally when you say,Once again, you miss the mark. Someone who is "born again" is not a new creation. The analogy is that of a person being born into an already existing family. They are physical, ethnic descendants of God's special, chosen, sanctified family of Israel. LMAO

Adam was indeed a "new creation" and is called the son of God. Jesus Christ was a "new creation" as God placed Him in his mother's womb. Jesus Christ is God the Son. The angels are "new creations" and are referred to as sons of God. The body of Christ, who are adopted sons, put off Adam and put on Christ. They become a "new creation" and are called sons of God. And the sons of God are the citezens of the Kingdom of God and they are welcomed in because they are chosen of God, thats the same as being 'born from a bove' but its fun to watch you trip over your dogma.

The nation of Israel and circumcision believers are never called a "new creation" and are never referred to as sons of God. They have been born from above and become members of the natural family, Israel.

Jn 3:1
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
(KJV) (never huh?)

Legend has it that John was circumscised as were the majority of the earliest converts,,,but son -ship is defined thus;



Rom 8:14
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
(KJV)

You lose on both counts. Your nationalistic nonsense is just that and nothing of value.


In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder And pathetic nonsense at that.

H

[Hitch]

You have just confirmed that you know nothing about the mid-Acts position. I believe that all Scripture is "God breathed" and is useful for many things

Wow are you clarivoyant?

Naah because if you were you would already know I had dealing with other X9ers and I've been informed that Jesus spoke to the jews,,, and not the church If not the you had better heed 'Ye must be born again' .

And despite your innnuendo you cannot produce from my post anything contrsary to yours quoted above. But its cute you didnt list the 'many things'.

H

[Hitch]

So where is the fabled passage in which Paul the bond-servant of Christ defies his Master who says 'ye must be born-again'?

Where does this servant gain the authority to countermand his Master? Where does he make a claim for this authority?

Is it not the servant's place to ,when the master says 'ye must', answer 'I will'?

Indeed Paul's claim and status as a servant of Jesus Christ is based on his adherence to the commands of that same Christ.


Lest anyone say I put words in anothers mouth below Acts 9 is quoted;


No, I am not born again, born from above or otherwise. I was not water baptized for salvation (which John 3:1-5 implies), nor will I ever be. I am a Christian in the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit was the agent who baptized me into His body,


take care

Hitch

[Reba]

John 3:2-6
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
KJV

Prov 16:25
25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
KJV

[Reba]

John 12:47-50
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
KJV

[Xmansmommy]

Hitch said...
And pathetic nonsense at that.
You know Hitch that I attempted to have a discussion (on another board) on some of the very issues that you bring here to TW. I haven't spent much time at that other board lately for many reasons. And I know you could care less about my comments here tonight, but I'm going to express myself anyway.....
It's comments like this one quoted above that truly turns people off to discourse with you. But, I'm sure you are already aware. Most Christians, even those that disagree intensely on issues, are able to do so without the "attitude" you possess and exhibit so wrecklessly and carelessly. I don't suspect that my words will make much of a difference, but you have seemed quite "confident" that no Acts 9'rs would address your topics. I wouldn't chalk that up as "victory" on your part as much as I would suggest, that no Acts 9'rs care too much to be belittled and "LMAO" at, each and every time you post, without any biblical refutation. But hey, there certainly is Liberty in Christ Jesus. Touche'

In His Grace,
Linda

[Hitch]

Xmansmommy:
Hitch said...

You know Hitch that I attempted to have a discussion (on another board) on some of the very issues that you bring here to TW. I haven't spent much time at that other board lately for many reasons. And I know you could care less about my comments here tonight, but I'm going to express myself anyway.....
It's comments like this one quoted above that truly turns people off to discourse with you. But, I'm sure you are already aware. Most Christians, even those that disagree intensely on issues, are able to do so without the "attitude" you possess and exhibit so wrecklessly and carelessly. I don't suspect that my words will make much of a difference, but you have seemed quite "confident" that no Acts 9'rs would address your topics. I wouldn't chalk that up as "victory" on your part as much as I would suggest, that no Acts 9'rs care too much to be belittled and "LMAO" at, each and every time you post, without any biblical refutation. But hey, there certainly is Liberty in Christ Jesus. Touche'

In His Grace,
Linda There is an ignore feature on this forum.,Further as I understand the rules, #7 allows for at least some content control on part of the thread originator. Since you've come to criticize perhaps you will also note that I have not enterred any threads asking for mid Acts adherents only. You might also notice that I have not 'called anyone out'. Another favor not returned. I hope that explains the merit I give your complaint.

In the mean time rest assurred I laugh at anyone, DF, X9 or any variety, trying to promote some wrong headed Gospel of Jewish Nationalism. There is but one Gospel and one Kingdom and its is spiritual and eternal not temporal and temporary and it is entered through being 'born-from-above'.


I wouldn't chalk that up as "victory" on your part as much as I would suggest, that no Acts 9'rs care too much to be belittled and "LMAO" at, each and every time you post, without any biblical refutation.

Without any??? Perhaps you missed the tittle of thisthread? Or were you unaware that 'You must be born-again' is a Scriptural quote? And still thre is not a single Scripture offerred to support ignoring what Jesus taught.

Now the onus is upon you and your pals to demostrate why you can and do speak contrary to our Lord.



And it come with this promise..I will never tell you how to post. please do the same for me.

take care

Hitch

[Xmansmommy]

Hitch:
There is an ignore feature on this forum.,
In the mean time rest assurred I laugh at anyone, DF, X9 or any variety, trying to promote some wrong headed Gospel of Jewish Nationalism. There is but one Gospel and one Kingdom and its is spiritual and eternal not temporal and temporary.
Without any??? Perhaps you missed the title of thsi thread? Or were you unaware that 'You must be born-again' is a Scriptural quote?
Now the onus is upon you and your pals to demostrate why you can and do speak contrary to our Lord.
And it come with this promise..I will never tell you how to post. please do the same for me.

take care

Hitch
Well Hitch, you are absolutely correct my friend, there is indeed an ignore feature. As for the quote you refer to, I do believe that may have been addressed but your response was probably "LMAO"....oh well. And as for me and my pals, we speak in line with our RISEN Lord, Jesus Christ.
Oh and btw, I don't recall telling you how to post, just commented that perhaps you shouldn't chalk the absense of discussion up to victory on your part. On the contrary my friend, most have probably decided to engage that ignore feature you suggest they do. Just my thoughts. I'm sure you'll leave them, and.......so be it.

Blessings in Him,
Linda

[AcousticJS]

truthman:
My membership in the Body of Christ is based on adoption (Ephesians 1), not birth, and I am called a new creation and a saint.

