What does it mean to be born again?

[squirrelyguy]

The Calvinist understanding of the new birth is that it refers to God regenerating a person so that they can have faith.
The evangelical (non-Calvinist) understanding is that it refers to the conversion experience itself.

Neither are correct.

The new birth, as Jesus describes it in John 3, is a description of the eschatological resurrection. If you aren't raised from the dead at Christ's return, then you cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The proof of this is to compare John 3 with 1 Corinthians 15 (where Paul is indisputably talking about the eschatological resurrection).

Jesus: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6)
Paul: "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. " (1 Cor. 15:44)

Jesus: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:3, 5)
Paul: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God..." (1 Cor. 15:50)

Jesus: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." (John 3:12:13)
Paul: "The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man." (1 Cor. 15:47-49)

Jesus: "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)
Paul: "And so it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.'" (1 Cor. 15:45)

See also: Jesus is called the "firstborn from the dead" in Col. 1:18 and Rev. 1:5. To be born from the dead is the same thing as saying one has been born again.

And also see: If anyone wishes to make an issue of the fact that Jesus literally says "born from above" in John 3:3, Paul uses the same "above" metaphor (or rather, "heavenly") in 1 Cor. 15:47-49.

In light of this, it is clear that the most natural interpretation of the term "born again" in John 3 is of the eschatological resurrection, not of the Calvinist doctrine of regeneration, nor of the evangelical concept of the conversion experience.

Convince me I'm wrong.

 

[civic]

The Calvinist understanding of the new birth is that it refers to God regenerating a person so that they can have faith.
The evangelical (non-Calvinist) understanding is that it refers to the conversion experience itself.

Neither are correct.

The new birth, as Jesus describes it in John 3, is a description of the eschatological resurrection. If you aren't raised from the dead at Christ's return, then you cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The proof of this is to compare John 3 with 1 Corinthians 15 (where Paul is indisputably talking about the eschatological resurrection).

Jesus: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6)
Paul: "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. " (1 Cor. 15:44)

Jesus: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:3, 5)
Paul: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God..." (1 Cor. 15:50)

Jesus: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." (John 3:12:13)
Paul: "The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man." (1 Cor. 15:47-49)

Jesus: "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)
Paul: "And so it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.'" (1 Cor. 15:45)

See also: Jesus is called the "firstborn from the dead" in Col. 1:18 and Rev. 1:5. To be born from the dead is the same thing as saying one has been born again.

And also see: If anyone wishes to make an issue of the fact that Jesus literally says "born from above" in John 3:3, Paul uses the same "above" metaphor (or rather, "heavenly") in 1 Cor. 15:47-49.

In light of this, it is clear that the most natural interpretation of the term "born again" in John 3 is of the eschatological resurrection, not of the Calvinist doctrine of regeneration, nor of the evangelical concept of the conversion experience.

Convince me I'm wrong.

Where is the resurrection mentioned in John 3:1-8 in Jesus teaching below ?

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 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.”[d]

 

[Septextura]

Where is the resurrection mentioned in John 3:1-8 in Jesus teaching below ?

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 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.”[d]

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[TomFL]

The Calvinist understanding of the new birth is that it refers to God regenerating a person so that they can have faith.
The evangelical (non-Calvinist) understanding is that it refers to the conversion experience itself.

Neither are correct.

The new birth, as Jesus describes it in John 3, is a description of the eschatological resurrection. If you aren't raised from the dead at Christ's return, then you cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The proof of this is to compare John 3 with 1 Corinthians 15 (where Paul is indisputably talking about the eschatological resurrection).

Jesus: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6)
Paul: "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. " (1 Cor. 15:44)

Jesus: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:3, 5)
Paul: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God..." (1 Cor. 15:50)

Jesus: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." (John 3:12:13)
Paul: "The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man." (1 Cor. 15:47-49)

Jesus: "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)
Paul: "And so it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.'" (1 Cor. 15:45)

See also: Jesus is called the "firstborn from the dead" in Col. 1:18 and Rev. 1:5. To be born from the dead is the same thing as saying one has been born again.

And also see: If anyone wishes to make an issue of the fact that Jesus literally says "born from above" in John 3:3, Paul uses the same "above" metaphor (or rather, "heavenly") in 1 Cor. 15:47-49.

