This is an extended version of the article at SBC Today which begins with Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus in John 3.
A lot has been written about Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (Jn 3:3 NKJV) Jesus repeats Himself in verse 7, “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’” There is no question as to the importance of being born again but there is a lot of debate as to what Jesus meant when He said what He said. What did Jesus mean when He said, “You must be born again?”
Basically there are two primary interpretations and both are related to belief, repentance and faith. One posits being born again as being essential for belief, repentance and faith to take place and the other makes belief, repentance and faith essential for being born again. This article will examine these two positions in light of the Scriptural significance of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as it relates to being born again.
Perhaps the best place to start with this endeavor is with the Words of Jesus Himself in John 3: 5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again’.”
What is clear in this passage is that Jesus speaks of two births: a physical birth and a Spiritual birth. Each is essential if one wants to see the Kingdom of God. Verse 8 offers an unusual statement from the Savior. “8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” What is Jesus saying here? Proponents of the Born again prior to repentance and saving faith make reference to this passage to say, “God chooses those who are born again and those individuals repent and believe and are converted or justified. The work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is like the wind; it goes where it goes and makes its presence known. However, if one simply reads the text all it says is this: being born again is like the wind; even though it is not visible its presence is felt. It is like the words of the hymn, “you ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart.” So it is with everyone who is born again. While one may not be able to prove its existence, one can most certainly experience it.
Nicodemus asks Jesus, “How can these things be?” and Jesus’ answer is quite interesting. He compares being born again to an event that took place in the Old Testament where the children of Israel were grumbling and complaining about God’s provisions for them in the wilderness and they referred to the manna God provided as “worthless bread.” This is an indirect reference to Jesus who is the Bread of Life. (John 6:41-51) God sent poisonous serpents to bite the people and they began to die. The people confessed their sin and pleaded for Moses to intercede on their behalf. “8 Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.’” (Nu 21:8-9 NKJV)
Here is Jesus’ commentary on Numbers 21 and being born again: “14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 ‘He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.’” (Jn 3:14-18 NKJV) It is clear in this passage that being born again is related to looking at the serpent that was raised up; those who look up to the cross and believe will not perish but have everlasting life. Those who are condemned are those who do not look up at the cross and the resurrected Savior and do not believe.
Consider verse 19 and following: “19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (Jn 3:19-21 NKJV) This is a very important statement. Jesus is of course the Light of the World. (John 8:12, 9:5) Because men love darkness they do not come to the light, not because they are unable to do so as portrayed in the doctrine of total depravity and inability but rather because they choose not to come to the light because their attitudes and actions are revealed for what they are! It is not that men cannot come to the light; Jesus clearly indicates that they choose not to because their deeds are evil. Jesus says, “he who does come to the truth (Jesus) comes to the light that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
Now how does this passage relate to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? How does regeneration relate to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? One of two things has to be true; regeneration is the result of the indwelling or it is not. If regeneration is the result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit then the issue of the role of regeneration as it related to conversion is equally related to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the salvific process. Jesus in verse 36 makes the following statement: “36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” Paul makes the following statement in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” Here being born again in Paul’s mind is related to being “in Christ.” In Romans 8:9 Paul writes, “We should be led by the Spirit of God. If the Spirit of God does not dwell in us, we do not belong to God.” One thing appears clear: apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or ones being “in Christ” there is no new birth or regeneration.
In Romans 8 the Apostle Paul is clear that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the heart of an individual is essential to his being “born again.” Verse 1: “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” In verse 8 Paul writes, “So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Those who are in the flesh are designated as those who are not in Christ or do not have the Spirit dwelling in their hearts. Paul continues, “9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.” If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. Clearly to be born again one MUST have the Spirit living in his heart for if one does not have the Spirit in his heart that one does not belong to God. Regeneration is not possible apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Consider the following admonition from Paul in 2 Co 13:5-6: “5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you are disqualified. 6 But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified.” How is one to know if he is in the faith or not? If Christ is “in you” then Paul says that person is qualified and in the faith. In Colossians 1:27 Paul makes this declaration: “To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is clearly the means of regeneration in the Scriptures. So the question now is this: does the Holy Spirit take up residence in the heart of the unregenerate so that he is able to believe, repent and be saved or does the Holy Spirit take up residence in the heart of an individual who has believed, repented and is then saved?
Consider the following passages. At Pentecost, “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. (Ac 2:38 NKJV) In 1 John 4 points to the importance of confession in the salvific process: “13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. (1 Jn 4:13-15 NKJV)
In Romans 10 Paul writes, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Here Paul notes the reason many of the Jews had not been saved. He says that they sought their own righteousness and did not submit to the righteousness of God. It was not that they could not submit, Paul says they did not or would not submit to God’s righteousness. What was required of them? They were to believe in Christ who is the end of the law for righteousness for all who believe! It is obvious that believing in Christ is essential for right standing before God. God does not grant right standing in order to believe; He grants right standing because one believes.
Consider Paul’s continued admonition in Romans 10. “8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved’.” Once again, the Scriptures are clear. One must confess the Lord Jesus and believe in one’s heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead to be saved or born again. Those who believe will not be put to shame and those who call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved. Conversion is the result of the Holy Spirit taking up residence in a person’s heart and that takes place after one believes, repents and confesses Christ.
Jesus reiterates this in the Great Commission recorded in Mark’s gospel: “15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mk 16:15-16) One is not regenerated or born again enabling him to believe; one believes and will be saved. When one believes, the Holy Spirit takes up residence in the repentant heart and then he is born again. In Romans 1:16-17 Paul underscores the necessity of believing the gospel so that one might be saved: “16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is available to everyone who believes.
Consider Paul’s word of instruction in Ephesians 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, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.” (see also 2 Co 1:20-22) Clearly the sealing of the Holy Spirit takes place after one has heard the Word of truth presented in the proclamation of the gospel message and has believed it.
In conclusion, there is no ambiguity in the Scriptures where the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is concerned with respect to being born again or being regenerated. Regeneration is not possible apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God’s gift to those who have believed and have repented and trusted God by faith. (Acts 2:38) While some may try to make a case for a temporal or logical position for regeneration preceding repentance and the exercise of saving faith, such is not the case for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Since regeneration is not Scripturally possible apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit one must conclude regeneration prior to repentance and saving faith is not possible either.
The lost are not regenerated so they may then repent and by faith trust Christ to be justified or saved; the unregenerate are convicted of their sin and their lost state by the work of the Holy Spirit through the proclamation of the gospel and through believing and repentance, they by faith in the person and the promises of God are converted and justified and receive right standing before God when the Holy Spirit takes up residence in their hearts. This is the clear position presented in Scripture.
Transformed Theology 
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 9, 2013 at 8:02 pm
Jesus marveled because Nicodemus was a master of Israel, and did not recognize of what he spoke. Why would Jesus suggest that Nicodemus should have already been on the same page, unless it was something he should have already been familiar with?
Joh 3:7-8 KJV
(7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
(8) The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
… just a quick question. When you come and go, are people able to tell from whence thou comest and whither thou goest?
a) Yes, when I came and go I am invisible like the wind, like a spirit
b) No, I am still bound by the normal laws of life, death, and nature
There’s a follow up question as well. When is Christ returning to establish his kingdom?
a) Christ has gone away into a far country, and shall return to establish his kingdom.
b) Christ has already established his kingdom, for it immediately appeared.
I am suggesting that you might see a different meaning, a plainer more obvious meaning, if this is read with a Hebraic emphasis of the promised resurrection of the dead. So assuming that those were not rhetorical questions, how would you answer?
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 9, 2013 at 8:25 pm
@Andrew Patrick,
I must say that I don’t understand your last paragraph, that we might see a different meaning if this is read with a Hebraic emphasis. Born again is simply this:
a spiritual (emphasis spiritual) resurrection to spiritual life from spiritual (emphasis spiritual) death.
Sin separates us from God (Spiritual Death). Relationship that we had is severed by our KNOWLEDGE of our sin.
Jesus Sacrifice reinstates us back to God. Restored the severed relationship.
That is born again.
What does that have to do with your questions?
Here is a question for you:
1. What is the Kingdom? Where is the Kingdom?
Then we can answer if it was established already, or it immediately appeared. There is two answers to that question anyway. one of the two answers is in Acts chapter 1. The other answer is in Luke.
2. The same exact spirit that is within you, is also within others. So do you know from where it came and from where it is going?
Life and death of the body would have nothing to do with the same spirit that is in the body of Christ, who are many (we being many are one body).
Am I making sense?
Posted by John G. on April 9, 2013 at 9:33 pm
To Brother Andrew Patrick, I do agree with you concerning the Holy Spirit & being
born again. You are making good sense. You ask ” What is the Kingdom, & where
is the Kingdom? The Kingdom that Peter preached on Pentecost is the Jewish Kingdom promised to Israel through the prophets, which has yet to be established.
This kingdom will not be established until the Jews look upon the One that they have
pierced. There is No Kingdom for the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Holy Spirit indwelt Church. The Kingdom is for the Jewish Nation, not for the Church. :
God bless brother,
John H. Gregory
Posted by Transformed Theology on April 9, 2013 at 10:08 pm
And that is what Jesus was refering to when He made the statement about knowing where the wind blows??
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 9, 2013 at 11:24 pm
@John H Gregory,
You answered only half of my question, the one in Acts Chapter 1. The other is in Luke, I had said. It comes not with observation. Just like the wind.
