The casual terminology of saying we are Born Again when we're Saved is a misunderstanding of John 3. Doesn't mean I think everyone who uses it understands Salvation incorrectly, it just means we need to clear up some terminology.
Before I explain this view, I want to distance myself from certain others teaching this same thing but tying it into other bad ideas.
Some over emphasize the use of the word "Spirit" in John 3 to support viewing the Resurrection as only Spiritual and not a physical Bodily Resurrection. That is Gnostic Heresy.
And some try to connect this to their denial of Eternal Security. I don't base my Belief in Eternal Security on the verses about being Born Again, or Born of God, or any of that. That's Calvinism not true Eternal Security. I base it on the verses in John 3 about "Whosoever Believeth on him shall not Perish but have eternal life", it's not Eternal if it can be lost. And other verses showing that even the seemingly professing Christians who are damned are all those who NEVER knew Him. And how none shall pluck them out of His hand. And 1 Corinthians 3:15 showing that at the Bema Judgment there will be people who's works are burnt up but are still saved.
Since the moment we Believe is the conception not birth, they'll point out that sometimes babies miscarry. A child Begotten of God cannot miscarry. I think the Man-Child of Revelation 12 can represent The Church and individual Believers as much as it does Jesus himself. We are the Body of Christ and also promised to "rule the Nations with a Rod of Iron". Satan wants to prevent the Child from being Born, which is why he accuses us when we Sin. But it is impossible for him to succeed. The Man-Child is then Raptured, same Greek word as in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is when we are Resurrected.
We are already Begotten of God
1 Peter 1:3 says "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his
abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead". Begotten is a word that refers to conception, not to birth.
1 Peter 1:23 is mistranslated in the KJV "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of
God, which liveth and abideth for ever." The Greek text here does not use the same word used describing the Born Again concept elsewhere, it should read begotten again, Peter's instead using the same word he used in verse 3. The two Greek words are similar but distinct. This is not based on Alexandrian manuscripts, I'm using the Textus Receptus.
We are God's Children already just as a parent considers a baby still in the womb their child already. But Son of God as a technical term applies when we're completely redeemed in the Resurrection, like how it applies to Angels and to Adam before The Fall.
Romans 8:16-21 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of
God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be
that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be
compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the
sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him
who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of
corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."
We are fully the Children of God when we are free from The Curse of Genesis 3, which is what Romans 8 is all about.
James 1:18 "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of
firstfruits of his creatures." "First Fruits" is a term linked to the Resurrection, that's why Jesus Resurrection was on the Feast of First Fruits.
1 John uses various forms of the same root that the word for born and begat come from, that the Strongs all label one word, and how the KJV renders it can cause confusion.
1 John 3:9 is correct in the KJV, it's abused by those trying to say a Believer cannot Sin. But this same Epistle John explains we Lie if we say we do not Sin.
1 John 4:7 it should read begotten, it's showing how anyone following the Biblical Law of Love is saved and knows God.
1 John 5:1 is also correct. John 5:4 should be Begotten, everyone who's Saved has Overcome the World in once sense according to John. But that can be distinct from Overcoming to the End. 1 John 5:18 is also correct, but what it means is also abused, but it shows the distinction between being Born and Begotten.
In John 3 itself Jesus says that those who are Born Again are those who can see The Kingdom. To say that is true of Believers already takes what he means a lot less literally. When we are Resurrected we will no longer be limited to our current 3 dimensional perception.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
Calvinists think Free Will somehow contradicts the Sovereignty of God
Let me make myself clear.
God can override our Free Will, he can make us all do what he wants, he can force us to accept Jesus.
But he chooses not to, he wants everyone to come to him, but he would prefer to accept as his Children only those who want to be his Children.
It has nothing to do with the Sovereignty of God.
Calvinists are a lot like many Atheists and others who reject Christianity all together. They think in order for God to be Sovereign then what does happen must be what he wants to happen.
God can override our Free Will, he can make us all do what he wants, he can force us to accept Jesus.
But he chooses not to, he wants everyone to come to him, but he would prefer to accept as his Children only those who want to be his Children.
