What does it mean to be "born again"?

[Behold]

Regeneration (Born again) in laymen's terms......is to understand that what 1st Adam lost in the Garden......2nd Adam restores to "all who will believe".

What did Adam #1 lose?

He lost this..

= "Righteousness".........."One with God"........."Spiritual Union"........"Etermal life".

So, to get ALL this eternally back, is : "the Gift of Salvaiton".....which means you are regenerated (born again) by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Armour of God]

Regeneration (Born again) in laymen's terms......is to understand that what 1st Adam lost in the Garden......2nd Adam restores to "all who will believe".

What did Adam #1 lose?

He lost this..

= "Righteousness".........."One with God"........."Spiritual Union"........"Etermal life".

So, to get ALL this eternally back, is : "the Gift of Salvaiton".....which means you are regenerated (born again) by the Holy Spirit.

That's a different view. I don't think anyone has mentioned Adam being involved.
Thanks for sharing your opinion

 

[JimKnox]

I think it's connected, that's why it's still in the same chapter, immediately after the conversation.

Baptism already existed in Jewish tradition which is another reason why I think they're talking about baptism

Jesus says something like, "your a Jewish teacher yet you don't understand what I'm saying". This makes me believe that his not teaching anything new but something that was already part of Jewish tradition, baptism.

The early church interpreted bring born again as involving baptism. It's what most Christians believe today and for me it makes the most sense.

You are going to have to prove that statement about "the early church" and being "born again" since the phrase is never used in Acts which is the history of the Church. And Peter himself says being "born again" is by the word of God. No water. 1 Peter 1:23

 

[mailmandan]

You are going to have to prove that statement about "the early church" and being "born again" since the phrase is never used in Acts which is the history of the Church. And Peter himself says being "born again" is by the word of God. No water. 1 Peter 1:23

Amen! No water baptism here. 1 Peter 1:23 - having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever.

John 15:3 - You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

Ephesians 5:26 - that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word.

As I previously mentioned in post #177, the word "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, and we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the washing of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)

So, washing here is associated with spiritual washing or purification of the soul, which involves living water (John 4:10,14; 7:37-39) and is accomplished by the word of God through the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation.

 

[Behold]

That's a different view. I don't think anyone has mentioned Adam being involved.
Thanks for sharing your opinion

What i previously shared is not my opinion. @Armour of God .

See, had there been no fall of Adam, then there would be no need for the Cross of Christ.

Do you understand?

Now, Let me show you a way to understand God's Salvation that will "cut through the mix" of all the other profoundly stupid and self righteous theologies that you find on Forums where you have people who are vainly trying to keep themselves saved, because they literally dont Trust in Christ to Keep them Saved.
So, you have people who may be a Christian, or may not be, all selling the same JUNK theology on Forums which is..= >>"here is what you must DO to try to keep yourself saved"... = ..And this is a Self righteousness Theological (manure) FAILURE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Just learn this....

1.) Adam's fall is the fall of us all........as "by one man's sin".....sin entered everyone.

2.) By "One man's Obedience, MANY shall be made Righteous".....= Each Believer Born again.

Notice the 2 Adams?
Once caused the fall of us all....... and the other, the 2nd ADAM, REDEEMS us from the fall with His Blood and Death Sacrifice.

How?

God became one of us to offer Eternal Salvation to all of us.
This is the Cross of Christ.

 

[Armour of God]

You are going to have to prove that statement about "the early church" and being "born again"

No problem



So yes, the early church did indeed believe that baptism was born again as most Christians do today.

Thank you and God bless

 

[Armour of God]

What i previously shared is not my opinion

If it wasn't your opinion then whose opinion was it?
What church denomination is this opinion from?

 

[IndianaRob]

No problem

View attachment 87270

So yes, the early church did indeed believe that baptism was born again as most Christians do today.

Thank you and God bless

I don’t know too much about those guys but I’m really surprised to see that’s what they believed.

 

[Armour of God]

I don’t know too much about those guys but I’m really surprised to see that’s what they believed.

@JimKnox

And it's not just those guys.

Hippolytus 217AD
Recognitions of Clement 221AD
Cyprian of Carthage 253AD
7th Council of Carthage 256AD
Cyril of Jerusalem 350AD
Athanasius 360AD
Basil the Great 375AD
Ambrose of Milan 381AD
Gregory of Nyssa 382AD
Gregory of Nazianz 388AD
The Apostolic Constitutions 400AD
Augustine 412AD

So the belief that born again included baptism was very much the belief of the early church

More info
What the Early Church Believed: Born Again in Baptism

 

[JimKnox]

No problem

View attachment 87270

So yes, the early church did indeed believe that baptism was born again as most Christians do today.

Thank you and God bless

I reject your source, therefore your "proof".
Catholics are heretics when it comes to baptismal regeneration ( among other heresies like transsubstantiation).
Try again my friend.

 

[Armour of God]

I reject your source, therefore your "proof".
Catholics are heretics when it comes to baptismal regeneration ( among other heresies like transsubstantiation).
Try again my friend.

You asked for proof and I gave you proof from two sources, a non catholic source and a catholic source so your rejection, because of your anti Catholic view, is invalid.

Those proofs are from early church fathers and early councils, 2nd-5th centuries AD, and were quoted from their writings. Your anti Catholic view has nothing to do with that fact.

But here is further evidence from five more non Catholic sources

Early Church Writings On Baptism — Behold The Truth

Water Baptism in Early Church History 101 - Was water baptism required for salvation in the early church

Baptismal regeneration - Wikipedia

Church Fathers on Baptism

Baptism in the Early Church (2-5th Centuries) — Trinity San Antonio Lutheran Church

I could even give more non Catholic sources but 5 is more than enough to refute your invalid rejection.
There is absolutely no dispute from anyone, not even protestants.
The early church believed in baptism.

Here it is shown that there has never been any dispute about the fact that the early church, 2nd-5th centuries AD, believed in baptism. A non-Catholic source.



No one has ever disputed it and at this stage your really just embarrassing yourself of you continue to reject this fact.

We had a decent conversation. I accept that there are different opinions given the long history and many denominations. Its sad that you can't accept that. Nor can you accept that the early church believed in baptism despite it being an undisputed fact.

But anyway, good luck to you and God bless

 

[PeterAndroz]

You asked for proof and I gave you proof from two sources, a non catholic source and a catholic source so your rejection, because of your anti Catholic view, is invalid.

Those proofs are from early church fathers and early councils and were quoted from their writings. Your anti Catholic view has nothing to do with that fact.

But here is further evidence from five more non Catholic sources which refutes your rejection

Early Church Writings On Baptism — Behold The Truth

Water Baptism in Early Church History 101 - Was water baptism required for salvation in the early church

Baptismal regeneration - Wikipedia

Church Fathers on Baptism

Baptism in the Early Church (2-5th Centuries) — Trinity San Antonio Lutheran Church

I could even give more non Catholic sources but 5 is more than enough to refute your invalid rejection.
There is absolutely no dispute from anyone, not even protestants.
The early church believed in baptism.

What proof can you put forward to show the contrary?

Does Paul (Romans to Philemon) teach that water baptism is a justification requirement ?
If so then please list the verses.

 

[Armour of God]

Does Paul (Romans to Philemon) teach that water baptism is a justification requirement ?
If so then please list the verses.

I was asked to give proof that the early church, from the 2nd to 5th Centuries AD, believed in baptism. I did that well and truly by supplying 8 sources.

 

[JimKnox]

You asked for proof and I gave you proof from two sources, a non catholic source and a catholic source so your rejection, because of your anti Catholic view, is invalid.

Those proofs are from early church fathers and early councils, 2nd-5th centuries AD, and were quoted from their writings. Your anti Catholic view has nothing to do with that fact.

But here is further evidence from five more non Catholic sources

Early Church Writings On Baptism — Behold The Truth

Water Baptism in Early Church History 101 - Was water baptism required for salvation in the early church

Baptismal regeneration - Wikipedia

Church Fathers on Baptism

Baptism in the Early Church (2-5th Centuries) — Trinity San Antonio Lutheran Church

I could even give more non Catholic sources but 5 is more than enough to refute your invalid rejection.
There is absolutely no dispute from anyone, not even protestants.
The early church believed in baptism.

Here it is shown that there has never been any dispute about the fact that the early church, 2nd-5th centuries AD, believed in baptism. A non-Catholic source.

View attachment 87298

No one has ever disputed it and at this stage your really just embarrassing yourself of you continue to reject this fact.

We had a decent conversation. I accept that there are different opinions given the long history and many denominations. Its sad that you can't accept that. Nor can you accept that the early church believed in baptism despite it being an undisputed fact.

But anyway, good luck to you and God bless

Again, all you have done is provide additional REPETITIVE sources for the identical claim. There is no dispute that CATHOLICS have always practiced baptismal regeneration but MY point is that "church" and its daughters are heretical and therefore NOT the church of the Living God.
You are never going to find what you believe is there because it is NOT there.
The true early Church never left any writings because they were too busy trying to survive persecution from the Harlot RCC.

 

[Armour of God]

Again, all you have done is provide additional REPETITIVE sources for the identical claim. There is no dispute that CATHOLICS have always practiced baptismal regeneration but MY point is that "church" and its daughters are heretical and therefore NOT the church of the Living God.
You are never going to find what you believe is there because it is NOT there.
The true early Church never left any writings because they were too busy trying to survive persecution from the Harlot RCC.

At this point your just embarrassing yourself now. Its a fact the early church believed in baptism. I produced 8 various sources with quotes from the early church leaders. You've produced nothing that says otherwise. No one is disputing the fact apart from you who haven't produced any evidence at all to the contrary.

Your only discrediting yourself, rejecting undisputed facts, making unfounded claims without any evidence at all

What evidence do you have that shows otherwise?

God bless

 

[JimKnox]

At this point your just embarrassing yourself now. Its a fact the early church believed in baptism, i produced 8 various sources with quotes from the early church leaders. No one is disputing the fact apart from you who haven't produced any evidence at all to the contrary.

God bless

I am truly sorry you think I am embarrassed. You don't know me at all. There is no embarrassment when one is right.
When you say "early church" you are trained to mentally picture the Party line and see RCC, whereas when I say early church, I picture the True unspoiled church of the Living God.
Thus, we have delved into Church History rather than Church Doctrine. Perhaps a new thread is in order?

 

[Armour of God]

I am truly sorry you think I am embarrassed. You don't know me at all. There is no embarrassment when one is right.
When you say "early church" you are trained to mentally picture the Party line and see RCC, whereas when I say early church, I picture the True unspoiled church of the Living God.
Thus, we have delved into Church History rather than Church Doctrine. Perhaps a new thread is in order?

Don't be sorry. Your embarrassing yourself, not me. You have no evidence to show that the early church didn't believe in baptism.
Show me some evidence then?

 

[JimKnox]

Don't be sorry. Your embarrassing yourself, not me. You have no evidence to show that the early church didn't believe in baptism.
Show me some evidence then?

Obviously you did not read my post, but if you did, you are incapable of elementary reading comprehension.
Nobody said they did not believe in baptism. That lie is on you.
What I SAID is the one true Church of the Living God did NOT believe in baptismal regeneration.
Now go away and bother someone else.

 

[Armour of God]

Obviously you did not read my post, but if you did, you are incapable of elementary reading comprehension.
Nobody said they did not believe in baptism. That lie is on you.
What I SAID is the one true Church of the Living God did NOT believe in baptismal regeneration.
Now go away and bother someone else.

LoL. Noooo
Your changing the goal posts and being the liar now my friend. You said

You are going to have to prove that statement about "the early church" and being "born again"

That was your response to me saying
"The early church interpreted being born again as involving baptism"

You asked me to prove that the early church believed in baptism. I did that by supplying 8 different sources.

Then, due to your deep hatred of the Catholic Church, you still rejected the fact that the early church believed in baptism.

Then when I asked you to supply evidence to the contrary, you spent hours looking for it but came up with nothing.

You've been found wanting my friend.

The early church did indeed believe in baptism and their has never even been a dispute over that well known fact.

No wonder you want me to "go away" now. You have egg on your face, you embarrassed your self, you've resorted to lies and I've caught you out, fair and square.

The least you can do now is to be humble in your error and honest to admit that the early church did in fact believe in baptism.

So then, tell me what you’ve learnt my friend, did the early church believe in baptism?

 

[JimKnox]

LoL. Noooo
Your changing the goal posts and being the liar now my friend. You said



That was your response to me saying
"The early church interpreted being born again as involving baptism"

You asked me to prove that the early church believed in baptism. I did that by supplying 8 different sources.

Then, due to your deep hatred of the Catholic Church, you still rejected the fact that the early church believed in baptism.

Then when I asked you to supply evidence to the contrary, you spent hours looking for it but came up with nothing.

You've been found wanting my friend.

The early church did indeed believe in baptism and their has never even been a dispute over that well known fact.

No wonder you want me to "go away" now. You have egg on your face, you embarrassed your self, you've resorted to lies and I've caught you out, fair and square.

The least you can do now is to be humble in your error and honest to admit that the early church did in fact believe in baptism.

So then, tell me what you’ve learnt my friend, did the early church believe in baptism?

What you did was provide quotes and sources showing the CATHOLIC Church believed baptismal regeneration, but what you did NOT do is show proof that the one true church of the living God EVER taught or believed in baptismal regeneration.
And as I TOLD you, it is NEVER taught in Acts which is the history of THAT church. Additionally, I showed you where Peter denies your doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Speaking of moving goal posts: that is also on you since you constantly "forget" we are talking about baptismal regeneration by dishonestly saying we are talking about "baptism". I never denied baptism. But I vehemently reject baptismal regeneration which YOU promote.