Luke 17:20-21 (King James Version)
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Posted by Transformed Theology on April 9, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Well… I MUST say you both are standing on uncharted territory here as I see it. That is a LOT written into that one verse there. I think I will stick to my simple explanation and leave the deeper theological implications to you guys!
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 9, 2013 at 9:59 pm
Your simple explanation is sufficient for me. I am not a Calvinist, and I understand what you are saying. I was only piggybacking Andrew trying to figure out where he was coming from. I still don’t get what he was attempting to lay out.
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 10, 2013 at 8:48 pm
I appreciate that there are three people here, so responding to each:
For Chapman Ed, the definition you gave of born again conflicts with how Jesus defined born again in that passage… which is part of my point. “Born again” is not restoring a severed relationship with God. I understand why you might ask for a definition of “kingdom” for the second question, but you skipped the first question entirely, which was absolutely required to define “born again.”
So if you are responding to me, would you please answer the question? When you come and go, can others tell from whence thou come and whither thou go? Because I think you’re reading that verse wrong, because it sounds like you’re thinking Jesus said that “those that are born again have a spirit of which none can tell when it comes and goes…”
For John G, from your answer it sounds like you might understand what I meant by the resurrection of the dead. Those that will be born into the Kingdom of God must first be born again, not of flesh, but of spirit, must be literally raised from the dead and we must be changed, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump. With that understanding, Christ’s definition of “born again” makes perfect sense, for didn’t he also come and go as the wind after he had risen from the dead?
However, I would like to talk with you about this “the Kingdom is for the Jews and not for the Church” thing…. could you please explain to me why you have this idea? I can think of quite a few places where Jesus even said the very opposite, pointed parables and direct statements alike. If the church is the bride of Christ, and Christ is that King that defines the Kingdom, then doesn’t the bride of a King also inherit the Kingdom?
For Pastor Bob, the resurrection of the dead should not be uncharted territory. This is so central to our faith, that Paul says that without this hope we of all men are most miserable, and might as well simply eat, drink, and be merry, before we perish. My explanation is not uncharted territory, but is your explanation really simple? It may be popular, but it is not exactly simple, look at how many words are needed, and how much interpretation must be used when reading a “spiritual” meaning into what he said?
May we look at this small passage, and may I explain it more simply? Watch me carefully and strike me down if I ever stray from scripture, cross examine me step by step, but this should be so very simple, and understood in this context it renders the whole Calvinist twist moot regardless. I want to make sure that we’re using the precise and actual words, rather than words and phrases as we think we might remember them. Jesus was badly misunderstood more than a few times because people got a word wrong.
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 10, 2013 at 9:01 pm
@Andrew Patrick,
With all due respect, Jesus did not “define” born again. The restoration of a permanent relationship with God requires the Holy Spirit to reside in your body. That is what makes you a Christian. That is born again. Note the word “again”. Born of water is the carnal birth of the body. That has nothing to do with Born “again”. Nothing at all. The word “again” in Born Again means that you once died spiritually, and you are in need to be born ONCE AGAIN spiritually. We were all born spiritually (of the spirit) at the same time that we were born in the flesh (of water). The we died spiritually. Remember, we were already born of water at birth. But now we are required to be born “again”, not of the flesh, but of the spirit. Resurrection of the body is a different topic.
Now, again, I say, that no one can tell where the Holy Spirit goes and where it comes from, as every Christian has it. Divine appointments can be one of those. It is the Holy Spirit that leads, if you allow it to. You have no clue as to where it will lead.
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 11, 2013 at 3:54 am
I must insist, Jesus did not leave his term undefined. For the purpose of explaining what he meant by born again, Jesus says to Nicodemus,
John 3:5-8
(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.
(7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
(8) The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
That … seems like a definition. Jesus speaks for the express purpose of defining what he meant by “born again” so that Nicodemus would not remain in wonder.
While we are looking carefully at the actual words, maybe we could note that Jesus does not say “born spiritually” but rather “born of the Spirit” which has a somewhat different meaning. It does not say that “he which is born of spirit HAS a spirit” but rather such a person “is spirit.”
Here’s something else for you to consider. If you are flesh and blood we are specifically told that as flesh and blood we cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Do you have fingers and toes? If you are cut, do you bleed? If so, you have flesh and blood, you are flesh and blood. Paul calls this corruption.
1Co 15:50-52 KJV
(50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
(51) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
So, I would say that according to the words of Jesus and the interpretation of the apostle Paul, this has everything to do with literal resurrection. We cannot enter the kingdom of God unless we be changed, unless we be born again, unless we are raised at that last trump. When shall this happen? At the last trump.
We have been given both definition and equivalence, from the scripture itself. Jesus did not mean “reconciled in some invisible spiritual sense” when he said “ye must be born again” and the kingdom of God has not yet been established, and cannot yet be inherited, until we be changed, for they without us… should not be made perfect (see Hebrews 11:40).
Heb 11:39-40 KJV
(39) And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
(40) God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Those saints that he speaks of, that received not the promise, that are not yet made perfect… were they not reconciled to God? Abraham, Sarah, and Enoch? The heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11?
If we shall speak, let us speak from scripture and let every thing be established.
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 10:10 am
Andrew,
And I must insist that he did not define born again. You are trying to tie in born again with the resurrection, and they are two totally different topics. Nicodemus could not distinguish carnal vs. spiritual. John 4:12.
Ed Chapman
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 10:22 am
Andrew,
This is an addendum to my last.
The promise was what Andrew? We are Heirs to the Promise. What is that promise? Land, otherwise known as the Promised Land. Carnal was the physical land of Israel with its specific borders. Spiritual was Heaven. Eternal life. The spirits of the dead went to Abraham’s Bosom. They did not inherit the Promised Land until Jesus died on the cross and took the captives (those in Abraham’s Bosom). They are in heaven with Jesus now (Without a resurrected body). While they were alive on this earth, they received not the promise. But they have it now. The only thing that they don’t have is an eternal body, which they will get at the resurrection.
In addition, you are mixing all this up with the rapture in all of this. The rapture, the resurrection of the dead, and born again are all different topics, not related to each other.
Born again is the Holy Spirit residing in our corrupt bodies. That is the seal of the promise of eternal life, and that seal cannot be broken. IF we are still alive at the rapture, then we will be changed (disappear as Elijah and Enoch). The resurrection is the last thing to happen.
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 11:25 am
@Andrew, I referenced John 4:12. I meant 3:12. Sorry.
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 11, 2013 at 7:37 pm
Ed, you’re not actually addressing any of the scriptures I’ve already brought forth.
1) A flat denial that “ye must be born again” in John 4 means “ye must be raised to life in the resurrection to life” is not a sufficient rebuttal. I have already demonstrated with Jesus and Paul that this is exactly what he meant.
2) The heirs to the promise that Hebrews speak of is not about physical land. This is easily demonstrated when you look at whom he speaks, look again at Hebrews 7, and note:
“By faith Abel…”
“By faith Enoch…”
“By faith Noah…”
… and thus it is hard to believe that these “heirs to the promise” is really all about inheriting the physical land of Canaan. The promise is the resurrection to Eternal Life. Job understood the resurrection (see Job 19:25-27) and Mary understood the resurrection (John 11:24).
3) Some of what you are saying seems to have no support, or even is already flat-out contradicted by scripture that has already been quoted on this board.
For example (this is your paragraph):
… where does it say that these saints inherited the Promised Land when Jesus died?
… where does it say that anyone is being held captive in Abraham’s Bosom?
… where does it say that these saints are in heaven with Jesus now?
… where does it say that these saints have now received the promises?
Act 2:34 KJV
(34) For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Heb 11:13 KJV
(13) These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
So, apparently, the saints are not in heaven, before or after Christ’s crucifixion, nor have they received the promises. That is what it saith, and you have not provided a single scripture to indicate otherwise. Just your words. Your words.
I had a simple request, that we please be willing to establish all things from scripture, to let every thing be established. I can hear you talking, but you’re missing the scripture. If this continues then it has become a pointless pattern of dogmatic repetition of personal tradition, denying the Holy Spirit to be the arbiter of truth through our written word.
Was my request unreasonable? If I have a question, it is this: Is there something inherently immoral about wanting doctrine to be derived from scripture, proved from scripture, and subject to scripture? If not, then resist this?
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 8:10 pm
@Andrew,
Abraham, Abraham, Abraham.
We are Heirs to the Promise that was given to Abraham. That is the promise to focus on. Not any other promise.
Specify from the scriptures what was that promise to Abraham.
We are heirs of the promise given to him.
What was THAT promise. Land. Promised Land.
That land is twofold.
1. Carnal:
The Children of Abraham (Thru Isaac, based on the covenant of circumcision) inherit the Promised Land.
2. Spiritual:
The children of Abraham, (Thru Isaac, based on the covenant of circumcision) inherit the Promised Land.
The Carnal is the Jews, the Spiritual is the Children of God. The carnal is the physical land of Israel, the Spiritual is Heaven itself.
That spiritual land represents eternal life. Christians are called the sons of Abraham. Jesus is the seed (Galatians 3:16). But the Jews still have the same promise in the carnal, and the carnal is the physical land of Israel.
The promise was given to Abraham, and that promise cannot be annulled. It is land. Promised Land. Heaven is Land.
We have eternal life right now, right now, even though we have a dying body.
The resurrection has nothing to do with any of this.
We are first and foremost a spirit. We are a spirit dressed in a body. When we die (cross the Jordan River), we still go to heaven (the promised land).
As Christians, we are wandering in the desert, struggling (wrestling) with God.
