What Does It Really Mean to Be “Born Again”?

June 23, 2016

13 minutes ago, LifeHiscost said:

LifeHiscost: God IS love~Jesus saves!

Yes, God IS love! But to most 'born again' Christians this "LOVE" is a one way street, that moves ONLY from God to them. They believe that there is no requirement for them to show by their deeds that they love God in return, except to say, "I love God." This is because of their mistaken belief, acquired through the writings of Paul, that the Commandments were done away with at the cross (Col. 2:14) and hence, 'where there is no Law, there is no violation" (Rom. 4:15), thereby indemnifying them against having to DO anything to receive salvation. The sincerely believe that 'salvation is a free gift of God' (Rom. 6:23). However, Jesus did put a 'demand of Righteousness' on LOVE, that shows/demonstrates that a person loves God:

Joh 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Joh 14:21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."

And in addition, God has not left us without the help we need to learn HOW to keep His Commandments; He has given us His Holy Spirit, that will teach us THROUGH HIS VERY WORDS how to accomplish all of these things (John 14:16-31). If you deny that righteousness can be accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit to Sanctify you through the words of Jesus, then you risk grieving the Holy Spirit away (Matt. 12:32).

Yes, Jesus saves! But here again no one that is a 'born again' Christian asks the question, 'saves whom from what, and how?' Does Jesus save you IN your sin, or FROM your sin, or from something else? Did Jesus come to save His Righteous Kingdom (Matt. 6:33, Matt. 24:14)), or did He come to save sinners (1Tim 1:15)?

13 minutes ago, LifeHiscost said:

June 23, 2016

It amuses me when anyone says "most 'born again Christians''", as if they are able to correctly assess or know what others of any ilk think.

ilk

ilk/

noun

a type of people or things similar to those already referred to.

"the veiled suggestions that reporters of his ilk seem to be so good at"

synonyms: type, sort, class, category, group, set, breed, strain, bracket, genre, make, model, kind, brand, vintage, stamp, style, family, variety

"a film of this ilk comes packaged with a fair deal of violence"

God is Love!~Jesus saves!

June 23, 2016

23 hours ago, Musicman1228 said:

Ah! Yes, you are correct in your statement of my belief in the first sentence of paragraph #1. You got that part correct. However, your assessment as found in the 2nd sentence of paragraph #1, and in paragraph #3 (above) is a completely false statement as to my belief.

Your explanation is paradoxical, as I see it. You are either posting what you are not believing, or not believing what you are posting.

June 24, 2016

1 hour ago, Samie said:

Your explanation is paradoxical, as I see it. You are either posting what you are not believing, or not believing what you are posting.

It is only a paradox to someone that believes that the words of Jesus that He said to His own eyewitness disciples while He was here on earth in the flesh, are exactly the same as the words that Paul received in his 'visions', that he used to describe his own, unique, gospel; a gospel that even he said was different to the gospel as taught by the eyewitness disciples operating out of the Jerusalem council (Gal. 1:6). Trying to equate those two perspectives could cause anyone to feel that they were experiencing a paradox. The only way to eliminate that conflict is to use one set of words exclusively over the other set of words, by choosing to identify with either the words of Paul, or the words of Jesus. You have discovered that when you try to make the gospel of Paul fit inside of the Gospel of the Kingdom, or visa versa, they just don't fit, which is why you are confused about how I have could possibly come to understand salvation the way I do. This does not surprise me in the least. Twelve years ago I was right where you are, and feeling exactly the way you do right now. It was painful to come to the understanding that I would have to choose between my favorite Apostle, or my Savior. In the end, the choice was made, and was not as traumatic as I expected. Truth is Truth, and Truth cannot be unmade because you test it; it is either Truth or not. If you test it and find what you believe IS the truth then nothing is lost. If you test what you believe to be true and it turns out it is not, then everything (including eternal life) is gained. At least you will know for sure if you do put what you believe to the test.