Others may have already answered this one, but when the bible uses the term adoption, it doesn't mean the western concept of adoption. It refers to the Roman practice where nobility would place their own offspring into the care of a tutor, and then 'adopt' them at a coming of age ceremony.

In Ephesians, Paul says:

"He did this by predestining us to adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ" NET Bible (http://www.bible.org/)

Applying the Roman concept of adoption to this verse could place adoption at some future point, while we are currently born from above under the tutelage that God has for us in this world.

That's my interpretation for what it's worth!

Blessings in Christ
Jon

PS. My understanding of the concept of adoption comes from 'The Ultimate Intention' by DeVern Fromke (http://www.surefoundation.com/)

[smilax]

Act9_12Out:
Paul never alludes to Christians being born again, or a necessity to be born again...Perhaps here...

Galatians iv, 29: "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."

Predicted pushback: "that was born" is not in the original text. So what? The antithetical parallelism makes it clear that this is what is meant. And following Paul's argument, we, the children of promise in line with the type of Isaac and in contrast to the children of the flesh under Ishmael, are born after the Spirit.

[joelkaki]

"circumcision believers "


I request Biblical evidence for the use of such a term.


Joel

[joelkaki]

Smilax, that one is going to be very hard to answer.


Joel

[truthman]

AcousticJS,

Actually, the term of 'adoption' that Paul used was from the Greek concept that an adopted child could not be disinherited, thereby denoting eternal security.

The Jewish believers did not have eternal security before the dispensation of grace.

truthman

[Hitch]

joelkaki:
Smilax, that one is going to be very hard to answer.


Joel Not really Joel. Its right next to the one where Pauls says only his letters are for the church,,,II Hezikiah 2;14.

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

I have looked back at your posts and have not found one post where you attempt to exegete a passage. You have beat to death John 3:1-5, and have not yet offered your thoughts on the passage. Let me ask a pointed question... What does it mean in John 3:5 when we are to be born of the water and the Spirit? Are you implying water regeneration here? If not, what does the passage mean? Please give a thorough exegesis of the passage. Now, on to your questions... You ask,What Scripture says the church was never prophesied ? Which one?Well, there are a couple. The one I prefer is found in Ephesians 3:1-9.The New King James Version

Ephesians 3
3:1
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles--
3:2
if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,Who did Christ give this dispensation to? That's right Hitch, He gave it to Paul. Now we know that Paul was anti-Jesus until the 9th chapter of Acts. This message, the dispensation of the grace of God was not revealed to anyone until after Acts 9. As a matter of fact, it was "hidden in God" (Eph 3:9). Lets continue...3:3
how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,
3:4
by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),That's right Hitch! Christ made known to Paul the mystery. What is the mystery you ask? Well, thank God the Bible is the perfect book for all time. God gives us the answer to what the mystery is in this same passage...3:5
which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:Uh oh Hitch... The mystery (the body of Christ) was not made known in previous ages... Again, what is this mystery? The next verse tells us what the body of Christ is...3:6
that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,
3:7
of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.That's right Hitch... The mystery of the body of Christ is that Jews are no longer top dog in God's eyes... The gentiles should be fellow heirs in Christ in the same body. Guess what? This mystery was never revealed until it was revealed to the Apostle Paul. As a matter of fact, Paul affirms that the mystery was not only revealed to him, but that the mystery is referred to as the unsearchable riches of Christ. Let's read it!3:8
To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,Check the word for "unsearchable" in the original. It literally means "untracable" meaning you cannot find it anywhere else in Scripture until it is revealed to Paul. Now, let's see if you really follow the teachings of Christ, or if you're just blowing smoke again. If you believe that Christ inspired the words that Paul wrote (Gal 1:1), then you obviously are following what Paul's desire for ministry is, right? Let's read it!3:9
and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;Hitch, is your desire to "make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery?" That is the basis of my ministry. Hitch, notice that the dispensation of the mystery, which you should help all men to see, has been hidden in God from the beginning of the ages and has now been revealed to Paul. Doesn't sound like you're following the Lord's commandments after all... Next, you say,When did Jesus ever tell a Gentile to be circumscised?The man Christ Jesus did not... However, God the Son revealed this truth to Abram in Gen 17. Feel free to read it at your leisure. BTW, if they weren't circumcised, God would cut them off... Oh yeah, that means He would kill them... Then you ask,Are you born-again?Like I said before... I was not water baptized for salvation (John 3:5). Please address John 3:5, Acts 2:38, etc... You say,What Scripture says all but Paul's letters are nationallly specific?Where is this passage?Fell free to read Ephesians 2:1-20. It's called apologetics. It is necessary to induct information and make logical deductions concerning Scripture. As noted above, God revealed the mystery to Paul, and addresses the body of Christ through Paul's writings. Next you ask,Where does Paul say that only his letters are to the church?
What is the passage where is it?Reference above concerning apologetics, and Eph 3:1-9.

Now Hitch, I'm sure your knee-jerk reaction will be to jump into personal attacks once again. I ask that you refrain and address the issue at hand. Please exegete John 3:1-5, Acts 2:38 and Eph 3:1-9.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Hi smilax,

The point is, John 3:!-5 refers to being water baptized for salvation. This is in line with John the Baptist's ministry where he is preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Peter's message is similar in Acts 2:38. Circumcision believers needed to show their faith by being water baptized.

Joel,

You ask where the term "circumcision believer" comes from? Well, I know you dusagree with my view on Galatians 2:1-8. The gospel of the circumcision is the gospel for circumcision believers. Another interesting point is the Jesus Christ is the minister for the circumcision believers.The New King James Version

Romans 15
15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers,And, as I already showed before, Christ's earthly ministry was for the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 15:24). This is interesting when you contrast Paul and his statement that he is a minister for the gentiles, and the body of Christ (Eph 3:1-9).The New King James Version

Romans 15
15:16
that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch & Reba,

I find it interesting that you two are very selective when choosing which of Christ's commands you choose to follow. Let me ask both of you... Do you own a home? How about a car? Do you have any personal possessions at all? If so, you are rejecting the Word of the Lord!The New King James Version

Mark 10
10:21
Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me."The point here is to show how foolish it is to chastise me for supposedly rejecting the words of Christ. Like I said, very interesting how you two are selective...

[Hitch]

Now Hitch, I'm sure your knee-jerk reaction will be to jump into personal attacks once again. I ask that you refrain and address the issue at hand. Please exegete John 3:1-5, Acts 2:38 and Eph 3:1-9.

In Christ, --Jeremy First of all the 'issue at hand' is 'Ye must be born again' . If you want to talk about some other subject start a thread.

Secondly, below is for the third time repeated a lits of question I put to you which as yet remain unanswered.