When we die, we are still existing.
I have been told by Seventh Day Adventists that dead means dead.
I respond by saying, “Great, I agree; now what does dead mean?”
They think that dead means annihilation, or non-existent. Not true. When you die, you still exist as a spirit, because we are a spirit.
Again,
You are born again as soon as you have
1. Repented of your sins
2. Accept Jesus as the final sacrifice of your sins, past, present and future.
The resurrection has nothing to do with that.
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 8:38 pm
Andrew,
Oh, by the way, all of your questions to me, i.e., Where in the bible can you find, blah, blah, blah; that is easy. I am wondering why you haven’t found the answers yet.
You reference the book of Hebrews, these all died not receiving the promise…
You make it sound as tho they still have yet to receive the promise. That isn’t what that is saying. What it is saying is that they never got the promise when they were alive.
In regards to Abrahams bosom, I suppose you think that is just a parable, huh?
It wasn’t a parable.
Oh, and the famous King David is dead and buried, huh? That verse in Acts is discussing the body only. Jesus ascended in his own body.
That has nothing to do with going to heaven when you die. Our spirit leaves our body when we die.
I suppose you think that our spirit is just the oxygen that we breathe?
Are you from the Herbert W Armstrong clan, or the Ellen G White clan?
Ed
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 8:58 pm
Andrew,
This is a per-emptive strike, as I am quite certain that you will reference Ecclesiastes 9:5.
What Ecclesiastes 9:5 is discussing is that if you come across a dead man in the street, and ask that dead man a question, he will not respond. Why? Because his memory has LEFT him. The dead know nothing at all. He can’t answer you. He is not in his body. He is elsewhere. Where? In heaven, or in hell fire.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and the Herbert W Armstrong clan always reference Ecclesiastes 9:5 in error.
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 11, 2013 at 7:39 pm
I meant, if not (if this is not an unreasonable request) then why resist this?
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 11, 2013 at 9:10 pm
Hmm….
This is another example of speaking with your own words without any scriptural support. When you die, you do not “exist as a spirit” and you know as well as I do that you cannot prove such a statement from scripture. In fact, you would have to argue against numerous biblical statements to the contrary.
Ecc 9:4-6 KJV
(4) For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
(5) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
(6) Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
(…though I suspect you might have a prepared defense of pleading that Ecclesiastes is not inspired scripture…)
I have been pleading that we go back to scripture,
… but all I see that you are presenting is a lot of speech, red herrings, distractions, straw men, and attempts to associate a perceived opponent with Herbert W Armstrong or Ellen G White.
By the way, are you seriously contending that Jesus was not speaking in parable when he spoke unto the multitudes about this rich man who was the son of Abraham that had five brothers? Do you realize the full theological implications if this was not a parable? That salvation is earned through poverty and “receiving evil things” in your lifetime? Just curious…
Mat 13:34-35 KJV
(34) All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
(35) That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
If that is not a parable, then what is the name of the rich man? Alternatively, can you name his brothers or his sister? Here’s your chance.
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 9:21 pm
I can tell that you haven’t done your homework in regards to the Rich man and Lazarus. When you zipper Matthew, Mark, and Luke, you will see that Jesus was NOT speaking to the multitudes. He was only speaking to his disciples, and he never spoke in parables when his audience was his disciples only.
When you zipper Matthew, Mark, and Luke, you will see the discussion of divorce. Then the disciples and Jesus went into a house, and the discussion of divorce continued, then the next topic with his disciples only was the Rich man and Lazarus.
I am not providing you with scripture because these are already things that I know based on years and years of study.
I love to study why people believe what they believe. That is why I have already identified you as either a 7th Day Adventist or a Herbert W Armstrong clan member.
My study is in agreement with the experts, and so I feel comfortable in telling you that it isn’t just my words. It is Bible. You have been taught a different method of study that is not in line with the majority. In other words, you are in the minority.
Most that come from your background will accuse our side of “that is what we have been taught and it’s never been challenged or questioned…it’s just traditions of man, blah, blah, blah.” I have studied how your side does things.
Ed
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 11, 2013 at 9:14 pm
Oh, Chapman Ed, I am curious now, are you associated with either the Jack Chick clan or the Peter Ruckman clan?
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 9:29 pm
I am quite certain that you know who Herbert W Armstrong and Ellen G White are. I follow no man. I am of Christ. He died for me.
I am non-denominational. In a denomination, you must conform to what someone else already decided for you…or else suffer the consequences.
In a non-denomination, Just like Fox News states, The Preacher Reports, We decide.
How do we decide? We search the scriptures daily to see if those things are so. In other words, don’t believe anything from the pulpit until you do your own independent research outside of the influence of any leader in any church.
I spent years studying the Jehovah’s Witnesses (the Charles Taze Russell clan), and years of studying the 7th Day Adventists, and United Church of God, Herbert W and Garner Ted Armstrong clan, and numerous others.
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 11, 2013 at 9:32 pm
Ed, your preemptive attack fails…
Psa 115:17 KJV
(17) The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.
Scripture is pretty clear on this, and it isn’t something it should have to keep on repeating, any more than a mathematics textbook should have to keep reminding you that zero really, really, no really! does equal …. zero.
But from the tenor of this conversation, I’m guessing that it’s not about going back to scripture, that that isn’t going to happen today (or the next day…)
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 9:37 pm
The dead do not praise the Lord, huh?
Wow, you amaze me that you don’t know how to spiritually discern scripture.
Death represents “separation from God”. It is a spiritual death that it is discussing, not a physical death.
The book of Psalms needs to be interpreted in the spiritual, not the carnal. As a matter of fact, the whole bible needs to be interpreted from the carnal to the spiritual.
That is why Nicodemus was as dumb as a door nail, because he could not discern the spiritual. He was discussing being born again of the flesh, but Jesus could not speak to him in the spiritual, because he could not understand the spiritual (John 3:12), and it appears that neither can you.
Ed
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 12, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Ed Chapman, if you weren’t so serious this would be laughable. On one hand you say you have no need to show scripture, and then a couple breaths later you claim that you “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be so.”
So while you’re busy calling Nicodemus as “dumb as a door nail” you might want to consider the beam sticking out of your own eye. Let’s look at the Psalms a little more, shall we?
Psa 104:33 KJV
(33) I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.
The psalmist speaks to us, saying that he will sing as long as he lives. Let us notice that he anticipates that this life will have an end. Then he further defines life as having his being. So apparently, when you do die, you no longer have any being.
But we shall not stop there, let’s continue in the Psalms a little more, since you like them so much, since you claim that “life” and “death” are really code words for spiritual connectivity with God.
Psa 146:2-4 KJV
(2) While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.
(3) Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
(4) His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
Not only is “life” defined as “having any being” in this passage, but it is also clearly laid out that he can only sing praises to God while he has this life.
Additionally, the state of death is defined in contrast, and there can be no wiggle room for you to claim this is a “spiritual death” because he plainly says he “returneth to his earth” and it further clarifies that in that very day his thoughts perish.
So now you are in a tricky spot, for if you try to say that the Psalmist is only speaking in a so-called “carnal sense” you have contradicted your earlier statement, that Psalms must be understood in a so-called “spiritual sense.”
I don’t think you are in any position to be accusing someone else of being unable to discern between carnal and spiritual. I am reaching my conclusions from the scripture itself…. so what right do you have to trump scripture with unsupported opinion?
Ecc 9:10 KJV
(10) Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
I should also point out that wisdom and knowledge are not physical things, but are perceived in the heart (or spirit) of a man. So if a man exists as a spirit, retaining knowledge and/or wisdom, then the Preacher (the author of Ecclesiastes) must be wrong.
“Oh, Solomon, thou art ignorant, go and learn a new way from Master Chapman! For there is work and device and knowledge and wisdom in the grave, whither we go, and heed not thy father David, for indeed we shall praise the Lord after we die, for death is not the end of being! Our thoughts shall not perish, neither fade away, for if Chapman says it is so, therefore it must be!”
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 13, 2013 at 12:04 am
Well, Andrew, you are back. Look, dude, I have already studied the things that you bring up. I don’t need to study it again. I spent many long hours, sometimes until 4 in the morning with coffee, studying the controversies that you bring up. It is seared in my mind already. I already know that debating you is futile. I know how you Herbert W Armstrong clan members work. I know that you go to church on Saturday, and that you don’t celebrate Christmas, Easter, or any other days, and that you celebrate old test feasts, etc. I know.
You and the 7th day Adventists and the Jehovah’s witnesses all have the same doctrine of soul sleep.
I can prove my side with no problem. But the problem is, you won’t listen no matter what I provide.
Your group is in the minority, not the majority.
I have read many of the booklets that the Herbert W Armstrong clan gives out for FREE, and I can refute every one of them. No problem.
You need to get out of that belief system. Run away from it as fast as you can.
You have already told me that I cannot provide you with any scriptural proof of what I say, and so, to pacify you, I just won’t participate in a debate with you.
We all know that born again has nothing to do with the resurrection. But you keep on insisting that it does. Go preach that to your followers in Herbert W Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong, and Roderick C Merideth, and all of those whack jobs.
I have already studied your stuff long ago.
See ya.
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 13, 2013 at 1:23 am
My, Ed Chapman, you sound positively foaming. And prejudiced. And mistaken. And wrong.
(Please forgive me here Pastor Bob, but something must be said.)
So, Ed Chapman, if you want to associate me with someone, simply based upon the concept of “soul sleep” then you would be more accurate to place me alongside Jesus, the apostle Paul, William Tyndale, and Martin Luther. I will even admit to borrowing from William Tyndale when I mockingly rebuked Solomon in your favor above.