June 24, 2016

Writing yesterday, Musicman said the following about Sammie. The problem with what he said is that every sentence in the quote below is false, at least in part. To start out, as is well known by people who post here, Sammie is NOT a SDA pastor. He is not employed by the SDA Church. I am uncertain as to what Musicman meant in his reference to the 28 fundamental beliefs. If his point of reference was all that is contained by the book of that name, the statement is deceptive as it should be remembered that the book allows a wide range of belief as opposed to one set formulation of that belief. If his reference is to the officially voted statement of belief Adventist pastors would be expected to maintain their teaching within a range of boundaries. And they would be allowed some variance in belief. The idea that pastors filter their beliefs through the formulated 28 is again false. Musicman simply seems to have a limited knowledge of SDA pastors and their ministry and beliefs. Yes, there is some truth in the idea that if a pastor goes against the 28 his/her employment may be called into question as there are boundaries. But, to say that will happen if the pastor goes against the 28 "in any way" is simply not true.

In reading his posts, I get the idea that Musicman has formulated many of his ideas from personal experiences that he has had and from those of other family members who were SDA. I cannot deny his experience. But, it is inappropriate for one to take individual experiences and generalize them to apply them to the denomination as a whole today.

I know a former SDA Woman who experienced spiritual abuse more than 50 years ago. I know another who experienced sexual abuse. Their experiences cannot be denied. What happened to them was real. But, it would not be fair to take their experiences and generalize them to the entire denomination today.

All in all, the statement that Musicman made below reflects a bias and a lack of openness.

Quote

If I am not mistaken, you are an Adventist pastor working in the Philippines, and as such you receive your salary from that organization. The Adventist church has 28 fundamental beliefs that you MUST adhere too in order to continue to be able to preach in an Adventist pulpit. So EVERYTHING you believe is filtered through those fundamental beliefs REGARDLESS AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE ACTUALLY TRUE. I am not saying that you are not correct in doing this, as that is part of the job description. And if you go against these 28 Fundamentals in any way you risk loosing your lively-hood. That could be a very dangerous risk to take.

June 24, 2016

Last Sunday, Musicman made the following statement to Kevin H. The statement below does reflect the beliefs of some Christians to include some SDAs. However, it is officially rejected by the SDA Church and by EGW. Neither teaches that God spoke the words of the Bible as Musicman has stated. Further, that is not a teaching of Sola Scriptura. It is not the teaching that Musicman states is the foundation of the belief that the Bible is Holy, inerrant and the Word of God.

Musicman is simply wrong in his understanding of these issues.

Quote

Yet somehow Christians came to believe that this 'Bible' came to be as a direct result of God personally speaking ALL of the words in this bible directly to the writers that by the luck of the draw appear within its covers. This became known as Sola Scriptura, and is the basis for the belief that the Bible is the Holy, inerrant, inviolate, inspired 100% word of God from cover to cover, including the cover.

June 24, 2016

Greg, you don't have to address me in the 3rd person, as I am right here waiting with baited breath for your interesting and well spoken comments. Thank you for pointing out that Samie is not an SDA pastor; he sounds very much like my experience with SDA pastor reflects. That being said, what Samie has expressed as his belief system is what many SDA's believe to be true about salvation.

My reference to the 28 Fundamentals (used to be 27, and 13 when I was baptized in 1962) are the foundational beliefs of the SDA church; and today when someone is baptized into the church they must verbally declare, (and often sign on the dotted line of the baptismal certificate, as I did) that they will abide by these doctrines whole heartedly and without reservation.

Your statement that SDA pastors have the freedom to believe what they will is patently NOT true. I have had much experience with certain SDA pastors that preached one thing on Sabbath because it was required for their continued employ, and expressed an opposing point of view when in the privacy of their own homes with trusted friends. I was in a board meeting at a large SDA church where a Conference pastor came to answer questions about why one of our beloved Associate Pastor's was being 'retired'. This Conference elder then proceeded to lie through his teeth by saying that the Associate was OK with how things had worked out. I knew this was a lie because that very Associate pastor was a close personal friend and told me he was upset with being dismissed on a bogus charge. I stood up in that meeting and said, "Elder _______, if you will lie about this, you will lie about other things. What else do we need to know that you have lied about." And this is not an isolated instance. In fact, it is quite common. I call your attention to the fact that I said that if a pastor goes against the 28 fundamentals he/she might RISK loosing their position, and THAT is a true statement, whether you choose to accept it or not.