When did Jesus ever tell a Gentile to be circumscised?


Are you born-again?


What Scripture says all but Paul's letters are nationallly specific?Where is this passage?


Where does Paul say that only his letters are to the church?
What is the passage where is it?

Hitch

[Hitch]

Act9_12Out:
Hitch & Reba,

I find it interesting that you two are very selective when choosing which of Christ's commands you choose to follow. Let me ask both of you... Do you own a home? How about a car? Do you have any personal possessions at all? If so, you are rejecting the Word of the Lord!The point here is to show how foolish it is to chastise me for supposedly rejecting the words of Christ. Like I said, very interesting how you two are selective... Actually Christ's commands are based on the Decalogue and imply as well as expressly provide for private property rights. Now jr if you want to play word games start a thread. If you continue to refuse to keep to topic, especially so predictably, I will ask the Moderator to he pertainent rule.

Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

You crack me up...:rofl: Honestly, you make no sense... You get angry and accuse me of not sticking to the topic? I answered the questions you asked... Maybe you should start a thread every time you ask a question... You said,First of all the 'issue at hand' is 'Ye must be born again' . If you want to talk about some other subject start a thread.Again, the only thing I did was answer your questions... Next you say,Secondly, below is for the third time repeated a lits of question I put to you which as yet remain unanswered.I already answered those questions (See above). I asked that you respond to my post with Scripture which you have failed to do again. Then you say,Actually Christ's commands are based on the Decalogue and imply as well as expressly provide for private property rights.I don't know why I'm going to ask this... You never reply with Scripture anyway but... Please show me from Scripture that your above statement holds any water. Then, you continue with your norm and personally attack when you say,Now jr if you want to play word games start a thread. If you continue to refuse to keep to topic, especially so predictably, I will ask the Moderator to he pertainent rule.That's funny that you call me "jr" and threaten to tattle for answering questions that you asked. Honestly, I was wondering how old you really are. I was going to ask that you leave this forum and join your peers on ChristianTeenChat.com

If you don't want to answer my questions and refuse to exegete the above listed passages, that's fine. I wouldn't expect any less...

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Who did Christ give this dispensation to? That's right Hitch, He gave it to Paul. Now we know that Paul was anti-Jesus until the 9th chapter of Acts. This message, the dispensation of the grace of God was not revealed to anyone until after Acts 9. As a matter of fact, it was "hidden in God" (Eph 3:9). Lets continue...


Hmmm, I think you are forgetting a part here. "...as it has now been revealed by the Spirit TO HIS HOLY APOSTLES AND PROPHETS." It was not just revealed to Paul. You can't just focus on him like that.

Also notice that the mystery was not the body of Christ. The mystery was that Gentiles would be in the same body as the Jews.

Joel

[Hitch]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Scripture says the church was never prophesied ? Which one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there are a couple. The one I prefer is found in Ephesians 3:1-9.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Ephesians 3
3:1
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles--
3:2
if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,

Well niether one make such a statement or implication . Try again.

H

[Hitch]

Who did Christ give this dispensation to? That's right Hitch, He gave it to Paul. Now we know that Paul was anti-Jesus until the 9th chapter of Acts. This message, the dispensation of the grace of God was not revealed to anyone until after Acts 9. As a matter of fact, it was "hidden in God" (Eph 3:9). Lets continue

Of course you are correct . Provided we again ignore our Lord's quoted command;


Mark 16:15
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
(KJV)

Now Im not the expert on Paul that you are but didnt this come well before Paul's conversion?




3:5
which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:


Yawn,,,, and what inall this 'mystery' worship tells us that we do not have to heed our Lord's command 'Ye must be born again?

Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You say,Hmmm, I think you are forgetting a part here. "...as it has now been revealed by the Spirit TO HIS HOLY APOSTLES AND PROPHETS." It was not just revealed to Paul. You can't just focus on him like that.Joel, you must have missed Ephesians 3:2,3...The New King James Version

Ephesians 3
3:2
if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
3:3
how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,You are right that Paul says, "which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:". Now, how can Paul make this statement? By the time he writes Ephesians / Colossians, he has already been given the right hand of fellowship, and God had confirmed that this new message Paul is preaching is true (Jerusalem council, 1 Peter 3:9-16). God revealed it first to Paul shortly after his conversion (Acts 9), and then later to the apostles and prophets (Acts 15 and beyond). Then you say,Also notice that the mystery was not the body of Christ. The mystery was that Gentiles would be in the same body as the Jews.Ah, you miss the distinction drawn here... Paul says,Ephesians 3
3:6
that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,
3:7
of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.See, here's the rub... They are fellow heir with the Jews. This is the result of God tearing down the "middle wall of separation" or the racial enmity that was in existence before the conception of the body of Christ (Eph 2:1-20). As I have stated before, God was dealing with Israel. If a person wanted to become saved, they needed to proselyte to Judiasm. Now, after God reveals the mystery of the body of Christ to Paul, there is no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, no male nor female... All are equal in the body of Christ. This is a new program that was revealed to the Apostle Paul and later confirmed to the apostles, prophets and leaders of the Jerusalem church.

Now Joel, I ask again... Do you share Paul's desire "to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery?" I know I do!

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Hitch]

Hitch, is your desire to "make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery?" That is the basis of my ministry. Hitch, notice that the dispensation of the mystery, which you should help all men to see, has been hidden in God from the beginning of the ages and has now been revealed to Paul. Doesn't sound like you're following the Lord's commandments after all... Next, you say,
quote:

Ya mean like


Mark 16:15
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
(KJV)

You missed it again.


H

[Hitch]

When did Jesus ever tell a Gentile to be circumscised?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The man Christ Jesus did not... However, God the Son revealed this truth to Abram in Gen 17. Feel free to read it at your leisure. BTW, if they weren't circumcised, God would cut them off... Oh yeah, that means He would kill them... Then you ask,
quote:

To aid your selective memory. this is a response to one of your quotes in which you said, I cant recall exactly, that salvation came previously through the Law and especially circumscision.(Im not going to bother to look up the quote)

Now you have already addmitted no such quote is to be found from our Lord. Yet something is direct contrast is available;


Matt 12:41
41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
(KJV)


I missed the part about circumscision on part of the Ninevites, yet Jesus says they will stand in judgement against the circumscised Pharisees.

Again because of your demonstrated distaste for our Lord's own word you have grossly misconstrued the message.