Whether or not I attend a church on a Saturday, a Sunday, on any other day of the week, or whether I attend a church at all is irrelevant. For is it not written,
Rom 14:3-6 KJV
(3) Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
(4) Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
(5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
(6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
You glory in claiming that you know all the answers, and can make all these predictions, yet you will not provide scripture, and your predictions are false. Your glory is your shame. If you desire above all things to be part of the majority, you may indeed attain it, for narrow is the way that leads to life, but broad is the path that leads to destruction.
Unfortunately, it would be too easy to just let you escape like that, for you have said things that go beyond simply mistaken interpretation, straight into the realm of misrepresentation. But if you really are an expert as you claim, it starts to approach an outright lie. Some things require more than a sly wink, and demand rebuttal.
Do you remember when you said that Jesus spake of Lazarus and that certain rich man not to the multitude, but only within a house in private to his disciples? Have you rewritten the gospels as well?
Here’s your words:
I’m afraid to ask what it means to “zipper” Matthew, Mark, and Luke… but the parable is in the gospel of Luke, so let’s look at Luke for a moment, and see what the gospel writer actually said, starting at the beginning.
Luk 15:1-2 KJV
(1) Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
(2) And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
Please note that at the beginning of this section, present there are publicans, sinners, Pharisees, and scribes. He continues to speak without pause, until he starts to speak to his disciples about a certain rich man….
Luk 16:1 KJV
(1) And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
Had this multitude dispersed? Were they in private? Apparently not, because although that particular parable was addressed to his disciples, it seems that it was spoken in clear hearing of the Pharisees. Why would we think this? Maybe it’s because we kept reading:
Luk 16:14-15 KJV
(14) And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
(15) And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Did you hear that? Jesus just condemned your standard of “majority rule.”
… and what follows? Without a break in his speech, now specifically addressing the gathered Pharisees from among that multitude, he begins to tell us of another certain rich man and of a character named Lazarus.
It would be very strange for him to specifically make a rebuke for the Pharisees, and then run away to speak it in private where no one could hear.
So what was this “expert having studied” claim of yours again?
No sir, you are incorrect on multiple counts. Jesus did speak with a multitude present when he tells us about Lazarus and this familiar rich man with five brothers. The Pharisees were among that multitude and he was speaking specifically to the Pharisees that were present.
Even the Robertson Gospel Harmony says “to the Pharisees, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.” This was certainly not a private talk with his disciples.
Perhaps this might imply that perhaps your homework might be somewhat lacking.
Unfortunately, I admit that many people will simply believe whatever they are told by anyone who claims to be in the majority, and as such it was necessary to rebut your false statement lest someone drift in and actually believe you at face value.
… and I don’t buy your claim of “I can prove everything, but I won’t” … because I saw through that in grade school. It’s not a new tactic. And you know what? The tactic of attempting to ostracize someone by claiming they are different?
…Or making false claims about them and repeating it often? Those aren’t new tactics either.
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 13, 2013 at 1:38 am
Like I said, there is no other denomination on the planet that teaches what you espouse in regards to “born again” equating to the resurrection other than the clan of Herbert W Armstrong and his breakaway churches. It originated with him and him alone. And you teach his teaching. You do not teach that of anyone else but him. I know.
Do you go to church on Saturday or Sunday? Yes, or no?
Do you abide by the Leviticus food restrictions? Yes or no?
Do you celebrate Easter and Christmas? Yes or no?
Do you believe in soul sleep? Yes or no?
Simple questions.
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 13, 2013 at 2:19 am
Like I said, there is no other denomination on the planet that teaches what you espouse in regards to “born again” equating to the resurrection other than the clan of Herbert W Armstrong and his breakaway churches. It originated with him and him alone. And you teach his teaching. You do not teach that of anyone else but him. I know.
And so you shall have simple answers. No, No, No, Yes, in that order. But since you say you “can prove your side with no problem” what was this supposed to prove again?
You’re digging yourself in deeper as you prove that you do not understand what is inherently wrong with your methods and perceived standard of truth. Your prediction failed, so why don’t you just stop?
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 13, 2013 at 6:31 am
I won’t stop because like I said, the only denomination that teaches that born again is related to the resurrection is the Herbert W Armstrong clan. There is no other denomination that does. Whatever church you belong to inherited that doctrine from Herbert W Armstrong. Period.
But you neglected to see what I posted in regards to the word “zipper”. I can’t believe that you didn’t understand what I meant by zippering the gospels together. As you see, The Story of the Rich man and Lazarus is not a parable as I laid out. It cannot be refuted.
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 13, 2013 at 6:36 am
So, based on your yes and no answers, you don’t go to church at all on Saturday or Sunday. I just want to be sure that your answer was correct. You answered no when I asked if you went to church on Saturday or Sunday. That tells me that you don’t go to church at all, unless you go to church either on Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday, or Thursday or Friday. Am I right? Can you clarify what day that you go to church, please?
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 13, 2013 at 1:41 am
Oh, and in regards to the rich man and Lazarus, I told you how to reconcile that. You zipper the gospels to come up with an accurate timeline of events.
The last conversation with the multitude was the topic of divorce. Then Jesus and his disciples, without the multitude, went into a house, and the topic of divorce continued. Then the next topic was the rich man and Lazarus.
Simple. You haven’t done your study. Red herring, huh? Ya, right.
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 13, 2013 at 1:58 am
The Rich Man and Lazarus:
The topic of divorce spoken to the multitude
Matthew 19:3-12 is equated to Mark 10:2-9 is equated to Luke 16:18
The topic of divorce spoken to his disciples only in the house
Mark 10:10-12 (Picks up from the previous Mark reference in sequential order)
The topic of the Rich man and Lazarus
Luke 16:19-31 (Picks up from the previous Luke reference in sequential order).
That is the proper timeline.
I have it in a pdf form from the beginning of each of the three gospels to the end of the 3 gospels in sequential order of events.
Every event is listed. Matthew speaks of things that Mark and Luke don’t, and so on and so forth. You have to take all witness statements into account to put a timeline together.
I don’t care what some so called expert theologian said in a commentary. He was wrong.
Posted by .John H. Gregory on April 11, 2013 at 1:15 am
Brother Andrew Patrick, There is no short way to answer you. I will be quoting from my
studies at the simenary in Dallas Texas, Under Chafer & Ryrie. I am a Dispensationalist. The distinct character of the Church is rooted in its unique
relationship to the living Christ as the BODY of which HE is the head. The Church & Israel are two different groups. The promises for the Church are heavenly. The
prophecys for Israel are earthly. Prophecy concerns Israel. Mystery concerns the Body
of Christ. The heart of the mystery is the one body into which both Jews & Gentiles
are placed. Classic Dispensationalism uses the words PARENTHESIS to describe the
distinctiveness of the Church in relation to God’s program for Israel. (Daniel’s
prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24–27.
Chafer wrote “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is
pursuing two distinct purposes; one related to the earth with earthly people &
earthly objectives involved, which is Judausm; while the other is related to heaven with
heavenly people & heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.” “L. S. Chafer,
Dispensationalism, Dallas: Dalles Seminary Press, 1936, 30.
To carry the designation ISRAEL over to believers in the Church is not warrented by the New Testament. The Church is distinct as a living organism, the Body of
Christ. The destiny of the Church is in Glory with her Bride, not as subjects of a King. If there is any relation of the Church with or to the Kingdom it is as co-heirs with Christ.
Much more could be given, but it is late & I need to go to bed.
God bless,
John H. Gregory
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 10:29 am
@John H. Gregory,
You and I are in agreement, although I never went to cemetery (just kidding). There are “denominations” that neglect to take the carnal story and re-interpret it to the spiritual. The carnal story is given for a spiritual interpretation. Many, but not all, miss that. The same carnal story goes both ways; one to the carnal and one to the spiritual. Calvinists, for example, miss the spiritual by constantly concentrating on the “exegesis” of the carnal story that they miss Jesus using exegesis.
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 11, 2013 at 7:17 pm
Thank you, John Gregory.
You did explain why you said that the Kingdom of God is only for the Jews. May I please make a few observations?
1) You said that the source of your belief was Dallas Theological Seminary, Chafer & Ryrie, and dispensationalism.
2) You did provide a quote from Chafer, but did not provide any specific scriptural support.
3) Although I mentioned that I could think of quite a few places within scripture that would deny “God’s Kingdom only for the Jews” you did not ask me for examples.
Mat 8:10-12 KJV
(10) When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
(11) And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
(12) But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I have looked into dispensationalism before, when I found a live person (of a group of people) who claimed dispensationalism, as in “Dispensationalism, it’s the truth!” When I asked for an explanation of what it was, he was unable to tell me directly, but said I needed to read a specific book. When I read this book that had been named for me, the author said that no one could know what Dispensationalism really was, that it was a mystery that could not be understood.
… a “mystery” religion? so when I asked George about this, he wasn’t able to provide me a better answer either.
So, I have two more questions:
1) Based upon the gospel of Matthew above. Does Jesus trump Chafer and Dallas Theological seminary? For example, Jesus said that people would come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but that the children of the kingdom would be cast out. Even that passage standing alone would seem to stand at odds with “the Kingdom of God is only for the Jews.”
2) Based upon question one, shouldn’t we first attempt to derive our doctrine from the bible, rather than philosophers and theological cemeteries? Would this not be the ideal? Is the scripture alone sufficient to establish doctrine?
