Born Again?

[Guojing]

It's all in the eye of the beholder. You may view my questioning your use of "common sense" logic as an "attack." Or you may see my questioning your capacity to understand English properly as an "attack."

From my point of view, however, I'm being completely honest in my approach to your reasoning. It doesn't appear to me that you care whether the passage in question mentions "glorification" or not. To you, John is referring to "not sinning," and without any more proof you accept this as reason for declaring the passage to be about "glorification."

To me this is less than a "common sense" approach to your interpretation. I realize that it sounds insulting, but perhaps I should feel insulted that you wish to convince me to believe something in God's Word that stands purely on your whim, as opposed to common sense arguments. A common sense argument would require evidence from within the verse to indicate it is about "glorification," where it does not include any
such argument.

Instead of feeling insulted you should counter by providing something more than a "claim," and indicate where in the passage evidence exists for it talking about "glorification?" On the other hand, should I feel insulted that you wish to consider our arguments equal when I give reason within the passage for my belief when you do not?

But the real insult from you comes when you depart from the arguments entirely to focus on how hurt you are over my considering your argument not a "common sense" argument. I'm not at all saying you are stupid or lack common sense. I mean to say only that *in this one particular argument* you are not providing any "common sense" proof.

But when you insist that my rejection of your argument is an insult and "personal," then you do, in fact, offend me, because that's not what I'm doing. I'm not calling you stupid. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. I'm just suggesting that your argument is much weaker than mine because you provide zero evidence in the matter of internal proof within the passage.

If all you want to do is bicker, I'm not interested. This is what is offensive to me--insisting on the personal bickering, instead of on the issue we were discussing. If you have nothing more to add to your arguments, I have no problem with that. I just will not dignify it as "equal" to my own position, which has the support of all scholars I would know.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin - This passage must either mean that they who are born of God, that is, who are true Christians, do not sin habitually and characteristically, or that everyone who is a true Christian is absolutely perfect, and never commits any sin. If it can be used as referring to the doctrine of absolute perfection at all, it proves, not that Christians may be perfect, or that a "portion" of them are, but that all are. But who can maintain this? Who can believe that John meant to affirm this? Nothing can be clearer than that the passage has not this meaning, and that John did not teach a doctrine so contrary to the current strain of the Scriptures, and to fact; and if he did not teach this, then in this whole passage he refers to those who are habitually and characteristically righteous.

At the end of the day, you claimed I attacked you but you cannot produce any evidence of that.

 

[RandyPNW]

At the end of the day, you claimed I attacked you but you cannot produce any evidence of that.

Suit yourself.

 

[Guojing]

Suit yourself.

False. You are in fact attacking me. You are apparently unable or unwilling to see that.

I suppose you are unwilling to withdraw this claim, now that you fail to provide any evidence?

 

[RandyPNW]

I suppose you are unwilling to withdraw this claim, now that you fail to provide any evidence?

Of course not. I already explained that your offense towards me was in your claim that I'm insulting you as "stupid," lacking "common sense," or being unable to understand English well.

I've explained that your argument itself was not a "common sense" argument, resting on your own claim alone, lacking internal evidence. If this insults you, perhaps it should. You should be ashamed of using arguments that do not satisfy any inquiring mind who wishes to be objective about the evidence.

Otherwise, I wish you well in your attempts to determine precisely what the Scriptures are saying. I continue to wonder if English is your 2nd language, which may impair your ability to understand some of my arguments. You simply have failed to answer this question, and I think it is entirely legitimate and not insulting to your ethnicity.

 

[Guojing]

Of course not. I already explained that your offense towards me was in your claim that I'm insulting you as "stupid," lacking "common sense," or being unable to understand English well.

I see, so the way you reason is "If you claim I attacked you and provided evidence, you are attacking me as well".

Alright then.

 

[RandyPNW]

I see, so the way you reason is "If you claim I attacked you and provided evidence, you are attacking me as well".

Alright then.

Again, I'm concerned that you don't understand this exchange, whether it's your lack of English or your inability to recognize somebody else's argument. You seem to want to continue talking about my concerns about your English comprehension.

You could answer an honest inquiry by simply answering the question: Is English your 2nd language? I promise you that I wouldn't hold it against you--I would actually admire you.

But the real matters are getting pushed to the rear. What happened to my concern about proving the Apostle John was talking about "glorification" when he said Christians "don't sin?" If your only argument is that "not sinning" takes place in heaven, at least that is an argument. But you've provided nothing other than that to make your case.

On the other hand I've referenced at least one scholar who obviously sees this as how Christians presently produce good fruit--certainly not a reference to "glorification." And I've pointed out that the overall context of John's letter is about exposing what real Christians are like, as opposed to fakes. Real Christians "don't sin" as a general rule.

But as I said, going on about what you or I perceive as "insults" is, in my view, a distraction. If you don't want to talk about what the verse means, we're done.

 

[Dan Perez]

I'm having a difficult time with this, Dan! It may help if you re-send with corrections?
I cannot say, however, that "only Israel is Born Again." While it is true that Jesus said this while still under the Law, when Israel alone was in focus, it does not mean that it does not apply under the New Covenant and to non-Jews. Peter certainly taught it as all-encompassing, although in his letters he also speaks directly to Jewish believers.

To be born of "water and the Spirit" refers to being born from above, or from heaven, in order to partake of the Spirit in a new way. I believe the OT saints should've understood being "born again" in the sense that they did partake of the Holy Spirit through the ever-abiding word of God. But John the Baptist inferred that Jesus was going to take this a step further, which we now know means that this "rebirth" results in Salvation under the New Covenant of Christ.

We are initially born from the womb, which is what "water" refers to, I think. Then we are born from something above this material plane, through God Himself in heaven. The word of God, originating from heaven, not only abides with our conscience, but comes to permanently reside in us when we are reborn through the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the work of Christ.

It's pretty simple, but I probably over-complicate it.

I an sorry and I meant John 3:5 !!

dan p

 

[RandyPNW]

I an sorry and I meant John 3:5 !!

dan p

Of course you were referring to John 3.5. I'm not sure why you're "sorry?"