H

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

Once again, you fail to answer any questions... You say,Of course you are correct . Provided we again ignore our Lord's quoted command;


Mark 16:15
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.Why do you stop there?The New King James Version

Mark 16 Read This Chapter
16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
16:17
And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;
16:18
they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."Did you get water baptized to be saved? Do you normally handle snakes? How about drinking a glass of fuming hydrochloric acid? Every time you lay hands on someone, are they, without fail, healed? How many people have you raised from the dead Hitch? That's what I thought... Once again, you fail to recognize that these were gifts given to the circumcision apostles to confirm Christ's Messiahship under that dispensation. Next you say,Yawn,,,, and what inall this 'mystery' worship tells us that we do not have to heed our Lord's command 'Ye must be born again?Hitch, you again do not respond to the water regeneration in John 3:5. This is a consistent theme in the gospels beginning with John the Baptist.The New King James Version

Mark 1
1:4
John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
1:5
Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.As a matter of fact, the self-righteous pharisees were condemned for rejecting the will (boule) of God.The New King James Version

Luke 7
7:30
But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.Peter continues with water baptism for salvation after the death, burial and resurrection.The New King James Version

Acts 2
2:38
Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.Now, you ask,Yawn,,,, and what inall this 'mystery' worship tells us that we do not have to heed our Lord's command 'Ye must be born again?Well, Paul shows us that in the body of Christ, God does not ask us to be water baptized anymore. Therefore, we do not need to be "born again" in the same way Christ commands Nicodemus by being water baptized.The New King James Version

1 Corinthians 1 Read This Chapter
1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

The New King James Version

Ephesians 4
4:4
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
4:5
one Lord, one faith, one baptism;There is now one baptism for the body of Christ, and it does not include water. The Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ.The New King James Version

1 Corinthians 12
12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.Now Hitch, I ask you yet another question I'm sure you won't answer... Do you share Paul's desire to "make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery?" (Eph 3:9)

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

I think I get where you're coming from. Basically, in your opinion, the only part of the Bible we should read are the words in red... I see what you mean now. Do you deny that circumcision was an essential part of the Jewish message of salvation? It was most definitely being taught in the church, even after the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.The New King James Version

Acts 15
15:1
And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."Oh wait, these words are not in red, so we should disregard them...

Notice, they were teaching circumcision for salvation Hitch...

[Reba]

Was Luke Greek?

[yxboom]

Hitch:
Actually Christ's commands are based on the Decalogue and imply as well as expressly provide for private property rights. Now jr if you want to play word games start a thread. If you continue to refuse to keep to topic, especially so predictably, I will ask the Moderator to he pertainent rule.

Hitch I find it convenient that the questions posed to Acts9 apologetic implication is not allowed, it must be explicit yet you appeal to apologetic deduction and implication when it serves your own purpose :huh: . Now don't tell me you resort to "I'm telling on you" when you are confronted with answers that you can not handle. I have followed the thread and Acts9 has not only given a reply to your questions that you initiated but given ample and clear answers exegetically and scripturally. Whether I agree or disagree with his points I have found the reciprocity lacking in your own posts.

[smilax]

Act9_12Out:
The point is, John 3:!-5 refers to being water baptized for salvation. This is in line with John the Baptist's ministry where he is preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Peter's message is similar in Acts 2:38. Circumcision believers needed to show their faith by being water baptized.Ephesians v, 26: "That he [Christ] might sanctify and cleanse it [the church] with the washing of water by the word."

Paul is not talking about water baptism. What makes you think John was? (Ezekiel xxxvi, 25-27 isn't about literal baptism, either.) As for Peter, "eis" can mean both "for" and "because of." And no one has ever been saved aside from faith alone. Ever. This includes water baptism. It is not the water of John the Baptist's ministry that cleansed them.

[Darth Xena]

Thank you Smilax, very good points indeed.

[Act9_12Out]

smilax,

You say,Paul is not talking about water baptism. What makes you think John was?Are you serious? The gospels open with John the Baptist's ministry water baptizing in the Jordan river. Are you implying that although water baptism is going on all throughout the region, that Jesus tells Nicodemus to be baptized by something other than water (even though He says "born of the water and the Spirit")? Jesus Christ Himself is water baptized in the Jordan river by John. Please re-read Mark 1:4,5...The New King James Version

Mark 1
1:4
John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
1:5
Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. They were being water baptized and confessing their sins. The point here is not that the water had some magical agent in it that washed away sin, but rather, as I have stated many times before, the Jews went out to John by faith to his baptism to have their sins forgiven. Please respond to the will (boule) of Luke 7:30. As I'm sure you realize, boule is a strong word for God's will. This is not the thelema will, which is translated "wish or will." The boule will is God's determined will. As stated before, the lawyers and pharisees rejected God's determined will, not having been baptized (Luke 7:30).The New King James Version

Luke 7
7:30
But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will (boule)of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.Next you say,(Ezekiel xxxvi, 25-27 isn't about literal baptism, either.)Where did you get that idea? Ezekiel is referring back to the red heifer baptism of Numbers 19. This water baptism is also for purification from sin (Numbers 19:9-17). This most definitely is water baptism... You continue,As for Peter, "eis" can mean both "for" and "because of."Really? I strongly disagree. I assume you've been reading A.T. Robertson on Acts 2:38, eh? The problem is, eis occurs 1773 times in the NT. Every time it is used, its shows aim or purpose. The eis in Acts 2:38 means excatly what it says... "for the remission of sins." Again, the point is... This is how God asked them to show their faith. Please take note of the ekastos in verse 38 as well. The ekastos is a partitive genitive. Peter's command is distributed to the individual among the plural crowd (Let each one of you be baptized...). You say,And no one has ever been saved aside from faith alone. Ever.Ah, another problem with semantics. I have shown that God asks man to show faith in different ways. James refers back to Abraham in Genesis 22 to show that he was saved by his faith + works. Today, God asks the body of Christ only to believe in the death, burial and resurrection. However, there was a point in time where the nation of Israel had to show their faith in physical ways. You continue,This includes water baptism. It is not the water of John the Baptist's ministry that cleansed themI would also ask that you address the aorist participles in Mark 16:16. As I'm sure you're aware, grammatically, the action of the aorist participles must be completed before the action of the main verb can take place.The New King James Version

Mark 16
16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.As I'm sure you're aware, He who believes and He who is baptized are both aorist participles. Grammatically, the action of the aorist participle must be completed before the action of the verb can take place. The main verb in this case, sothesetai is the future passive indicative 3rd person singular "will be saved." Again, the time in aorist participles indicate action prior to the main verb. Mark 16:16 definitely shows under that dispensation, believers had to believe and had to be baptized (completed) before the action of the main verb will be saved could take place. Literally the passage,Mark 16:16
O pisteusas kai baptistheis sothesetai...could be translated literally as such...The having believed one and the having been baptized one will be saved.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Hitch]

yxboom:
I find it convenient that the questions posed to Acts9 apologetic implication is not allowed, it must be explicit yet you appeal to apologetic deduction and implication when it serves your own purpose :huh: . Now don't tell me you resort to "I'm telling on you" when you are confronted with answers that you can not handle. I have followed the thread and Acts9 has not only given a reply to your questions that you initiated but given ample and clear answers exegetically and scripturally. Whether I agree or disagree with his points I have found the reciprocity lacking in your own posts. I 've delt with DFs for quite some time and have endured similar experiences. My intention is to maintain a narrow focus in this thread . A favorite DF tactic is to confuse issues and changethefocus. As is comon among cults.