Posted by Transformed Theology on April 11, 2013 at 9:48 pm
Well…. this dialogue has certainly been enlightening. I have NO CLUE how it relates to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in being born again or regenerated.
I hope you guys know what you are doing…. I have no idea where this conversation came from nor where it is headed. I guess it is like the wind!
Rock on.
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 9:56 pm
LOL…
Basically, our friend Andrew is attempting to teach us that Born Again has nothing to do with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but has everything to do with the resurrection. This is a teaching of the World Wide Church of God, aka the Herbert W Armstrong clan. I have heard them teach this on Television. After Herbert W Armstrong died, his church broke up into many different factions, but all of those factions teach the same thing in regards to born again equating to the resurrection. To them, the word BORN in “born again” is in regards to a body that we get at the resurrection. That has nothing to do with “born again” as we know it to be.
Bottom line, Andrew is not in line with the majority of non-Calvinists, or Calvinists, so his discussion is out of line with your post.
Ed
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 10:31 pm
See paragraph 5 under the heading, “Being Born Again” in the following in the following link:
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/armstrong.htm
That is what Andrew is trying to convince us.
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 10:36 pm
Also see paragraph #3 entitled Salvation. It’s a very strange concept of “born again”. I think it is safe to conclude that Andrew is from this belief system.
Posted by John H. Gregory. on April 11, 2013 at 11:31 pm
Brother Bob Hadley, I do agree with you. Any time we post on the net, we are open to
nut case attacks! I do agree with your article as I have stated above. But I am NOT
going to spend time trying to reason with the likes of Brother Andrew. Got more important things to do.
God bless,
John H. Gregory
Posted by Transformed Theology on April 11, 2013 at 11:47 pm
John,
Thanks for your comments here and at SBC Today. Have a great evening!
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 13, 2013 at 12:25 am
Hello Bob, I can show you exactly what is being laid out here.
First, with regards to your topic, regardless of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the context of the passage you used for support was addressing a different topic. Jesus was using a different application of “ye must be born again” when he spoke to Nicodemus. I count you as a friend, and thus have presumed that you care for accuracy.
Second, I have made an appeal to scripture, with a request that we please be willing to go back and establish all things from the Word. Ed Chapman has taken it upon himself to oppose me through various techniques like a suicidal ninja without regard to his own safety (meaning his integrity, in this context) utilizing techniques such as:
. 1. The red herring, bring out all sorts of irrelevant topics
. 2. Straw man arguments, claiming arguments for me in my absence
. 3. Personal attacks and accusations
. 4. Attempting to associate me with false prophets (Ellen White, Herbert Armstrong)
. 5. Rearranging words of scripture to suit his private interpretation
. 6. Refusing to provide scriptural support when asked (he said he has no need)
. 7. The fallback “if you trust the Bible you must be in a cult” accusation
. 8. Claiming to be an expert and judge without need of scripture
. 9. False statements and predictions (my list grows longer…)
Considering that this is your blog, you do have some sort of say concerning what constitutes legitimate tactics and discussion. As such, I think Ed Chapman has summarized his position (and defense) rather well, when he says:
Ed Chapman claims,
I make my argument from scripture, but Ed Chapman has declared that it is whether one is supposedly “in line” with the majority view that should decide whether one should be heard. Ironically, this is also the method that the Calvinists employed at the Synod of Dort when they ejected the Remonstrants while claiming the presence of the Holy Spirit…
What sayest thou? Is my appeal to scripture only regardless of majority or minority views valid, or is Chapman using the right measure? Regardless of whether my initial assertion was correct or not, what is the correct measure of truth? And as such, is it proper for me to question a specific scriptural application on your board?
… (waits for an answer from Pastor Bob)
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 13, 2013 at 12:39 am
And while you await your response from Pastor Bob, I am quite confident in your affiliation with Herbert W Armstrong as his “denomination” is the ONLY denomination, with its numerous factions, of course, that preaches that born again is equated with the resurrection of the body. There is no other denomination on the planet that teaches this, and Herbert W Armstrong is where it originated from. There are factions of his old church that NOW believe that he was a false prophet, but they still preach his stuff. Andrews beliefs originated with non other than Herbert W Armstrong. He can deny it all he wants, but the evidence is overwhelming.
Posted by Transformed Theology on April 13, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Unfortunately… I have failed to try to follow the comment thread here… As I indicated earlier, the conversation has gone in a much different direction that I orginally asserted and I have simply not taken the time to attempt to try to follow the arguments.
As for Chapman’s comments regarding your denominational background… that is between you two.
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 13, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Actually Bob, if you will tolerate that type of behavior and harassment it is not “between you two” … because then it also reflects on you. You have been specifically addressed and asked for a ruling of what you consider acceptable on your board. Please reply.
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 13, 2013 at 11:05 pm
Wow, Andrew, You are making accusations against the host for his behavior of not wanting to get involved into our discussion as a reflection of him? And now by you saying that he has been “specifically addressed” shows that you are “demanding” that he answer you…albeit with the word, “please”. Interesting.
I would appreciate if you responded to my question as to what day of the week that you go to church, since you said that you don’t go to church on Saturday or Sunday.
Also, if you wouldn’t mind, what denomination do you belong to, so as that I may research the official standing on what you presented that born again is equated with the resurrection.
I maintain that the originating factor is indeed Herbert W Armstrong. So, what denomination do you belong to.
If you refuse to answer, then that reflects on you.
Ed Chapman
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 14, 2013 at 11:49 am
Ed Chapman, if you were attentive you would already have your answer, both from the scripture I have already cited, or common due diligence. I do not have a denomination, and I form my beliefs from what the scripture simply saith.
As for your silly question, you demanded a “yes or no” answer, and I so I answered accordingly. If you are unable to form your question the way you wanted, wouldn’t that be your fault? Regardless, do you not grasp the meaning of the word “no?” Or are you in denial because it so escapes your prejudiced prediction?
I suppose it doesn’t matter, because you demonstrate that if you don’t find the answers you want (or that match what you predicted) that you’re liable to invent what you like anyway. You have also shown that you do not honor the scripture as having rule over your spirit.
Rom 14:4-5 KJV
(4) Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
(5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Some esteem one day above another, whereas I esteem every day alike. If you understood this, you wouldn’t be attempting to harass people with questions like “what day do you go to church, Saturday or Sunday?”
You shall not be entertained any further. If we were talking about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that spirit comes from God because it is God, and it is a spirit of love, joy, peace, patience, and truth. The Spirit of God comes from above and dwells in his saints, but you have said that your spirit comes and goes like the wind and you know not from whence it comes and wither it goes. That spirit that you describe may be a spirit, but it is not the Holy Spirit. By what you’ve shown here, you are not born again in either application of the term.
And yes, Ed Chapman, if Bob will not answer what he considers acceptable conduct on his board, then he has tacitly approved of your conduct, and your behavior becomes his behavior by extension. I will leave it up to Bob to clarify whether he intends this association or not.
But if you still want to research my position, get a bible.
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 14, 2013 at 7:20 pm
Andrew,
If you are so convinced that your logic is correct, then write a book and get it published, and start your own cultish church.
All cults use the bible to make it say what they want it to say. Your doctrine is heretical. Yes, I can judge that. The apostle Paul warned us about you, he said to beware of false teachers. Therefore, I do not acknowledge you as a servant of Jesus.
You don’t even go to church, based on your response to me. When I asked if you went to church on Saturday or Sunday, you said no, and you emphasized that no means no.
So, I think I can get from that, that someday you will start your own church, with your own ideas.
Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses say that they are Bible Based. So do the Mormons.
Finally, you have been entertaining, so I will miss not being entertained by you, as you say. Just remember, the person that started your doctrine of “Born Again” equating to the resurrection was none other than Herbert W Armstrong. Do your research.
Someone taught you what he taught, and he used scripture just like you do in order to convince people of his false doctrines. All cults do that. Cults can make the Bible say anything that they want it to. They are crafty. They deceive. And you are teaching things that deceive. Yes, I judge. The Apostle Paul judged, too.
The topic of your reference to judging has nothing to do with our conversation of heretical teachings. It has everything to do with the level of faith that a person has. See, cults take things out of context, as you did, by stating to me that I don’t have the Christian right to judge another person. We have that right to do so. Otherwise, how would we judge a person to be a wolf in sheeps clothing?
Posted by John G. on April 14, 2013 at 3:08 am
Brother Hadley & Brother Chapman, I left earlier due to brother Andrew & his
pirana attitude. I do not think that he is seeking the truth. His thoughts are
convoluted, circular, repellent, & egregious. I actually have been praying for him
because I do feel that he has been duped into believing the balderdash that he
is besetting you with. God bless him, he needs prayer & help. If only he would listen.
God bless us all,
John H. Gregory
Posted by chapmaned24 on April 11, 2013 at 10:52 pm
Hey Andrew, if you are still around, click on my name and you will be directed at an interesting post in regards to Easter, which I think you call Ishtar or Ashtray, something like that. Oh, by the way, it has bible references within it since you want to bring it back to the bible. Hope you leave a comment. It deals with your Herbert W Armstrong clans interpretation of Three Days and Three Nights.
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 14, 2013 at 12:02 pm
John H Gregory replies,
How very touching John. So what “balderdash” might that be? My question to you of whether a clear statement of Jesus trumps Dallas Theological Seminary? If Jesus says that people from without Israel from the east and west shall sit down with Abraham in the kingdom of heaven while the children of the kingdom are cast into outer darkness (Matthew 8:10-12) then that does seem to oppose a notion that the kingdom of heaven is only for the Jews. I think you are upset because you did not want to answer that question.