In light of this, it is clear that the most natural interpretation of the term "born again" in John 3 is of the eschatological resurrection, not of the Calvinist doctrine of regeneration, nor of the evangelical concept of the conversion experience.

Convince me I'm wrong.

You are definitely wrong

Look at

John 1:12–13 —KJV
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”



1Pet. 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1Pet. 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
1Pet. 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
1Pet. 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pet. 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

both show it as transpiring in time before the advent

 

[Theo1689]

The Calvinist understanding of the new birth is that it refers to God regenerating a person so that they can have faith.
The evangelical (non-Calvinist) understanding is that it refers to the conversion experience itself.

Calvinists are evangelical.
So you just contradicted yourself.

Neither are correct.

How "inclusive" of you....

The new birth, as Jesus describes it in John 3, is a description of the eschatological resurrection.

That's an interesting, and someone unique OPINION.
Something tells me you are going to be all by yourself in heaven (or wherever you end up).

Convince me I'm wrong.

I have this strange suspicion that you would never accept any such convincing.
So I'll leave you to your bizarre beliefs.

 

[civic]

Calvinists are evangelical.
So you just contradicted yourself.



How "inclusive" of you....



That's an interesting, and someone unique OPINION.
Something tells me you are going to be all by yourself in heaven (or wherever you end up).



I have this strange suspicion that you would never accept any such convincing.
So I'll leave you to your bizarre beliefs.

I love irony if the OP just reads Jesus own words in John 3:1-8 on the new birth it should convince him he is wrong since Jesus never associates the new birth with resurrection in the passage, he made it up with other passages.

 

[travelah]

The Calvinist understanding of the new birth is that it refers to God regenerating a person so that they can have faith.
The evangelical (non-Calvinist) understanding is that it refers to the conversion experience itself.

Neither are correct.

The new birth, as Jesus describes it in John 3, is a description of the eschatological resurrection. If you aren't raised from the dead at Christ's return, then you cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The proof of this is to compare John 3 with 1 Corinthians 15 (where Paul is indisputably talking about the eschatological resurrection).

Jesus: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6)
Paul: "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. " (1 Cor. 15:44)

Jesus: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:3, 5)
Paul: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God..." (1 Cor. 15:50)

Jesus: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." (John 3:12:13)
Paul: "The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man." (1 Cor. 15:47-49)

Jesus: "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)
Paul: "And so it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.'" (1 Cor. 15:45)

See also: Jesus is called the "firstborn from the dead" in Col. 1:18 and Rev. 1:5. To be born from the dead is the same thing as saying one has been born again.

And also see: If anyone wishes to make an issue of the fact that Jesus literally says "born from above" in John 3:3, Paul uses the same "above" metaphor (or rather, "heavenly") in 1 Cor. 15:47-49.

In light of this, it is clear that the most natural interpretation of the term "born again" in John 3 is of the eschatological resurrection, not of the Calvinist doctrine of regeneration, nor of the evangelical concept of the conversion experience.

Convince me I'm wrong.

Sounds pretty squirrely to me.

 

[squirrelyguy]

You are definitely wrong

Look at

John 1:12–13 —KJV
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”



1Pet. 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1Pet. 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
1Pet. 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
1Pet. 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pet. 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

both show it as transpiring in time before the advent

I see your prooftexts and raise you an Ephesians 2:6 and Colossians 3:1.
"...and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus..."
"If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God."

Although neither you nor I have been physically resurrected from the dead yet, nor are we physically in heaven yet, we have been (and are) by proxy (because we are "in Christ", and Christ was raised from the dead). That's the sense in which your prooftexts speak of having been born again in time past.

 

[squirrelyguy]

Calvinists are evangelical.
So you just contradicted yourself.

I know that; that's why I qualified my second example as being the belief of the non-Calvinist evangelicals...think dispensational evangelicals.

 

[squirrelyguy]

I love irony if the OP just reads Jesus own words in John 3:1-8 on the new birth it should convince him he is wrong since Jesus never associates the new birth with resurrection in the passage, he made it up with other passages.

It's called sound hermeneutical principles. Jesus speaks by way of metaphor, and He doesn't explicitly say what He's describing. I drew an inference based on the similarities in content with Paul's discourse in 1 Corinthians 15...because unlike Jesus, Paul does explicitly say that he's describing the resurrection from the dead, and his verbiage is strikingly similar to Christ's verbiage in John 3.

 

[Theo1689]

I know that; that's why I qualified my second example as being the belief of the non-Calvinist evangelicals...think dispensational evangelicals.

Um, you mean like the Calvinist John MacArthur?

You know what they say about digging yourself into a hole, right?
The sooner you stop digging, the sooner you can find a way out.

 

[squirrelyguy]

Um, you mean like the Calvinist John MacArthur?

You know what they say about digging yourself into a hole, right?
The sooner you stop digging, the sooner you can find a way out.

But MacArthur isn't at all mainstream among dispys as a whole. Most of them are at at most 1-point Calvinists, if one considers eternal security and perseverance of the saints to be the same doctrine. Those are the ones I had in mind.

 

[TomFL]

I see your prooftexts and raise you an Ephesians 2:6 and Colossians 3:1.
"...and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus..."
"If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God."

Although neither you nor I have been physically resurrected from the dead yet, nor are we physically in heaven yet, we have been (and are) by proxy (because we are "in Christ", and Christ was raised from the dead). That's the sense in which your prooftexts speak of having been born again in time past.

That is not how you handle scripture

Being positional seated with Christ does not to show regeneration speaks of the physical resurrection


John 1:12–13 —KJV
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

You will note here being born again refers to becoming a child of God

Are you going to claim no one is a child of God before the resurrection

1Pet. 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1Pet. 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
1Pet. 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
1Pet. 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pet. 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Here being born again is a purifying of the soul not a physical resurrection

Further

Regeneration is through the gospel

1 Peter 1:23 (NASB)
23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.


1 Corinthians 4:15 (KJV)
15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.



Concurrent with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit

* Ezekiel 36:25-27 (KJV)
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

 

[civic]

But MacArthur isn't at all mainstream among dispys as a whole. Most of them are at at most 1-point Calvinists, if one considers eternal security and perseverance of the saints to be the same doctrine. Those are the ones I had in mind.

his dispensational views are mainstream.

I just happen to be a calvinist like Mac who is also dispensational in my views regarding eschatology.

 

[squirrelyguy]

his dispensational views are mainstream.

I just happen to be a calvinist like Mac who is also dispensational in my views regarding eschatology.

Well then, you're not a mainstream dispy either. The Billy Graham / Jimmy Carter usage of "born again" is what I have in mind when I speak of the non-Calvinist evangelical position. It was basically the unanimous definition of being born again that Southern Baptists spoke of in the 20th century. With the resurgence of Calvinism over the past 20 years, most SBC pastors probably believe in the Calvinist definition now.

 

[civic]

Well then, you're not a mainstream dispy either. The Billy Graham / Jimmy Carter usage of "born again" is what I have in mind when I speak of the non-Calvinist evangelical position. It was basically the unanimous definition of being born again that Southern Baptists spoke of in the 20th century. With the resurgence of Calvinism over the past 20 years, most SBC pastors probably believe in the Calvinist definition now.

maybe you do not know the definition of dispensational.


Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists believe that salvation has always been by grace through faith alone—in God in the Old Testament and specifically in God the Son in the New Testament. Dispensationalists hold that the Church has not replaced Israel in God’s program and that the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the Church. Dispensationalism teaches that the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament (for land, many descendants, and blessings) will be ultimately fulfilled in the 1000-year period spoken of in Revelation 20. Dispensationalists believe that, just as God is in this age focusing His attention on the Church, He will again in the future focus His attention on Israel (see Romans 9–11 and Daniel 9:24).

Dispensationalists understand the Bible to be organized into seven dispensations: Innocence (Genesis 1:1—3:7), Conscience (Genesis 3:8—8:22), Human Government (Genesis 9:1—11:32), Promise (Genesis 12:1—Exodus 19:25), Law (Exodus 20:1—Acts 2:4), Grace (Acts 2:4—Revelation 20:3), and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4–6). Again, these dispensations are not paths to salvation, but manners in which God relates to man. Each dispensation includes a recognizable pattern of how God worked with people living in the dispensation. That pattern is 1) a responsibility, 2) a failure, 3) a judgment, and 4) grace to move on.

Dispensationalism, as a system, results in a premillennial interpretation of Christ’s second coming and usually a pretribulational interpretation of the rapture. To summarize, dispensationalism is a theological system that emphasizes the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, recognizes a distinction between Israel and the Church, and organizes the Bible into different dispensations or administrations.got?

hope this helps !!!

 

[squirrelyguy]

maybe you do not know the definition of dispensational.


Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists believe that salvation has always been by grace through faith alone—in God in the Old Testament and specifically in God the Son in the New Testament. Dispensationalists hold that the Church has not replaced Israel in God’s program and that the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the Church. Dispensationalism teaches that the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament (for land, many descendants, and blessings) will be ultimately fulfilled in the 1000-year period spoken of in Revelation 20. Dispensationalists believe that, just as God is in this age focusing His attention on the Church, He will again in the future focus His attention on Israel (see Romans 9–11 and Daniel 9:24).

Dispensationalists understand the Bible to be organized into seven dispensations: Innocence (Genesis 1:1—3:7), Conscience (Genesis 3:8—8:22), Human Government (Genesis 9:1—11:32), Promise (Genesis 12:1—Exodus 19:25), Law (Exodus 20:1—Acts 2:4), Grace (Acts 2:4—Revelation 20:3), and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4–6). Again, these dispensations are not paths to salvation, but manners in which God relates to man. Each dispensation includes a recognizable pattern of how God worked with people living in the dispensation. That pattern is 1) a responsibility, 2) a failure, 3) a judgment, and 4) grace to move on.

Dispensationalism, as a system, results in a premillennial interpretation of Christ’s second coming and usually a pretribulational interpretation of the rapture. To summarize, dispensationalism is a theological system that emphasizes the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, recognizes a distinction between Israel and the Church, and organizes the Bible into different dispensations or administrations.got?

hope this helps !!!

We don't disagree over the definition of a dispensational, we disagree over the meaning of the word "mainstream".

The vast majority of dispensational evangelicals are not 5-point Calvinists, and in fact consider Calvinism to be an existential threat to Christianity. The ones like MacArthur are thus outside of the mainstream among their fellow dispensationalists. It doesn't mean he's not a genuine dispensational; it just means that he's outside of the mainstream. It's not just his 5-point Calvinism, but his views on lordship salvation that put him at odds with the mainstream. Look up the controversy between him and Zane Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary on this topic and you'll see the difference...it's not minor. They're both dispensationalists, but DTS and Hodges are by far more representative of mainstream dispensationalism.

 

[civic]

We don't disagree over the definition of a dispensational, we disagree over the meaning of the word "mainstream".

The vast majority of dispensational evangelicals are not 5-point Calvinists, and in fact consider Calvinism to be an existential threat to Christianity. The ones like MacArthur are thus outside of the mainstream among their fellow dispensationalists. It doesn't mean he's not a genuine dispensational; it just means that he's outside of the mainstream. It's not just his 5-point Calvinism, but his views on lordship salvation that put him at odds with the mainstream. Look up the controversy between him and Zane Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary on this topic and you'll see the difference...it's not minor. They're both dispensationalists, but DTS and Hodges are by far more representative of mainstream dispensationalism.

You see that is your problem when you try and box someone into a theology. I'm both dispensational in my eschatology and Calvinistic with TULIP. Just the same as MacArthur. I know other Pastors and Theologians who are as well. I'm Evangelical as well when is comes to the call of the gospel and that it goes out to all nations, people and whoever God places in your sphere of influence. I'm also a Cessationist. So you can try and box me into whatever you want but it will not make it so SG.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Manfred]

I see your prooftexts and raise you an Ephesians 2:6 and Colossians 3:1.
"...and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus..."
"If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God."

Without trying to put you down, your eisegesis is just terrible.
.......seek those things which are above, where Christ is......
This is obviously post ressurection

 

[squirrelyguy]

Without trying to put you down, your eisegesis is just terrible.
.......seek those things which are above, where Christ is......
This is obviously post ressurection

But my point is the first part of that sentence: "If then you were raised with Christ..." Our own resurrection obviously hasn't happened yet, even though the verse speaks of it in the past tense. Paul can do this because we have been raised in Christ by proxy.