Since its seems it is your intention, and typical of DFs, to interfere and even chide me for the very allusion to the rules perhaps you should explain to whom the rules apply. Please make it clear now .before I waste any more time here whether the rules apply to all or if the usual Df double standards apply.





Hitch

[Hitch]

Act9_12Out:
Hitch,

I think I get where you're coming from. Basically, in your opinion, the only part of the Bible we should read are the words in red... I see what you mean now. Do you deny that circumcision was an essential part of the Jewish message of salvation? It was most definitely being taught in the church, even after the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.Oh wait, these words are not in red, so we should disregard them...

Notice, they were teaching circumcision for salvation Hitch... So they were wrong. So are you.

I think I get where you're coming from. Basically, in your opinion, the only part of the Bible we should read are the words in red... LMAO A good demonstration of the value of your opinions and conclusions.

But with your pal YX you have again avoided the basic questiuon of the thread as the this has nothing to do with our Lord saying 'Ye must be born-again'

[yxboom]

Last I checked DDW was not a "DF" and neither is about over half of the moderators on this forum. Do they count too? Please specify which rule it is that you are requesting to be enforced: the 12K post length, gratuitous name calling?

[Hitch]

yxboom:
Last I checked DDW was not a "DF" and neither is about over half of the moderators on this forum. Do they count too? Please specify which rule it is that you are requesting to be enforced: the 12K post length, gratuitous name calling? What difference does that make to my question YX?

[yxboom]

If you are going to complain hitch please clarify and make sense as to what you are complaining about. In your previous post there was no question else if there was, the poor use of punctuations hid it from me. What infraction has Acts9_12Out committed that you would like addressed that all of us DFs have chided and alluded to?

[Hitch]

Well, Paul shows us that in the body of Christ, God does not ask us to be water baptized anymore. Therefore, we do not need to be "born again" in the same way Christ commands Nicodemus by being water baptized.
quote: Water has never saved anyone jr you should know that.

Do you and YX need a bunch of Scriptures to explain that?

BTw have you ever heard of teaching by example? Or are you trying to say Jesus needed to be saved?

Hitch

[Hitch]

yxboom:
If you are going to complain hitch please clarify and make sense as to what you are complaining about. In your previous post there was no question else if there was, the poor use of punctuations hid it from me. What infraction has Acts9_12Out committed that you would like addressed that all of us DFs have chided and alluded to? I 've delt with DFs for quite some time and have endured similar experiences. My intention is to maintain a narrow focus in this thread . A favorite DF tactic is to confuse issues and changethefocus. As is comon among cults.

Since its seems it is your intention, and typical of DFs, to interfere and even chide me for the very allusion to the rules perhaps you should explain to whom the rules apply. Please make it clear now .before I waste any more time here whether the rules apply to all or if the usual DF double standards apply.

Since you missed it. the question is whether or not YOU ,,not Dee Dee or anyone else, are planning to enforce the rules evenly, if requested. The original question is in bold above.

And since you seem obsessed with this idea I'll take this time to inform you that no infraction has been alleged except in your imagination.



Hitch

[yxboom]

If there is no infraction than this whole hissy fit is of no value. When there has been an infraction than get back with me.

[Hitch]

yxboom:
If there is no infraction than this whole hissy fit is of no value. When there has been an infraction than get back with me. Well I was wondering why you were haveing such a fit...

But its interesting that you didnt address the question.

H

[joelkaki]

If Jesus said, "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," I really don't see how there can be a debate about it. Jesus didn't say if you live in a few years, or if you are in the body of Christ, etc, you don't have to be born again. There is no ambiguity in his statement. Unless one is born again, HE CANNOT see the kingdom of God.


Joel

[yxboom]

Joel consider
Exodus 31:15-17 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. (17) It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Leviticus 16:31 It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute forever.
What of those born during the life of Christ were they told that in a few years they wouldn't have to keep the sabbath? God didn't give any stipulations or exceptions regarding the sabbath. It was a covenant to be observed forever.

[Reba]

Heb 4:1-5:1
4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

KJV

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

Your logic defies me... I offer Scriptural evidence that believing Jews are teaching circumcision for salvation...The New King James Version

Acts 15
15:5
But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."...and you answer (with no Scripture yet once again) is,So they were wrong. So are you.Wow! How enlightening! Now, I ask, who do I believe? The Bible which says circumcision was a necessary part of the salvation message for the Jews, or Hitch who says, "So they were wrong. So are you." I think I'll stick with the Bible... Next, you say,But with your pal YX you have again avoided the basic questiuon of the thread as the this has nothing to do with our Lord saying 'Ye must be born-again'More lies... You asked if we needed to be born again, I answered "NO!" What else is there to this discussion? Your best argument that you repeat over and over (with no explaination of what the passage means) is, "Our Lord said it, so we have to do it." Yet, when I offered,The New King James Version

Mark 10
10:21
Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me."You answer that passage with some nonsense about the decalogue, and again offer no Scriptural evidence that what you're saying is true. You missed the point entirely. The question is, how can you decided which red words apply to all mankind for all time, and which red words do not? Your best answer for John 3:5 is, "Jesus said it, so it is necessary to do it," but for Mark 10:21, Christ's words do not have the same merit. Why is that? Then, I offer a complete exegesis of Mark 16:16 which shows grammatically that one must be water baptized prior to salvation in that dispensation. Instead of addressing the passage, and giving your thoughts on it, you say,Water has never saved anyone jr you should know that.More enlightenment! I'm convinced! You resort to childish name calling and refuse to answer the passage. You continue,Do you and YX need a bunch of Scriptures to explain that?Isn't that what I've been asking you to do for the past week? The answer to this question is "YES!" Prove what you say from Scripture! Then you say,BTw have you ever heard of teaching by example? Or are you trying to say Jesus needed to be saved?Again, you make a foolish statement with no proof text. I never said that Jesus needed to be saved. Show me where John's baptism of Jesus is "teaching by example." You won'y find it. Again, when I have to trust Hitch or the Bible, I'll take the Bible every time. If you read your Bible, you will see why Christ was baptized by John in the Jordan.The New King James Version

Matthew 3
3:13
Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him.
3:14
And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?"John knows that Christ is the promised Messiah that he has been waiting for. John questions Christ's desire to be baptized by him. What is Christ's response?Matthew 3
3:15
But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him.Jesus was not baptized for salvation, nor was this a "teaching by example." Jesus Christ was baptized by John in the Jordan to "fulfill all righteousness."