Please allow me to state this more clearly: what should be our standard of truth and doctrine? Is scripture sufficient for our faith and practice, or do we require the addition of philosophers and theological seminaries? In the case of a conflict between scripture and tradition, which one should prevail?
If you consider that “piranha”, “convoluted and circular”, or “repellent and egregious” then by all means, when you answer that question please provide an example or what you think is more appropriate. That is, if your concern was sincere in the first place…
Posted by John G. on April 14, 2013 at 7:59 pm
Andrew! I refuse to answer a fool according to his own follly. You sir, may go bark &
howl at the moon.
John H. Gregory
Posted by Transformed Theology on April 14, 2013 at 8:02 pm
I am tempted to delete the whole comment thread. I do not really see any relevance in the comments with respect to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and regeneration.
I have glanced at the comments but that is about it. I have no intention of moderating any debate that has taken place between adults. I am not siding with anyone one way or the other. As I have already said, I am not following the general direction the comment thread has taken and I am not interested in investing the time to give it much consideration.
If that bothers anyone, all I can say is “it is what it is.” Again it is not an effort to take sides at least from my perspective.
I will say this: it does seem as if the conversation is getting out of hand and I do not think that is appropriate for this venue.
Posted by John G. on April 14, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Thank You, I do agree. I have no problem with your deleting this. I enjoyed, & was
blessed by all that you said! And I would have enjoyed it more. It has gotten out of
hand & it is inappropriate for the purpose intended.
God bless,
John H. Gregory
Posted by Andrew Patrick on April 15, 2013 at 7:14 pm
From the same chapter, same speaker, and in the same breath,
Joh 3:20-21 KJV
(20) For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
(21) But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
I think the posts should stay…
Posted by Joanne on April 14, 2013 at 9:30 pm
Dear Bob,
I have managed to follow this whole thread from the beginning, and I think it has a lot to do with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is revealed in the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and it is the Spirit of Truth.
The measure of truth should be what the bible actually says, and I do not believe the Holy Spirit will contradict what is in the bible. While it is necessary to be in Christ, having been sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, it says it is the earnest of our inheritance until the day of redemption of the purchased possession. ( see Eph 1:13-14)
There is an until involved and it does not contradict when that redemption will happen.
All I have seen here has been an attempt to not look at scripture at all. There have been a lot of opinions and behavior that does not appear to me to be guided by any of the fruits of the Spirit, nor a love of truth.
Perhaps there are others watching some of these things of whom you may not be aware. What would be so wrong with being willing to actually look at the scriptures without trying to associate what is being said with someone who has been discredited by someone who clearly is acting out of line.
Almost everyone has heard the expression of “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater…” If there is truth from the bible, look at it, even if it happened to have been once spoken by a donkey. Unsupported opinions are in a different category, and deserve to be thrown out, as should general disrespect and bad behavior.
I feel sorry that you do not feel qualified to see the difference between these two methods.
Posted by Transformed Theology on April 14, 2013 at 9:59 pm
JoAnn
Thank you for visiting the site and for leaving a comment. I am certainly glad that you “followed the thread” and hope that your time here has been beneficial to you. The comment that I made was that I did not see the relevance of the discussion not so much where the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was concerned but rather where the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in regeneration or being born again is concerned.
Since that is my focus, I chose not to invest time in the direction the comments seemed to be taking. I have commented on some of the statements dealing with the characters of those commenting and agree with you that it is not the best demonstration of the gifts of the Spirit.
As for the following statement:
Almost everyone has heard the expression of “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater…” If there is truth from the bible, look at it, even if it happened to have been once spoken by a donkey.
Spoken by a donkey… that is indeed an interesting analogy. Hope you were not thinking of me with that statement! 🙂
Unsupported opinions are in a different category, and deserve to be thrown out, as should general disrespect and bad behavior. I agree.
I feel sorry that you do not feel qualified to see the difference between these two methods.
I do understand the difference in the two methods… I simply commented that I had no desire to take the time to determine which one was the “donkey” as you mention!
Thank you for your visit. Feel free to browse around and comment.
Posted by Joanne on April 14, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Hello Bob,
Thanks for your reply. The donkey was from Numbers 22. He could see more truth than Balaam, at least in that instance.
Posted by The Seeking Disciple on April 15, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Good post brother. I concur.
Posted by Rhonda on February 11, 2014 at 8:12 pm
Pastor Bob,
Thank you so much for your insight into Romans 8. I have studied this portion of scripture over and over because my former church was taken over by a young pastor who hid his calvinistic beliefs. The church ended up splitting, and my family left. I read many commentaries on the subject, but I just did not feel settled in my spirit with anything I read. I did not believe that calvinism was biblical, but I did not want to settle for another non truth. I decided to search the scriptures myself for the truth. I came to the same conclusion as you, and you are the only other person that I have encountered who saw it as clearly as I did. Also, when I read Romans 11:1-2 it was clear who the people God foreknew were:
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
When you understand this portion of scripture, all the other scriptures that calvinist use fall apart.
Keep up your work for the truth, and you are in my prayers.
Posted by Transformed Theology on July 8, 2014 at 8:13 pm
Rhonda
Thanks for the comment; not sure why I did not get notification of your comment before today.
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on April 16, 2014 at 11:18 am
Dear Dr. Bob Hadley,
In your closing para. of this post you state “the unregenerate are convicted of their sin”. This component of your soteriological conjecture is not correct. The problem it promotes is allowing the election of which sin to repent of on an individual basis which results in the redundant procedure repenting of sin(s) as a constant conundrum. To become saved by the power of God we have been disallowed the option of electing which of our sins to repent of. Suggest that you correct this anomaly. For the small narrow gate into God’s kingdom only allows passage based upon the faith to repent of a sin that is not of your own choosing.
Posted by Transformed Theology on July 8, 2014 at 8:11 pm
Not sure I am following you… convicted of our sin is all-inclusive… it is not an invitation to pick certain sins to repent of. Your statement, “To become saved by the power of God we have been disallowed the option of electing which of our sins to repent of” is not relevant… since that is your interpretation of my position.
We are not to “repent of a sin that is not of our own choosing.” We are to repent of our sin… our lost condition due to our sin.
I think I will hold onto my position.
Bob
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 8, 2014 at 8:46 pm
Theodore, Theodore…”disallowed the option of…”??????? Disallowed, huh? Weird. Can you speak plain English, please? Repent just plain simply means to change your mind. If one is reminded of a past sin, or current sin that was not a thought previously, then there is nothing wrong with repenting again, and again. However, salvation was completed at the very first repenting.
I don’t get your educated language. Most of us in the world are poor uneducated peasants. Speak our language.
component of your soteriological conjecture…constant conundrum…redundant procedure…correct this anomaly…sin that is not of your own choosing.
I’d hate to listen to you after a few cups of coffee.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 9, 2014 at 1:13 pm
I don’t think holding only a GED places me in the class of the educated. You’re mistaken about that too along with your defective soteriogical assumption.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 9, 2014 at 9:46 pm
Theodore, Theodore…
If all ya got is a GED, then stay in your pay-grade, because your speech doesn’t impress anyone, including God.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Andrew Patrick on July 9, 2014 at 1:37 pm
You are correct: an plethora-packed sundry assortment of obscure vocabulary are not the markings of the erudite education. It’s just a bunch of big words that is hard to understand.
Perhaps you could try adjusting your writing style and/or vocabulary to suit your audience and/or subject? If the bible was written with phrases like “soteriological conjecture” fewer people would understand it.
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 9, 2014 at 6:39 pm
Did Jesus Christ die in anyone’s place? No. Clear enough
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 9, 2014 at 8:09 pm
Theodore, Theodore…
Wrong. Jesus died in everyone’s place. He took MY punishment. That means that he died in “anyone’s place”. Are we clear?
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 10, 2014 at 6:24 am
Jesus’ death was caused by the deliberate act of first degree murder and therefore cannot be a direct benefit to anyone. “He took My punishment” is corporate eccleastical nonsense.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 10, 2014 at 8:33 am
Theodore, Theodore,
Wrong again, buddy! If Jesus had not been crucified on the cross, what would have been the end result of eternal life for people?
Jesus HAD TO be crucified. As a matter of fact, Peter attempted to DEFEND Jesus by taking out his sword at the moment that Jesus was being arrested. But Jesus HAD to get to that cross. Satan did not want Jesus to get to that cross.
It’s obvious that you blame the Jews/Romans for killing/murdering Jesus, but that is exactly what Jesus/God wanted to do.
The purpose of Jesus coming to this planet was to die on a cross, not to live out a long life and die of old age.
Come on Theodore…get real. You have no idea about prophecies. Jesus is the LAMB of God. He is the Lamb Slain from the foundation of the earth. He is the sacrifice. He is the Passover Lamb…his blood shed to save lives. So please don’t use your phoney uneducated language to support a different story.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 10, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Have I said Jesus Christ wasn’t crucified? Is this man’s statement true?
“You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your father’s not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ had to be the sin of MURDER. For if not the Way of salvation could not be perfected. Truthfully the Way of salvation was not perfected until after Jesus’ ascension, which is the fact you ignore and leave out. Whenever the crucifixion of Jesus is not explained to be an offense of the written code of God’s law: every explanation of salvation on that basis is always false. Jesus Christ was not murdered in anyone’s place.
