Timeline for When someone converts to Christianity and is "reborn in Christ," is it the body or the soul that is reborn, or both?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2020 at 4:40 | comment | added | Pieter Rousseau | @Katechonic cont... of which Baptism is the confirmation/declaration/manifestation. The Sacrament of the bread and wine as the body and blood is not the actual crucified, but the physical enactment of the historic and Spiritual event. I think similarly baptism is that physical enactment of a historic spiritual event: it is intimately related but not the actual event. | |
| Oct 27, 2020 at 4:36 | comment | added | Pieter Rousseau | @Katechonic Thank you so much! I'm really glad it answered part of your question. I do think that "born of water" is related to baptism, or rather baptism is related to being born of water. The Connection with Eze 36, suggests to me that born of water is related to our justification, whereas born of Spirit is related to our Regeneration. Baptism is the sacrament associated with repentance and the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2: 38), and represents the very death and resurrection that we experience with Christ into a new life (Rom 6:3-4). But "born of water" is still a spiritual new birth... | |
| Oct 26, 2020 at 15:14 | comment | added | Katechonic | Thanks for this answer, Pieter. I’m partial to it as it elucidated something that maybe should have been obvious from the verse I quote in the original question, which is that Jesus doesn’t mention body or soul but water and Spirit as that which is being born again. Now as a related question, if “born of Spirit” refers to the Spiritual rebirth which begins with God’s will and and grows upon believing in Christ’s name, then to what does water refer? I’ve heard it means physical birth as Nicodemus understands it, whereas others have implied it means the sacrament of baptism. | |
| Oct 26, 2020 at 15:01 | vote | accept | Katechonic | ||
| Sep 30, 2020 at 8:56 | comment | added | steveowen | we've hits the straps on the comments... TBH, it's a work in progress, but what you said is the gist of it. Also the amalgamation of all the verses on it speaks loudly to me. See if you can ask a Q on it :) | |
| Sep 30, 2020 at 7:40 | comment | added | Pieter Rousseau | @user47952: But maybe to avoid disagreeing on semantics begotten vs Born-again, more importantly, I think would be which Scriptures you think applies to us if we are begotten (already) versus born again (in the resurrection). So, for example, does Rom 8 apply to us now, or the Resurrection. 1 John references of being born from above, etc. And of Course the exhortation in 1 Pet. I take it you use the distinction of born-again vs begotten to make that application. | |
| Sep 30, 2020 at 7:37 | comment | added | Pieter Rousseau | @user47952 "people like you will convince me otherwise with sound biblical support" - a humble spirit is a object of grace (1 Pet 5:5). I did think that it was your understanding of Jesus being the "firstborn (πρωτοτόκος) of many brethren" that prompts that line of thinking, and this is used in Rev 1:5: Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten (πρωτοτόκος) of the dead - but that steps on your point since he is first-begotten and not born-again in the resurrection. | |
| Sep 30, 2020 at 7:03 | comment | added | steveowen | We know that John especially wrote as if what was to be - already was - so tense has to fit context and other inputs - it cannot 'force' an understanding alone. My understanding is based on the pattern of Jesus - the firstborn of many brethren. How will I know...? people like you will convince me otherwise with sound biblical support. | |
| Sep 30, 2020 at 7:00 | comment | added | steveowen | What you say may well be true - however 'tense' is not the final trump! We have to manage the 'flesh' and the imperishibility aspects - According to what I see, if we are still flesh and blood - we haven't entered the kingdom, if we haven't we are not born again. | |
| Sep 30, 2020 at 6:55 | comment | added | Pieter Rousseau | @user47952: Okay, so I went and looked at every verse and not one is future tense: Most are Aorist tense, 1 Pet 1:23 is actually present tense and all in 1 John is perfect tense. I am absolutely open to theories that challenge my assumptions (how else do we know we have confidence that what we believe is true), but so far your theory is not convincing. Two questions: 1) Do you have a convincing text that being born again is a future event coinciding with the resurrection? 2) May I ask, how will you know if you are wrong? | |
| Sep 29, 2020 at 22:35 | comment | added | steveowen | yes, correct - that's what the sum of texts on the matter reveal - contrary to popular theology. We are not spiritually alive yet and made imperishable - we are still flesh with a 'deposit' only of H Spirit 2 Cor 1:21-2. Read what Jesus and Paul said and put it together. A father begets, not gives birth to; we are born of the spirit 1 Pet 1:23 when Jesus returns and we are raised or changed. | |
| Sep 29, 2020 at 19:35 | comment | added | Pieter Rousseau | @user47952: Not sure I agree, but let me try to understand: Are you saying that the Born again Jesus is talking about in John 3 refers to the resurrection? And the regeneration experienced in this life is rather begotten? | |
| Sep 24, 2020 at 7:00 | comment | added | steveowen | Nice explanation. You have missed a few things that are part of this important facet of salvation. Do a study of the 'born again' references - you will find that 'begotten' is the state we are presently in - 'born again, or 'born from above', as Jesus puts it,' is when we are raised, as flesh and blood cannot inherit the K. We are begotten in this age, born in the next. Then you have all the references to the 'body' being transformed to be like Jesus body. Jesus was reborn when raised as explained in answer here. | |
| Sep 24, 2020 at 5:37 | history | answered | Pieter Rousseau | CC BY-SA 4.0 |