Hitch, you have a lot of things to respond to, but I know you won't...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You say,If Jesus said, "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," I really don't see how there can be a debate about it. Jesus didn't say if you live in a few years, or if you are in the body of Christ, etc, you don't have to be born again. There is no ambiguity in his statement. Unless one is born again, HE CANNOT see the kingdom of God.Let's test this statement to see if it's true. Jesus also said,The New King James Version

Mark 10
10:21
Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me."Let's insert this into your statement... (In italics)If Jesus said, "Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me." I really don't see how there can be a debate about it. Jesus didn't say if you live in a few years, or if you are in the body of Christ, etc, you don't have to sell whatever you have, take up your cross and follow me. There is no ambiguity in his statement. Unless one sells everything he owns, takes up his croos and follows Christ, HE CANNOT have treasure in heaven.Now Joel, how do we decide which of Christ's words are for all mankind throughout all time? The main theme you miss is: Who is Christ speaking to? For what purpose is He speaking these words? What dispensation is it being said under? In order to sort this all out, one must,The New King James Version

2 Timothy 2
2:15
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.We are called to "rightly divide the word of truth."

BTW, please feel free to address any of the points I made to Hitch & smilax. I know that you and smilax will both offer a rebuttal with Scripture, and make a logical presentation.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

yxboom, I'm not going to debate this right now, but I believe we should keep the Sabbath.


Joel

[joelkaki]

Acts9, notice in the selling possessions situation, he was not establishing a rule, he was speaking to that specific young man because he had an issue with riches. In John 3 he tells us that unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Colossians 1:13 tells us that we have been translated into the kingdom, so we must be born again. Christ's statement was not just applying to one individual person, he said unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. To see the kingdom of God, you have to be born again.

Joel

[yxboom]

joelkaki:
yxboom, I'm not going to debate this right now, but I believe we should keep the Sabbath.


Joel Ok. Gotcha!

[yxboom]

I respect that at least you are being consistent. Just for clarity would you apply this to yourself as well?

Matthew 23:1-3 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

[Hitch]

yxboom:
I respect that at least you are being consistent. Just for clarity would you apply this to yourself as well?

Yes . Its important to do what is right even if the so called teachers are practicing 'do as I say not as I do' tactics'.

Now Jesus said'

Ye must be born again


What gives you the authority to deny this command?


Hitch

[Hitch]

Now Joel, how do we decide which of Christ's words are for all mankind throughout all time? The main theme you miss is: Who is Christ speaking to? For what purpose is He speaking these words? What dispensation is it being said under? In order to sort this all out, one must,

Provide from Scripture a definition and delineation of all the dispensations. Since if they are not agreed upon as to distinctions and existence your statement above is valuless.


Now you have carried on and whined that I dont use enough Scripture to suit your tastes. So where are your definitions and delineatiions from Scriptures wrt all the 'dispensations'. where are the universally agreed upon seperations/ where do the NT writers refer to all these 'dispensations by name?

Now in keeping with the originators aim please answer this on the thread dedicated to this topic

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=796


Hitch

[Darth Xena]

yxboom:
Joel consider

[quote]What of those born during the life of Christ were they told that in a few years they wouldn't have to keep the sabbath? God didn't give any stipulations or exceptions regarding the sabbath. It was a covenant to be observed forever.

I am sorry that I just do not have the time to dedicate to this thread... as it is an interesing subject, but I would not do it justice... but to jump in a sec, I see a problem with this statement here......

Well if that is so, then why don't we insist that today's Jewish believers in Christ observe the Sabbath?

[Hitch]

Still waiting...


When did Jesus ever tell a Gentile to be circumscised?


Are you born-again? You already failed here but these others havent been answered...


What Scripture says all but Paul's letters are nationallly specific?Where is this passage?


Where does Paul say that only his letters are to the church?
What is the passage where is it?

Hitch

[yxboom]

DDW,

If you looked at joe's statement that I made mine from you will see...
joelkaki:
If Jesus said, "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," I really don't see how there can be a debate about it. Jesus didn't say if you live in a few years, or if you are in the body of Christ, etc, you don't have to be born again. There is no ambiguity in his statement. Unless one is born again, HE CANNOT see the kingdom of God.


Joel
By you acknowledging that sabbath observance is not a requirement than you have thus proven my point.

[Darth Xena]

Hey Boom, no actually I am asking you to show how something that is "forever" can be abrogated. I don't believe it has been, it has been fulfilled in Christ, and thus is being observed by virtue of our status of being in Christ.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Boom:

And someone commented (Joel or Hitch) about our being translated NOW into the Kingdom, and Christ's words that NO man can see the Kingdom unless He be born again... Scripture then tells us that we as believers are born again.

[yxboom]

Dee Dee Warren:
Hey Boom, no actually I am asking you to show how something that is "forever" can be abrogated. I don't believe it has been, it has been fulfilled in Christ, and thus is being observed by virtue of our status of being in Christ. But how does this relate to the jewish person who was born 3 years after Christ's death. Did he stop having to keep the Sabbath or was he still under God's prescribed punishment of death for breaking it? Do you still observe the sabbath the way that you observe water baptism? I know you were water baptised so why is one (Sabbath) by virtue when both are explicit commandments?
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
As a member of the Body of Christ we are baptised by the Spirit into the Body not by Water into the kingdom. Your practice is inconsistent.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Boom:

I promise when I get more time I will get back to this. I notice though you did not answer my question though but rather questioned how it relates to the subject. I would still like an answer though even though you think it is irrelevant. And also I would like to see in the OT where baptism is a commandment for atonement of sins.

And for the record, I do not believe that the "born again" passage is referring to water baptism at all, so I would agree that we are all baptized by the Spirit into the Body, thus, if I am right, we are all born again proven by another passage. You did not deal with the translated into the kingdom passage, but then again I did not deal with all of yours either. I should know better than to butt in when I do not have the adequate time to devote... that is not particularly respectful to the person I am interacting with, so I apologize. Maybe you and I can put our questions on a back burner and get to them later??

[yxboom]

Sounds good.

[doogieduff]

HITCH,

DO YOU EVER BACK UP WHAT YOU BELIEVE WITH SCRIPTURE!?

This is TheologyWeb not OpinionWeb.

Let's follow your thoughtline of "If Jesus says it, we must do it."

Matthew 16:20 "Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ."