Posted by Andrew Patrick on July 10, 2014 at 1:05 pm
Regardless, it seems we are back to the “Indwelling of the Holy Spirit” topic now. Chapman Ed, do your responses to Theodore reflect the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? What are the fruits of that spirit again?
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 10, 2014 at 3:15 pm
The “indwelling” of the Holy Spirit is predicated upon the faith of obeying the law which has been added regarding the sin of murdering Jesus Christ. There are no exceptions.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 10, 2014 at 8:37 pm
Theodore, Theodore
You are way out there in left field, there buddy. We are NOT under the law of Moses. If YOU are, then you are not under grace, and you will be judged according to the law of Moses. But, we are under grace, and so the law is dead to us, for we died with Christ. If we are dead, the law is dead, sin is dead. If you are under the law, sin is alive, the law is alive.
Last I recall, Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they KNOW NOT…KNOW NOT…KNOW NOT…KNOW NOT what they do.”
Had they KNOWN, they would NOT have done it. They are NOT GUILTY of murdering Jesus, since Jesus forgave them WITHOUT THEM EVEN ASKING TO BE FORGIVEN.
God did not want them to know, so he blinded them…and Moses is the first to declare that blindness.
You sound like a Jew hater to me.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 4:00 am
The law referenced in ROM. 2:13 is not the law of Moses. You cannot understand Paul’s letters if you assume that the word law is always referring to the law of Moses. It is the fact that the law was changed after Jesus’ ascension. Heb.7:12 Since none of the written code could be abolished the only way available to change the law was to add to it. “The law was added so that the trespass might increase.” ROM. 5:20 The trespass is Jesus’ murder. The word grace is referring to the fact that a law has been added.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 11, 2014 at 11:04 am
Theodore, Theodore,
Sorry to burst your bubble, dude, but the reference of Romans 2:13 is indeed discussing the Law of Moses. You need to finish the chapter of the discussion.
There is ONLY one Law, and it is the Law of Moses. 613 of them. According to 1 John 3:4, sin is defined as transgression of the law.
You say that I cannot understand Paul’s letters? I do indeed understand Paul’s letters.
The NEW Covenant REPLACES the Old Covenant. It isn’t Grace PLUS Law. It is Grace vs. Law.
You need to re-read Romans…all of it. Romans 5, 4, 6, and 7.
The New Covenant is not an add-on to the Old Covenant.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Andrew Patrick on July 11, 2014 at 12:48 pm
Chapman Ed,
You said that the ONLY law was the law of Moses. Specifically, “There is ONLY one Law, and it is the Law of Moses. 613 of them. According to 1 John 3:4, sin is defined as transgression of the law.”
If that is the case, then how could it be said that “all have sinned?” For there was no law of Moses before Moses, and even then, that law was not given to all people.
Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
If sin is the transgression of the law, and all have sinned, then there must be law OTHER than the law of Moses…. because the law of Moses has never applied to all men who ever lived.
The next question for you is, If there is other law, what is that law? If Adam and Enoch and Noah sinned, if Abraham sinned, then what law did they transgress?
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 11, 2014 at 1:13 pm
Andrew Patrick,
You had said: “If that is the case, then how could it be said that “all have sinned?” For there was no law of Moses before Moses, and even then, that law was not given to all people.”
My response:
Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Pay attention to the word “imputed” above.
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Pay attention to Romans 5:13 in regards to Romans 4:15
Romans 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Again, pay attention to the word “impute”.
So, yes, for all have sinned. But, where there is no law, there is no transgression to be imputed.
We are not under the law. Neither was Abraham. KNOWLEDGE of good and evil is required for sin to be imputed, as long as the law is alive. But the law is dead for Christians. It was dead for Abraham.
There are also key words and phrases to seek, such as, dead “TO” sin, vs. dead “IN” sin. The opposite to those are Alive “IN” Christ, Alive “TO” sin.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 10, 2014 at 8:39 pm
The same as Jesus calling the Pharisees a bunch of names!! And the Father was in him!
________________________________
Posted by John G. on July 8, 2014 at 8:35 pm
Beautiful words of Truth! Faith,
belief always comes before
Regeneration! It is good to read the
Truth.
God bless,
C. John Gregory
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 4:14 am
Regarding “Father forgive them”. Salvation is only granted to the individual who has the faith to obey the law that has been added. His father will not forgive anyone who refuses to obey him regarding the sin of murdering his only begotten son. There are no exceptions.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 11, 2014 at 11:12 am
You say that salvation is only offered to those who blah, blah, blah….
I challenge you on that one.
Obviously, you didn’t finish reading Romans Chapter 2.
It deals with those who have NEVER HEARD…the Gentiles who have never heard are judged by their conscience.
Those who reject Jesus are judged by the Law of Moses, those who accept Jesus are NOT JUDGED at all, because Jesus was already judged, and punished for our sins. Those who have no clue, are not judged by the Law of Moses, but by their conscience, and Paul declares THAT to be GOOD NEWS.
I can go into further detail about that. Romans 5 declares that before the Law…of Moses…sin was in the world, BUT, BUT, BUT, sin is NOT imputed (counted against a person) where there is NO LAW.
Abraham did not have the law. And Romans 4 discusses Abraham in great detail. He was justified by faith, before circumcision, not law, not after circumcision. All because he believed God, not because he was “obedient” to God. He was obedient because he believed God. His obedience justified his belief.
You have a lot to learn.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 11:51 am
The only thing you “whip” is the scriptures themselves. The Lord clearly states prior to his murder that guilt relative to sin is to be the primary unilateral factor remaining AFTER his murder. However you are asserting that neither was he murdered nor is unilateral guilt relative to sln the outstanding issue after his crucifixion. You are not contesting what I teach. Rather you are contesting direct quotes of God himself.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 11, 2014 at 12:31 pm
You can’t contest “Father forgive them…” and the REASON that he gave, “for they KNOW NOT what they do.”
Romans 3:20 …the law is the knowledge of sin.
They never believed that they were murdering Jesus. They believed that they were killing Jesus, a capital offense for blasphemy, for which there is a law, and the punishment for that is to be killed.
In addition, they did not believe because God didn’t want them to believe.
You have a lot to learn. I am contesting what you said, because even the devil quoted scripture to Jesus, but Jesus quoted scripture back to the devil.
So, you can’t beat me.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 12:00 pm
The law was changed AFTER Jesus was crucified. And that law,unlike the law of Moses, has been put into effect through angles by the Mediator who authored it AFTER he was crucified.. Acts 7:53, Gal. 3:19
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 11, 2014 at 12:40 pm
The Law of Moses is ONLY in effect while you are alive. BUT, if YOU DIED WITH CHRIST, the law of Moses is dead, as well.
Romans Chapter 6, beyond your “God forbid” states that we are dead to sin, but alive to Christ.
Paul, in Galatians states that he, thru the law, is dead to the law. That means that he is NOT under the law.
Galatians 4:21
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
If you want to be under the law, you will be judged by the law. I am under grace. Again, Grace replaced the law. It is Grace vs. Law, not Law Plus Grace. That’s an oxymoron.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 1:17 pm
The only thing you “whip” is the scriptures themselves. The Lord clearly states prior to his murder that guilt relative to sin is to be the primary unilateral factor remaining AFTER his murder. However you are asserting that neither was he murdered nor is unilateral guilt relative to sln the outstanding issue after his crucifixion. You fare ticket not contesting what I teach. Rather you are contesting direct quotes of God himself.
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 4:17 am
Regarding your assertion of “not guilty” see Jn. 16:8.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 11, 2014 at 11:15 am
Your reference to John 16:8 has nothing to do with the so-called murder of Jesus at all.
In regards to God forgiving them of that crime, they are not guilty. They cannot be charged with a crime that has been forgiven.
Think, man, think.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 4:20 am
You need to dump the eccleastical junk you’ve been taught and believe.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 11, 2014 at 11:18 am
I do believe. I am non-denomination, therefore, I NEVER take anything biblical with a grain of salt. I dissect topics. The preacher reports…I DECIDE. I search the scriptures daily to see if those things are so.
I can NEVER be accused of “ecclesiastical junk that I have been taught”. However, what you espouse here is indeed something that you have been taught, and have not learned on your own. I am a Berean at heart. And, I can scripture whip you, if you like.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Everyone one who reads any of your comments is fully aware that you do not take anything biblical with a grain of salt.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm
Theodore,
Just like you do with scripture, you took what I said out of context. I did not say that. And you know that. You are very immature.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 9:32 pm
RE “Your reference to Jn.16:8 has nothing to do with the so called murder of Jesus at all.” Quote chapmaned24. Stephen, a man the scripture describes being full of grace and truth, is quoted “betrayed and murdered him.” Acts 7:53 Only a very shallow and highly immature religious person refers to the murder of Jesus Christ as so called.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 11, 2014 at 10:27 pm
Last I recall, forgiven sins are NOT charged against anyone. Stephen requested that God not hold that sin against them.
Matthew 18 discusses loose and bind. What we loose is loosed in heaven. You might want to read Matthew 18 in regards to forgiveness, and loose and bind.
You have no clue, do you?
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 10:43 pm
Acts 7:60 Stephen is referencing his own murder not the murder of Jesus. There is no subordination in the scripture that the same religious rulers who murdered both Jesus and Stephen have been forgiven of anything by God.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 11, 2014 at 10:57 pm
Matthew 18, loose and bind. It doesn’t matter what you say. Forgiven sins cannot be charged against you. Period. Those who killed Jesus are forgiven because Jesus requested such. Those who killed Stephen are forgiven because Stephen requested such. Bind and Loose. Matthew 18. You sure don’t know much, but then again, you only have a GED education. School in a class room didn’t suit you, huh?
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Andrew Patrick on July 11, 2014 at 11:59 pm
What is with the ad hominem attacks???
Chapman-Ed, your name-calling style has nothing in common with how Christ denounced the Pharisees:.it lacks substance, grace, and authority. Know ye not that it is what proceeds from the mouth of a man that defiles him? Do you remember what is said by James about harnessing the tongue? The fruits of the Spirit includes love…. peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness… meekness, temperance. Don’t claim the same Spirit as Jesus if you’re going to be abusive and “name-calling.”
Perhaps you could think about that question I gave you a little more. Sin existed before the law of Moses. If sin is the transgression of the law (and we are told it is) then there is a law that precedes the law of Moses, and it lays all men under its jurisdiction. Even the devil sinned, so there must be law for the angels as well. Violating that law constitutes sin. If you consider yourself a Berean, what does the scripture say? What is that law?
If you figure out that law, perhaps you might understand why such “name-calling” behavior is repulsive… and not preemptively forgiven. You can find it in the gospels, you can find it in the parables.
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 12, 2014 at 12:12 am
I was going to let chapmand24’s fingers do a bit more walking toward and over the line of slander. But thanks for your retort.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 12, 2014 at 8:22 am
Theodore…slander? Hahahaha!!!! If you think you have something, SUE ME!!!! I know someone personally who was sued by a pastor for 1/2 million dollars for slander. The pastor lost the case! Bring it on, dude with a GED!
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 12, 2014 at 2:59 am
There are two constants relative to law. One is it judges unacceptable acts of humans and animals. Two when it is decreed it establishes the procedure of jurisprudence relative to infractions. The Sinai code even tho it judges the act of deliberately taking a man’s life by bloodshed as an offence there is no possible procedure of jurisprudence under that code that allows any other outcome than death for the offendor. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was a deliberate conspired act of murder. Therefore if and when his death is assumed to be a direct benefit ,as Caiaphas proposed in Jn. 11:50.The result is the attempt of obtaining an unjust enrichment by an infraction of all of the Sinai code. The major error of all contemporary explanations of salvation is that they are unilaterally congruent with Caiaphas’ falsehood. Jesus Christ was not crucified in any one’s place.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 12, 2014 at 8:24 am
You speech is strange. When Jesus said “Father, forgive them…” the slate was wiped clean, no matter what the charge of sin it was. They cannot be charged for a forgiven sin. Period.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 12, 2014 at 11:54 am
No one was forgiven of any sin prior to hearing and obeying the Acts two message. And it is only past sins that are forgivable.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 12, 2014 at 1:00 pm
You are totally wrong, Theodore. Jesus paid the full cost of all sins, past, present and future. In addition, under the law, sin was “COVERED” by sacrifices. Jesus was the last sacrifice ever needed. Your future sins have been paid by THAT sacrifice. You do not need to sacrifice Jesus over and over and over again. Not only that, sin is only IMPUTED if you are under the law. But we are not under the law. We are under grace. So, the sins that we do now does not have dominion over us, for we died with Christ. When we do sin, we are chastised as sons of God, and our salvation is secure. We cannot lose our salvation. God is IN US. He promised to not leave us or forsake us. So, no matter how hard you run away from God, there he is. He ain’t leaving.
I don’t know where you get your theology, but it is strange. Most Christians do not believe what you believe. Even the ones that I debate with from different denominations don’t believe what you believe.
Acts 2 was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. OK. So what is your point? That has nothing to do with sins that are “COVERED” or “FORGIVEN”.
I have no idea where you come up with the doctrine that no sin was ever forgiven prior to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I have no idea where you come up with that there are “added” laws to the law of Moses, or that there are “different” laws other than the Law of Moses, or that we are under the Law and Grace at the same time.
You are what is known as a “legalist, somehow thinking that you must be “obedient” to the law, huh?
The only law with Christianity is the Law of Faith, and the ONLY commandments (PLURAL), under the law of faith is a SINGULAR commandment, to Love Thy Neighbor as Yourself”.
If you do that, you don’t even need to consult the law to see how you measure up. The law kills.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 12, 2014 at 8:20 am
Andrew Patrick,
Jesus said:
Matthew 5:22 …whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Paul said:
1 Cor 15:36 Thou Fool…
Such grace that Paul had, huh?
I already gave you scripture pertaining to the law. I have no idea why you keep rehashing your previous. Abraham was not under the law, and neither is Christians. Yes, Abraham and Christians sin. But no sin can be “IMPUTED” to Abraham or Christians. Why? Because we are under grace, as we are saved by grace thru faith, and not of ourselves lest any man should boast…that they obeyed the law. We can’t earn our salvation by obeying the law, for all have sinned. That means that all has disobeyed the law. Eternal life is a gift, not a wage.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 10:13 pm
Rom. 2:13 is a stand alone statement. Context is irrelevant. What matters is the fact that no holder nor discriminator of substitutionary atonement could not think of ROM.2:13 much less ever state it. But ROM. 2:13 is the expressed thought of an aposle and you contest the validity of what the man said.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 11, 2014 at 10:29 pm
If Romans 2:13 was a stand alone statement, then Romans 2:13 would be it’s own chapter. But it isn’t. It is laid out exactly how I showed you. Context is indeed key.
You really don’t know the Bible that you claim. You have no clue.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Andrew Patrick on July 12, 2014 at 12:39 pm
If you won’t search the scriptures to find the answer to a question that is posed to you, then you can’t really call yourself a Berean.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 12, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Andrew,
Really, dude? I provided YOU with scritpure that answers your question. It is up to YOU to study out what I provided. I already did my Berean work into it when I was studying why people wish to be legalists, such as the 7th Day Adventists, and a few more. It is time for YOU to be a Berean now. Prove ME wrong. I dare ya.
I provided you with sufficient scripture that answered your inquiry to me.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 12, 2014 at 2:06 pm
“For it is not those who just hear the law, that has been added, who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who OBEY the law who will be declared righteous.” ROM. 2:13 NIV There are no exceptions. Paul is not referencing the Sinai code of law. The gate that few ever find is the law which has been added. The Berans verified this fact by reading Isa. 2:3 and Micah 4:2 “The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” The Sinai code was not put into effect through angels nor was it desiminated from Jerusalem. Note Acts 7:53 and Gal. 3:19, and Heb. 7:12. Mr. Chapman you are not a Brean. For if you were you would know what I know.
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 12, 2014 at 1:24 pm
There are a legion of Ed Chapman’s that make the same false assertions. But their hypocracy and egregious contempt has already been fully exposed by the Lord.
“But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, but only a few find it.”
The religious Ed Chapmans egregiously assert that sins are forgiven without having to first use that gate.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 12, 2014 at 1:38 pm
Your speech does not make you knowledgeable of truth. It is obvious that you are in bondage to the law of sin and death, and you are IN your sins, and not freed from them. Good luck with that, buddy. Obey them laws. See how far ya get to the pearly gates!! Thou Fool! You are so ignorant of scripture. You have no idea what is meant by FREEDOM, that Christ set us free. YOU who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? Paul also said, I thru the law, am dead to the law. But, you wish to be alive to the law, which means that you dead in your trespasses and sins. Good luck explaining that one to God.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 12, 2014 at 3:48 pm
ROM.2:13, Heb. 7:12, Isa. 2:3, Micah 4:2, Acts7:53 & Gal. 3:19 are not my speech. The counterfeit Brean always directly contests them and unlawfully oposes them. The law of faith is an actual law that the true Brean has had the faith to obey to be saved from the wrath of God. Only a few ever find the gate into the kingdom of God. That fact is not my speech either.
Posted by Andrew Patrick on July 12, 2014 at 3:11 pm
Ed, perhaps you might consider the question, “What is law?” before you loudly protest that you may be lawless because there is no law.
Also… Ed Chapman, you might realize that there is no forgiveness of sins where there is no repentance from those sins. Martin Luther knew this (it sparked the reformation). If there is no law, there can be no sin. What is that law then, Ed? Before you can answer that, you need to answer “what is law?”
Not “Mosaic law” but “law” … you’ve been taking words out of context of the scripture and running about slandering brethren. You cannot take Paul’s words as to the Mosaic law and take them out of context as if there is NO law. There is law… and if you don’t know what that law is (you act as if you don’t) it will show.
Are you familiar with the parable of the sheep and the goats? Or of the man that was forgiven much but forgave not his debtor? Forgiveness can be offered, and not received. Forgiveness can be granted, and then revoked. This is not done randomly… there is order, there is law.
What is the law of God? Can you attempt to answer that, or are attempts to talk with you on the scripture fruitless, doomed before they start?
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 2:21 pm
And yes you have been accused of believing eccleastical junk and quite handily prove that to be the fact.
Posted by chapmaned24 on July 11, 2014 at 3:03 pm
Accusations is not proof. If you are going to accuse, you have the task of the burden of proof. College educated words for a person that only has a GED is dishonesty of knowledge. It’s a falsehood, showing that you have no clue as to what you speak.
Ed
________________________________
Posted by Theodore A. Jones on July 11, 2014 at 10:19 pm
“discriminator” needs to “dissceminator”.
Posted by Transformed Theology on July 12, 2014 at 4:18 pm
OK…. ONCE AGAIN… .
This comment thread has gone far enough.
Find somewhere else to finish this one.
Bob