And yes, Greg, I have formulated many of my ideas about the SDA church and it's doctrine and function from having spent my life in that very church. In expressing my views I certainly was not (as you put it) generalizing. As you have see above I have very specific and reasonably current experiences to draw upon as to my concerns for the church and it's role in upcoming events. In fact, I will get even more specific in my criticism of 'our' church, based on the criticism of God Almighty in Revelation:

Rev 3:1 "To the angel of the church in Sardis write: He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says this: 'I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.

Rev 3:2 'Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God.

Our church DOES 'have a name that is alive' in that the Seventh-day Adventist church name indicates that we look to the 10 Commandments for our instructions, and that we believe as a church in the soon coming of Jesus. Our name is synonymous with high level education and training in the medical and healing arts, and nearly everyone in the world knows about the LLUMC Children's Hospital, and the Proton Therapy Center. (For crying out loud, protons helped cure me from malignant melanoma.) But the beliefs we were founded upon have 'died' on the alter of the gospel of Salvation by Grace through Faith, which does away with any idea that we must 'keep the Commandments of God', or even look forward to His return to this earth. We HAVE NOT completed the DEEDS that God HAD (in the past) assigned to us to accomplish before the end, which is why we are all still here on this earth. So far, we have NOT 'strengthen the things that remain', because we don't even know WHAT those things are anymore; so caught up are we in trying to be like every other Christian church in the world.

And Greg, I am not the one that made this personal by making statements that cast aspersions on my competence due to 'bias and lack of openness', and being "simply wrong in his understanding of these issues." If this were a give and take discussion (as I was led to believe it was) then you would not be making these kinds of egregious comments that show you to be a smaller person than I believe you are. If my approach is 'wrong', then prove it by using only the words and teachings of God in the Law and the Prophets in the Old Testament, and of Jesus Christ that He gave His own eyewitness disciples in the New Testament. Because for me, THOSE words are the only words that carry the weight of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. All of the words of anyone else in the Bible (or anywhere else) must be compared to THOSE words, in order to be proven true. You can argue all day until you are blue in the face, but against those words there are no arguments that can be accepted.

June 25, 2016

Happy Sabbath, forum mates.

It's now Sabbath morning here in the Philippines and SS is about to start. See you later, brethren.

June 25, 2016

Musicman, I use the 3rd person when I am addressing a group of people other than the singular you.

I can not argue with your tale of what you have experienced and you give witness to. In truth I am inclined to accept it as factual as to what you have experienced. This does not mean that everything is factually correct. But, nether does it mean that anyone lied or otherwise attempted to deceive. Most of us have a limited knowledge of all of the facts of a specific case.

I do not know how recent the examples you give occurred. I would be the first to agree that your analysis of them is correct for the past. But, I will say that such is less likely to happen in the present. However, there remain places where they probably could occur today.

It would be possible for me to provide an example that supported my view for every example that you provide. But, I do not think that this would be helpful. So I am not going to get into a "one-upmanship" conversation with you, as you probably would not want either.

I will take comment on one point: The so-called 28 were never intended to be used as a baptisimal standard. Yes, there are those who so use them. But they are in error when they do so. In my opinion, the so-called 13 are the baptisimal standard. In any case, that is what is being used by many pastors. But, more SDA pastors are not even using those. I have pbserved this in other countries as wella s the United States.

A few months ago, I attended a SDA service that had a baptism. At one point the pastor announced that one of the people being baptized was not going, at that time, to join the SDA Church. That service had an elected General Conference Officer present. That elected Officer disagreed with that baptism--I spoke with him personally. But, other than voice his disagreement, there was nothing that he could do.

Musicman, as you may know, I am SDA clergy. I have held credentials for a bit less than 50 years (I am now retired.) During a bit less than 40 of those years my credentials have come from either the General Conference or from the NAD. I have wide experience with the SDA Church both in the U.S. and in other countries where I have lived. while I cannot deny your experience, I will say that in my experience you have generalized your experiences in a manner that does not reflect the SDA Church today. However, I would say that what you say may be true in specific cases. You are not entirely wrong. It is your generalization that I am challenging.