Foolish...

[Hitch]

Well loud one 'Ye must be born-again' is Scripture.

Now do you think this command applied only to Nick?

Do you think there might be some specific reason Jesus made the command you brought up that tells us it was specific to that instant?


One of the best parts of this thread is watching as you use the same tired and foolish context ignoring arguments the pagans rely on. It a shame but it has its homorous moments, but it really doesnt belong on a presupositionalist thread, a guilty pleasure I suppose...But it is interesting to see how willingly you and your pals are to use the words of our Lord in such a way. Not very honoring though.


Oh btw it is forbidden for any married man to speak for the Paulist...

Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Dee Dee,

You said,And also I would like to see in the OT where baptism is a commandment for atonement of sins.The ordinance of baptism for atonement from sin originates in Numbers 19 at the red heifer baptism...The New King James Version

Numbers 19
19:9
Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification; it is for purifying from sin.
19:10
And the one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until evening. It shall be a statute forever to the children of Israel and to the stranger who dwells among them.
19:11
'He who touches the dead body of anyone shall be unclean seven days.
19:12
He shall purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean.
19:13
Whoever touches the body of anyone who has died, and does not purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of the Lord. That person shall be cut off from Israel. He shall be unclean, because the water of purification was not sprinkled on him; his uncleanness is still on him.
19:14
'This is the law when a man dies in a tent: All who come into the tent and all who are in the tent shall be unclean seven days;
19:15
and every open vessel, which has no cover fastened on it, is unclean.
19:16
Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain by a sword or who has died, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
19:17
And for an unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for purification from sin, and running water shall be put on them in a vessel.I would also ask that you or Hitch respond to Hitch's original quote from Mark 16. I wrote,I would also ask that you address the aorist participles in Mark 16:16. As I'm sure you're aware, grammatically, the action of the aorist participles must be completed before the action of the main verb can take place.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Mark 16
16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I'm sure you're aware, He who believes and He who is baptized are both aorist participles. Grammatically, the action of the aorist participle must be completed before the action of the verb can take place. The main verb in this case, sothesetai is the future passive indicative 3rd person singular "will be saved." Again, the time in aorist participles indicate action prior to the main verb. Mark 16:16 definitely shows under that dispensation, believers had to believe and had to be baptized (completed) before the action of the main verb will be saved could take place. Literally the passage,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark 16:16
O pisteusas kai baptistheis sothesetai
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...could be translated literally as such...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The having believed one and the having been baptized one will be saved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In Christ, --Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

Doogie makes a great point that you seem to miss. The question on the table is, "How does one discern which of Christ's statements apply to all mankind for all time?" Again, we must identify:

*Who is speaking...
*Who this person is speaking to...
*What is the context / purpose of the statement...
*What dispensation it is being said under...

Again, when Christ tells Nicodemus that one must "be born of the water and the Spirit," I have shown that water regeneration was necessary for salvation in that dispensation. Please respond the the grammar of Mark 16:16...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[yxboom]

Doggie while your point is relevant and appreciated there is no reason for the extra-large bold words. I removed the bold and size tags in your post.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Acts 9:

I notice that you asked me for a response... I do hope you saw where I posted to Boom that I truly did not have the time to devote to this thread as I am involved in several other very involved debates, so I apologized for butting in when I did not have the time to really devote.... I hope to return to this subject at same point in the future, but eschatology is much more my passion and where I spend the majority of my time. But I am planning on coming back to this if those others finish up without me getting entangled in others.

[Hitch]

Act9_12Out:
Hitch,

Doogie makes a great point that you seem to miss. The question on the table is, "How does one discern which of Christ's statements apply to all mankind for all time?" Again, we must identify:

*Who is speaking...
*Who this person is speaking to...
*What is the context / purpose of the statement...
*What dispensation it is being said under...

Again, when Christ tells Nicodemus that one must "be born of the water and the Spirit," I have shown that water regeneration was necessary for salvation in that dispensation. Please respond the the grammar of Mark 16:16...

In Christ, --Jeremy Yawn,,, since you are assuming 'dispensations' I'll expect to see your Scripturally based and Scipturally delineated explanations of the various 'dispensations' aon the the thread devoted to that purpose, as I have asked before.

Please provide the list of Saints OC or New who were saved by water.


Hitch

[Hitch]

Just wanted to make #100,, naner naner naner

H

[Darth Xena]

Hitch - excuse the butt in... do you want a custom moniker under your name?? You know you can change that now in your profile and add an avatar if you want.

[Hitch]

Dee Dee Warren:
Hitch - excuse the butt in... do you want a custom moniker under your name?? You know you can change that now in your profile and add an avatar if you want. Like folks here dont know its me?


Ill think about it...

[Reba]

You can not believe how i am cracking up!

[doogieduff]

HITCH

Do you think there might be some specific reason Jesus made the command you brought up that tells us it was specific to that instant?

Maybe you can finally realize why I made my point. Of course my verse was specific. Now that you have realized this, maybe you will open up to realize that your verse is also specific. You're quick to hush my verse to only a certain people, but are proud to say that your verse applies to all because "Jesus said it." Acts 9_12 out has clearly showed you it doesn't deal with us, but you just conveniently skip over it. Show me where your John verse applies to everyone for all eternity.

One of the best parts of this thread is watching as you use the same tired and foolish context ignoring arguments the pagans rely on. It a shame but it has its homorous moments, but it really doesnt belong on a presupositionalist thread, a guilty pleasure I suppose...

Don't know how you can make such a statement about me. I haven't been debating at all, nor have I even told you what I believe. I came on here to help understand it more as I don't have a belief on the topic yet. I have you never quoting scripture except your original one verse. And I have Acts 9 quoting scripture for whatever he says. Even if you're right and he's wrong, who I am more likely to believe? Of course the one who backs up what he says biblically. You like to resort to personal attacks because you do not know your Bible. I'm very sorry you feel the need to do this.

But it is interesting to see how willingly you and your pals are to use the words of our Lord in such a way. Not very honoring though.

You know the difference between you and Acts 9, HE IS USING SCRIPTURE. You're not even using it, so how can you talk?

Let me quote YOU on page 6 of this thread.

Now Jesus said'
Ye must be born again
What gives you the authority to deny this command?
Hitch

Then I give you a verse from Christ, and you want to deny it applies to you. What gives YOU the authority to deny this command? At least stay consistent in your arguements, that's the least you could do.

[Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Acts 9:

I notice that you asked me for a response... I do hope you saw where I posted to Boom that I truly did not have the time to devote to this thread as I am involved in several other very involved debates, so I apologized for butting in when I did not have the time to really devote.... I hope to return to this subject at same point in the future, but eschatology is much more my passion and where I spend the majority of my time. But I am planning on coming back to this if those others finish up without me getting entangled in others.