It has nothing to do with the Sovereignty of God.
Calvinists are a lot like many Atheists and others who reject Christianity all together. They think in order for God to be Sovereign then what does happen must be what he wants to happen.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Teaching Men not to Rape
Among those conservatives who choose to object to modern Feminism and it's talk about "Rape Culture", the most popular argument is taking offense at the notion that men need to be "Taught not to Rape", that it's somehow insulting to men to suggest Rape in inherent in them.
It's most amusing to me when I see people who are Evangelical Christians do this. Because among the arguments we make when attempting to explain the doctrine of Original Sin (the true Biblical doctrine, not what it means to Catholics or Calvinists), will be to ask parents if they needed to teach their children to lie or steal? The answer is no, they had to teach them not to lie and not to steal.
Rape is also part of the Sin nature, and not all forms of it are obvious. Many men, as surprising as this may seem, have trouble comprehending that it's wrong to have sex with a woman who's passed out.
Perhaps many "Traditional" Christians think since they're teaching their kids not to have sex outside marriage at all that Rape isn't an issue then.
1. Rape can happen within marriage. Some Bible verses may get misused to justify/deny marital rape by making it seem one spouse is obligated to fulfill the needs of the other. But none of that makes it right to force yourself on someone who doesn't want to right now. And since the Torah has laws against lying with your wife while she's menstruating, it certainly knows people can't simply have sex on demand.
2. I've argued elsewhere forcing an overly strict moral standard on people can wind up leading to them abandoning trying to be moral altogether. Especially if on sexual morality your teaching children based on an imaginary Bible verse that masturbation is somehow worse then prostitution.
So no matter how legalistic you are, at least begin your lessons on Sexual Morality by explaining that the worst Sexual Sin is Rape. Mainly because it's more then a Sexual Sin, it's a violation of someone's personal Liberty. And so any sexual act that is fully and unambiguously consensual would be preferable.
I will say it would be helpful to rephrase "Teach people not to Rape" because women can rape also, The Bible even records an example with Lot's daughters.
It's most amusing to me when I see people who are Evangelical Christians do this. Because among the arguments we make when attempting to explain the doctrine of Original Sin (the true Biblical doctrine, not what it means to Catholics or Calvinists), will be to ask parents if they needed to teach their children to lie or steal? The answer is no, they had to teach them not to lie and not to steal.
Rape is also part of the Sin nature, and not all forms of it are obvious. Many men, as surprising as this may seem, have trouble comprehending that it's wrong to have sex with a woman who's passed out.
Perhaps many "Traditional" Christians think since they're teaching their kids not to have sex outside marriage at all that Rape isn't an issue then.
1. Rape can happen within marriage. Some Bible verses may get misused to justify/deny marital rape by making it seem one spouse is obligated to fulfill the needs of the other. But none of that makes it right to force yourself on someone who doesn't want to right now. And since the Torah has laws against lying with your wife while she's menstruating, it certainly knows people can't simply have sex on demand.
2. I've argued elsewhere forcing an overly strict moral standard on people can wind up leading to them abandoning trying to be moral altogether. Especially if on sexual morality your teaching children based on an imaginary Bible verse that masturbation is somehow worse then prostitution.
So no matter how legalistic you are, at least begin your lessons on Sexual Morality by explaining that the worst Sexual Sin is Rape. Mainly because it's more then a Sexual Sin, it's a violation of someone's personal Liberty. And so any sexual act that is fully and unambiguously consensual would be preferable.
I will say it would be helpful to rephrase "Teach people not to Rape" because women can rape also, The Bible even records an example with Lot's daughters.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Free Will before Pelagius
Since Calvinists like to claim the doctrine of Free Will was invented by Pelagius. [[I copied this from a website that I don't remember what it was called anymore.]]
100-165 AD, Justin Martyr: “God, wishing men and angels to follow his will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall certainly be punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably (wicked), but not because God created them so. So if they repent all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God.” (Dialogue CXLi)
100-165 AD, Justin Martyr: “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestinated that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.” (First Apology ch.43)
[About the year 180, Gnostic, Florinus, affirmed that God is the author of sin, which notion was rejected by Ireneaus, who published a discourse entitled: “God, not the Author of Sin.” Florinus’ doctrine reappeared in another form later in Manichaeism, and was always considered to be a dangerous heresy by the early fathers of the church.]
130-200 AD, Irenaeus: “This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God...And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice...If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others?” (Against Heresies XXXVII, Book 4, Ch. 37)
150-190 AD, Athenagoras: “men...have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless)...” (Embassy for Christians XXIV)
150-200 AD, Clement of Alexandria: “Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.” (Miscellanies, book 1, ch.1)
154-222 AD, Bardaisan of Syria: “How is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin and incur condemnation? —if man had been made so, he would not have belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him...And how in that case, would man differ from a harp, on which another plays; or from a ship, which another guides: where the praise and the blame reside in the hand of the performer or the steersman...they being only instruments made for the use of him in whom is the skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures.” (Fragments)
155-225 AD, Tertullian: “I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God’s image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature.” (Against Marcion, Book II ch.5)
185-254 AD, Origen: “This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition.” (De Principiis, Preface)
185-254 AD, Origen: “There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures which establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will.” (De Principiis, Book 3, ch.1)
250-300 AD, Archelaus: “There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he chooses.” (Disputation with Manes, secs.32, 33)
260-315 AD, Methodius: “Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.” (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, discourse 8, chapter 16)
312-386 AD, Cyril of Jerusalem: “The soul is self-governed: and though the Devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator by necessity then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou wert a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness; since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature.” (Lecture IV 18)
347-407 AD, John Chrysostom: “All is in God’s power, but so that our free-will is not lost...it depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free-will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help...It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end.” (On Hebrews, Homily 12)
But I base my doctrine on Scripture not the Church Fathers. I will be doing posts dedicated to refuting Calvinism in the future.
100-165 AD, Justin Martyr: “God, wishing men and angels to follow his will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall certainly be punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably (wicked), but not because God created them so. So if they repent all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God.” (Dialogue CXLi)
100-165 AD, Justin Martyr: “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestinated that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.” (First Apology ch.43)
[About the year 180, Gnostic, Florinus, affirmed that God is the author of sin, which notion was rejected by Ireneaus, who published a discourse entitled: “God, not the Author of Sin.” Florinus’ doctrine reappeared in another form later in Manichaeism, and was always considered to be a dangerous heresy by the early fathers of the church.]
130-200 AD, Irenaeus: “This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God...And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice...If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others?” (Against Heresies XXXVII, Book 4, Ch. 37)
150-190 AD, Athenagoras: “men...have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless)...” (Embassy for Christians XXIV)
150-200 AD, Clement of Alexandria: “Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.” (Miscellanies, book 1, ch.1)
154-222 AD, Bardaisan of Syria: “How is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin and incur condemnation? —if man had been made so, he would not have belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him...And how in that case, would man differ from a harp, on which another plays; or from a ship, which another guides: where the praise and the blame reside in the hand of the performer or the steersman...they being only instruments made for the use of him in whom is the skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures.” (Fragments)
155-225 AD, Tertullian: “I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God’s image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature.” (Against Marcion, Book II ch.5)
185-254 AD, Origen: “This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition.” (De Principiis, Preface)
185-254 AD, Origen: “There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures which establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will.” (De Principiis, Book 3, ch.1)
250-300 AD, Archelaus: “There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he chooses.” (Disputation with Manes, secs.32, 33)
260-315 AD, Methodius: “Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.” (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, discourse 8, chapter 16)
312-386 AD, Cyril of Jerusalem: “The soul is self-governed: and though the Devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator by necessity then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou wert a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness; since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature.” (Lecture IV 18)
347-407 AD, John Chrysostom: “All is in God’s power, but so that our free-will is not lost...it depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free-will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help...It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end.” (On Hebrews, Homily 12)
But I base my doctrine on Scripture not the Church Fathers. I will be doing posts dedicated to refuting Calvinism in the future.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)