June 25, 2016

On 24/06/2016 at 11:03 AM, Musicman1228 said:

Greg, you don't have to address me in the 3rd person, as I am right here waiting with baited breath for your interesting and well spoken comments. Thank you for pointing out that Samie is not an SDA pastor; he sounds very much like my experience with SDA pastor reflects. That being said, what Samie has expressed as his belief system is what many SDA's believe to be true about salvation.

Are you really aware of what my position really is? I don't have second thoughts that you know all too well about what the SDA Church teaches. But for you to say I sound very much like an SDA pastor sends strong signals you don't really understand my position.

Again, I teach that all people - Adam's race - are physically born already spiritually alive and therefore born already In Christ. Being In Christ, people are part of the Body of Christ and therefore are heaven-bound UNLESS their names are blotted out from the book of life when they die for not overcoming evil with good while alive. I also teach that it was God who fashioned humanity into the body of His Son, and that people did ABSOLUTELY nothing so they can become part of the Body of Christ. This is NOT similar to what the SDA Church is teaching.

On the other hand, SDA pastors were taught that people are born in sin and therefore born spiritually dead, just like what you believe. They were taught that they must first do SOMETHING - believe - so that they can become part of the body of Christ. This is similar to what you are teaching that people need to first do SOMETHING - rigteous acts - so that they can be In Christ. It is your teaching that is similar to what the SDA pastors are teaching; NOT mine.

June 25, 2016

Samie: Yes, Musicman clearly does not understand who you are and where you are in your doctrinal understanding. It might be of value for Musicman to give some thought as to how this occurred.

Only he can answer that question. Anything that you and I might say would be speculation. I suspect that it was due to a personal bias wit[h which he approaches people here. That might not be true. But, it might be of value for him to give it some thought.

Bias: Probably all of us have some bias. That is part of our human condition. I doubt tha any of us, to include you and I, are totally free of bias. But, the real questions are: a) Can we recognize where we have a bias? 'b) Once we recognize that we do have a bias, what do we do about it?

Samie, those are questions that we all should consider.

June 25, 2016

27 minutes ago, Samie said:

I teach that all people - Adam's race - are physically born already spiritually alive and therefore born already In Christ.

"All of us once lived among them in the desires of our flesh, following the wishes of the flesh and the impulses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest." Eph 2:3 NABRE

All of us, before conversion, lived according to the desires of our flesh as a lifestyle.

June 25, 2016

Here's someone who agrees with you, Samie:

Quote

"Sin is not something we are born with; it is something we do. When we break God's law, we sin."*

Statements like the above is why men and women become legalistic. The Pharisees of old held the same position.To them sin was something they outwardly did - an act like murder or adultery.

* http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-are-we-born-sinners.htm

June 25, 2016

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Here's someone who agrees with you, Samie:

Statements like the above is why men and women become legalistic. The Pharisees of old held the same position.To them sin was something they outwardly did - an act like murder or adultery.

* http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-are-we-born-sinners.htm

In the following quotes Jesus exposes this idea that sin is just an outward act:

Matt 5:21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ (an act) and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court..."

Murder is an outward act. Anger, on the other hand, is not an act, but an emotion... a thought.

Matt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery’ (a physical act); 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Adultery is a physical, sexual act. Lust, on the other hand, is not an act, but an emotion...a thought.

Conclusion?

Sin, therefore, is not only an outward act, but a desire of the heart. Hence the spirit of God's law demands that our motives and thoughts must be perfect.

June 25, 2016

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Ps 51:5

Infants, at no fault of their own, are conceived in "iniquity". They didn't ask to be born into a fallen race. Every child of Adam shares his life with its fallen nature. That nature is what Paul terms "sin living in me". That sin is our bent-to-self. Infants are born only knowing this "bent", hence the only thing they can produce is selfishness based on that "bent".

June 25, 2016

15 minutes ago, Robert said:

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Ps 51:5

Infants, at no fault of their own, are conceived in "iniquity". They didn't ask to be born to a fallen race. Every child of Adam shares his life with its fallen nature. That nature is what Paul terms "sin living in me". That sin is our bent-to-self. Infants are born only knowing this "bent", hence the only thing they can produce is selfishness based on that "bent".

Because of this infant baptism was introduced. The problem with this custom is baptism is not the Savior. Christ is the Savior.