Well plan to respond as well, but I do not have time today. I hope to respond tomorrow.

[joelkaki]

Acts9, why is it that Mark 16:16 doesn't say that he who is not baptized will be condemned? It doesn't say that. Sure, whoever believes, and is baptized, will be saved. But he who doesn't believe will be condemned. He who is not baptized will not be condemned.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I guess I missed the point... I asked you to respond to the grammar of Mark 16:16. You said,Acts9, why is it that Mark 16:16 doesn't say that he who is not baptized will be condemned?Now, let me ask,

"If someone does not believe, why would they be water baptized in the name of our Lord?"

I think your point is that because the text does not address those who are not baptized, then that proves something? Again, why would a non-believer submit to water baptism in the name of our Lord? They wouldn't... That's why the grammar is important. The grammar shows that under that dispensation, one must believe first and be baptized first before the action of the main verb (Will be saved) can take place...

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Dee Dee,

No problem... You asked for a proof text that showed water baptism for atonement for sin in the OT, so I offered Numbers 19. I hope when you have time to discuss, you will address the grammatical context of the aorist participles in Mark 16.

Take care, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Acts9, do you actually know any Greek, or are you just telling us what you have heard about those aorist participles?


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I'm disappointed in you... Instead of checking to see if what I say is true, you find it necessary to challenge my credentials... :huh:

Well, since you asked, I have taken Greek for approximately 8 years. I studied under Bob Hill, who has taught Greek for over 40 years. I am an ordained Pastor in the Grace Gospel Fellowship. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Theology with a minor in Greek. I was Bob Hill's associate pastor at Derby Bible Church in Colorado, and co-hosted "Biblical Answers" radio program with Bob Hill for over three years. I am currently working with Bob Hill's son-in-law, Eddie Cook at his church. I am an instructor at the Derby School of Theology, and have taught classes for approximately 4 years. Now, I hope this is satisfactory.

www.biblicalanswers.com

Again, I ask that you address the grammar of Mark 16:16. PLease feel free to consult your other Greek Scholars here. Make sure you check their credentials first, though...:read:

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

Feel free to do a search for Aorist Tense, Participles, Greek... It took about three minutes to find this...Greek for Euclid

The aorist describes a single definite action before a later action. Therefore, an aorist participle generally refers to a past action that is complete at the time of the main verb.www.du.edu/~jcalvert/classics/nugreek/lesson7.htm

The source I quoted in my earlier post was,

Essentials of New Testament Greek, Chapter 21.3, pg. 103
Ray Summers, revised by Thomas Sawyer, 1995 - Broadman & Holman

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Joel,

I'm disappointed in you... Instead of checking to see if what I say is true, you find it necessary to challenge my credentials...

I'm still checking it out. Don't overeact. I'm not challenging your credentials. I was just wondering if you actually knew some Greek, because a lot of people act like they do when they don't. It's not like if you didn't know Greek I wouldn't look into it, I just wanted to know.


Well, since you asked, I have taken Greek for approximately 8 years. I studied under Bob Hill, who has taught Greek for over 40 years. I am an ordained Pastor in the Grace Gospel Fellowship. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Theology with a minor in Greek. I was Bob Hill's associate pastor at Derby Bible Church in Colorado, and co-hosted "Biblical Answers" radio program with Bob Hill for over three years. I am currently working with Bob Hill's son-in-law, Eddie Cook at his church. I am an instructor at the Derby School of Theology, and have taught classes for approximately 4 years. Now, I hope this is satisfactory.

OK, I didn't know you were a pastor. I am glad we do have someone who knows quite a bit of Greek; I am only a first year Greek student--just about done with it. Again, not challenging your credentials, just wondering.


www.biblicalanswers.com

Again, I ask that you address the grammar of Mark 16:16. PLease feel free to consult your other Greek Scholars here. Make sure you check their credentials first, though...

In Christ, --Jeremy

I will look at the grammar, maybe some commentaries, maybe other stuff.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

No problem... The "spitting" comment was a bit out of character for you. I actually thought that Hitch had stolen your username and password to make that post.:rofl:

While you check the grammar of Mark 16, I also ask that you address Numbers 19, Acts 2:38, John 3:5, Mark 1:1-5, etc...

Take Care, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Sorry, didn't think of "spitting back" being offensive. I went back and changed the wording, though.

I'll check all that out, but I think you will be hard pressed to ever prove that any fleshly act (including water baptism) must be done to be saved.


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

There was no need to change the post. I appreciate you doing it though... You say,I think you will be hard pressed to ever prove that any fleshly act (including water baptism) must be done to be saved.Well, you have done nothing to show me that I'm in error...

A couple of points here... I think you might change your tune if you come to an understanding of how aorist participles are used in the NT. Secondly, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that water baptism is necessary today. As I have mentioned numerous times before, water baptism was "an everlasting" ordinance for the nation of Israel. Numbers 19, Mark 1:1-5, Mark 16:16, John 3:5 and especially Acts 2:38 all show that under those dispensations,God asked believing Israel to show their faith by being water baptized. God does not ask the body of Christ to do that, but rather asks that we believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

I understand what you are saying in the second part, but I still see no reason to believe that believing Israel is distint from the body of Christ.

Joel

[Lizard]

I am going to try to jump into this thread, as I find it very interesting. However, at this point I am more interested in understanding the different positions than in debating one side or the other.

With that said here is a summary of the thread as I see it. Please correct me if I am wrong, as I am not overly familiar with the Acts 9 variation of dispensationalism:

Hitch asked the following question:

Hitch:
Is this true is being born-again really a must?


Hitch

This was intended to be addressed to Acts 9 dispensationalist, as they believe that the Gospels were directed toward the Jews of Jesus time, and that it was refereeing to water baptism as being an essential element of salvation during the apostolic dispensation. Whereas, most other evangelical Christians believe that being born again is synonymous with spiritual regeneration and salvation.

If I am missing something, please let know.

I will be posting some questions, because I am not sure I have a complete grasp on the Acts 9 view of this. I am not, at this point trying to debate. I feel that in order to properly debate a subject, you need to have a good knowledge of both sides. At this point I feel like I am just looking for information.

[Lizard]

First question deals with this statement by Act9_12Out

Act9_12Out:
Adam was indeed a "new creation" and is called the son of God. Jesus Christ was a "new creation" as God placed Him in his mother's womb. Jesus Christ is God the Son. The angels are "new creations" and are referred to as sons of God. The body of Christ, who are adopted sons, put off Adam and put on Christ. They become a "new creation" and are called sons of God.

The nation of Israel and circumci