Christ, by assuming our corporate, fallen life, has reversed Adam's condemnation. Hence "through one transgression [Adam's] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness [Christ, the last Adam] there resulted justification of life to all men." Rom 5:18 NASB

Men (mankind) comes into this world by the process of procreation. Because we all share Adam's life, indwelt with its "bent", and because we are born without God's Spirit dwelling in us, we are born slaves to our "bent-to-self". Therefore we are born spiritually dead in trespasses and sins.

Christ, by His doing and dying, has legally justified "all" mankind unto eternal life. That means that Adam's condemnation has been reversed and infants are born into this world justified unto life. Every infant who dies before he or she can make a decision for or against Christ is saved by what Christ has accomplished.

June 25, 2016

"The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man's experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist." [Education chapter 4, p. 29]

June 26, 2016

1 hour ago, jackson said:

Psm 51:5 in the NIV and few others is not a literal translation. Sin is an act of the will.

There's iniquity, sin and transgression. Which one would you like to address?

June 26, 2016

King James Version – “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

David said he was shapen in iniquity. The LORD God told Jeremiah He sanctified him in his mother's womb:

Quote

KJV Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee

Apply to David what the Lord told Jeremiah and you will have David who was shapen in iniquity come forth out of the womb sanctified.

And all He sanctified God made perfect forever:

Quote

KJV Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Because of Christ, people are perfect in God's eyes no matter how Robert sees them.

June 26, 2016

3 hours ago, jackson said:

Any or all of them. They clearly apply to David's progenitors and their environment.

Any other interpretation conflicts with the rest of scripture.

Sin is doing things that appear outwardly good, but for a selfish motive. Sin, therefore, occurs not only in outward acts, but at the thought level.

June 26, 2016

3 hours ago, Samie said:

The LORD God told Jeremiah He sanctified him in his mother's womb

Jeremiah was "set apart" for the work of a prophet in his mother's womb.

NASB: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

NIV: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

June 26, 2016

4 hours ago, Samie said:

Because of Christ, people are perfect in God's eyes no matter how Robert sees them.

"In Christ" all humanity has been justified, sanctified and glorified (see 1 Cor 1:30). That means that even Hitler stood righteous "in Christ".

Hitler, however, never availed himself of this righteousness and therefore Hitler will be found wanting in the judgement.

June 26, 2016

8 hours ago, Robert said:

Hitler, however, never availed himself of this righteousness and therefore Hitler will be found wanting in the judgement

Hitler can never avail of it, in accord with your brand of gospel. You require Hitler while APART from Christ to do SOMETHING - avail himself of righteousness, when Christ Himself said man can do NOTHING while yet apart from Him.

June 26, 2016

27 minutes ago, Samie said:

Hitler can never avail of it, in accord with your brand of gospel. You require Hitler while APART from Christ to do SOMETHING - avail himself of righteousness, when Christ Himself said man can do NOTHING while yet apart from Him.

Hitler did not place his faith in Christ. Hence he did not avail himself of the righteousness of Christ.

June 26, 2016

Quote

KJV Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

to sanctify is from the Hebrew vd;q' qadash [Septuagint a`gia,zw hagiazo - make holy, sanctify, consecrate, dedicate, purify]

to ordain is from the Hebrew !t;n" nathan [Septuagint ti,qhmi tithemi - put, place, lay—a. generally lay (away), set up, put (away)]

9 hours ago, Robert said:

Jeremiah was "set apart" for the work of a prophet in his mother's womb.

NASB: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

NIV: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Robert appears to limit qadash to God's appointing Jeremiah as prophet, and turns a blind eye to His making him holy, just like God's making us holy through Christ:

Quote

NASB Hebrews 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

NIV Hebrews 10:10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Sign In

What Does It Really Mean to Be “Born Again”?

Recommended Posts

Musicman1228

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

trinsabb

Gregory Matthews

phkrause

LifeHiscost

Samie

Musicman1228

Gregory Matthews

Gregory Matthews

Musicman1228

Samie

Gregory Matthews

Samie

Gregory Matthews

Robert

Robert

Robert

Robert

Robert

Robert

Robert

Samie

Robert

Robert

Robert

Samie

Robert

Samie

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity