Born Again

How someone uses John 3:16 is a case by case situation. It depends on what theological point they are trying to make.Making a general statement that the quoting of John 3:16 is in and of itself bad quote mining is ridiculous.Besides, I asked for two examples from what I wrote in these posts. Your first example is too general. Other then that you don't like Christians to quote John 3:16 I don't know what you're trying to prove. I will take this as your sole example in this discussion so far, of my alledged "out of context quote mining".If I recall, the issue was whether Jesus was Ruler of the Universe or not according to what Christians believe. You said you believed He is Ruler of the Universe and made a slight reference to His ascension.The effect it had to me was to assume that you are saying that after His ascension, He is Ruler of the Universe. (I don't know how you think about before His incarnation)But with this backround, I quoted to you Matthew 28:18 which shows Jesus Christ proclaiming that all authority in heaven and earth has been given to Him. This is BEFORE His ascension. And this establishes the point that He could certainly be thought of as Ruler of the uiverse with universal authority, in this pre-ascension passage.The immediate context is, on what basis should the disciples go into all the world and preach the Gospel of Christ ? They should because Christ before His ascension has all authority given into His hands. And this is before He ascended for He is speaking from the surface of the earth in Matthew 28. He speaks from a mountain in Galilee (v.16).Your sole example of my alledged non-contextural quote mining is a failure. And the audience can decide for themselves, as you suggested. One example of my writing which fails badly.
The other is a general and vague complaint against anyone quoting John 3:16. The problem here is not overkill but underkill.Take your single example of my quotation of Matthew 28:18 and prove how I yanked it out of context. ANYONE who thinks I quoted Matthew 28:18 "out of context" please confirm it and show me how. If all I hear is crickets chirping into the wee hours of the morning, I will assume the audience does not support your charge of my alledged "out of context quote mining" of Matthew 28:16 .In the mean time, I did ask for your TWO strongest examples. So far there is one extremly weak example. Let me guess. Your other example is just devastating ?What's your other strong example ?I thought you would try my quotating of Hosea 11:4. That's the one I was bracing for.See? here I am even giving you a hand. I'm reasonable. But you're not doing too well in establishing your criticism of out of context quote mining. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Elaborate what you mean please.

The phrase "quote mining" is not a no-no to me.I am afraid that in the weakness of your case you have fallen back on a vague complaint that ANY supporting passages I use in this discussion on being born anew, is out of context quote mining.Journals and publications of all types QUOTE portions of others' writings. I do not have to quote an entire chapter to highlight the relevant portion that I want you to focus on.Case in point - Matthew 28:18 shows Jesus teaching that ALL AUTHORITY has been given into His hands. Based upon that one passage we certainly have ground to view Him as a universal ruler.I do not need to quote the entire Gospel of Matthew to make this point. I do not need to quote the entire 28th chapter of Matthew to make this point.If you think I err here, Explain Why. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It depends on what point the quoter is trying to MAKE.How in the world can you make a generalization that quoting a particular passage is doing so out of context ?Quoting "To be or not to be" - is quoting Hamlet out of context.That depends on how the quoter is using the quotation and what he is trying to establish by reference to it.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That is a ridiculous blanket statement and bad generalization.So you want a RULE here that no single passages can be quoted ? What do you suppose that is going to do for you ? Do you think that will give your views more traction ?

Jar, wants his opinions not to be examined in the light of the Scriptures.Comparing some of his ideas to what is written concerning the subject matter is "quote mining" and is out of context and in and of itself improper.This amounts to "Don't examine my thoughts about the Bible's teaching in light of what is written in the Bible." THOU SHALT NOT QUOTE MINE.An unbroken stream of opinions from jar is of course OK. But we can't compare his thoughts to what is written in the Bible in a fair and contextural way.

You're too good to me jar. Thanks for the permission.By the way, WHY did you quote the Nicene Creed if quote mining is taboo ?

Too funny indeed.One generalization about how he doesn't like people to refer to John 3:16. And one terribly failed example which he cannot demonstrate is out of context quoting.

That has an impressive sound to it.While you're at it would you please show me why my reference to Matthew 28:18 as I used it was taking it out of context?Here's your chance. I asked for TWO strong examples of my out of context quote mining.You gave ONE specific to me, which you CANNOT back up as an improper reference to a passage in an out of context manner.You can't do it. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You have quoted 20 verses in the chapter.Please tell me why THESE verses : Make this verse : not relevant to demonstrating that Christ at that moment, before His ascension, possessed all authority and could be thought as Ruler of the Universe ?What is it about verses 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17, 19 and 20 which make my reference to verse 18 as NOT LEGITIMATE to make the point that I made?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jar, what you seemed to have done in this above post is simply send an army of red herrings into the discussion."Well, I have this problem over here, and that problem over there, and this other problem over here, and this difficulty over there."I don't think I got an answer to my question about why the 19 verses make my reference to the one verse untrue based on out of context quoting.But I will address your post this with a brief word.Yes, Matthew does present a high and difficult demand. It is not only difficult it is nearly impossible. True indeed. I agree with that part of your post.Having said that, God did not expect people to muster up their natural strength to do as Jesus taught. In fact, that is why in His sovereignty He includes another Gospel of John to CLARIFY and SPECIFY that man needs ANOTHER LIFE. Man needs a different life which IS able to fullfill the lofty demand of Christ in Matthew.SO then, the context of the whole New Testament (remember context now!) is that man needs to be BORN AGAIN with another divine life which, in mingling and saturating man's life IS able to live up to the lofty teachings of Jesus Christ.IN FACT - what the Christian life REALLY is, is Jesus Christ Living On the Earth AGAIN, but THIS TIME, He is living in you and in me and as many as received Him to be born again AND who abide in Him that He may abide in them.Our life cannot make it to do, teach, or fullfill the "great commission". So the NT does not end with Matthew. It includes JOHN so that the Spirit of God may elaborate how the seeker after God needs ANOTHER LIFE to be compounded into his life - BORN ANEW, BORN AGAIN, BORN FROM ABOVE, BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT.Matthew needs John.The high DEMAND in Matthew needs the adaquate SUPPLY in John.The high STANDARD in Matthew requires the All-Sufficient grace and life in John as John reveals how this Jesus Christ will come into the believers and live again in them in union, mingling, and mutual abiding.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

John was not a revisionist. Rather he was an old disciple seeking to bring the Christian brothers back to the beginning. And that is the indwelling Christ as their life.The first things they learned is the beginning that John always seeks to bring his readers back to. His ministry is a ministry of recovery.As one who is born again I certainly do expect to have to given an account of my Christian life and service before the judgment seat of Christ.And the way I am preparing for that is to realize daily that apart from abiding in Him I can do nothing: John recovers the vital truth that Christ is the Source. And the believers must be "grafted" into Him to draw the divine life from being attached to Him.Apart from abiding in Him we may do a lot. But it will all account for nothing if Christ's indwelling life and nature is not the source.Self righteous humanitarian striving may build up the world system. It may even build up a denomination. It will not build up the kingdom of God. Apart from abiding in Him and He abiding in the Christian, we can do nothing for His will.Some time ago you wrote: Are you more interested in Episcopalianism or in practicing Judiasm ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Or what is the name of this Creedal Statement ?
How did the the writers of this creedal statement arrive at these concise summaries ?For example, how did they arrive at these beliefs: 1.) One God ? Is that in the Bible ?2.) One Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten ? How did they arrive at that understanding ?Do you know what furnishes the ground for these two creedal beliefs ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This may be difficult for some to understand, but I do not regard God as an "ism" or a religion, but a living Person.For purposes of this discussion, I would only say that regardless of what religion one wants to practice, he must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3) Regeneration is not a matter of practicing a religion, even a Christian religion. And it is not something anyone can decide to do for himself on his own.We can only receive Christ the Person. We can believe into a position in which we are acceptable to allow God to do in us what we CANNOT do. And that is to cause us to be born anew in our innermost being. Only God can cause the new birth. The new birth will happen because of the faithful promise of God. As many as received Jesus Christ, to them will be granted authority to be born children of God.Such a birth is not of passed on through the religion practiced by your parents. Such a birth is not of blood. Such a birth is not of the choosing of the fallen nature of Adam - the flesh. Nor is such a birth even the choosing of the will of man. It is of God the begetting Father.One practicing Judiasm may be born again if he receives Christ the Son of God. One practicing Episcapalianianism may also be born again if he receives Christ the Son of God. I only know of the Lord's Table or the Lord's Supper as the only ordained New Testament meal.But I am going focus here on being born anew. I confess that I have been wandering from that topic. Hopefully, no more from my side. John was more of a net mender. He was called by Christ while repairing fish nets. Peter was called while casting nets for fishing. John was called while repairing nets.I believe this backround was sovereign of God. The Gospel net had been damaged by the time John wrote his writings. His burden from the Holy Spirit was to bring the disciples back to the beginning.Christ is profound and needs to be explained by more than one writer. Matthew has his part. And John has his part. And important to John's portion is that we see we must receive the living Jesus Christ as a new life imparted into us - a birth from above. That is a birth deep within, as you alluded. But the source is God. John's ministry is a ministry of recovery. The previous Gospel writers did not become apostate. The is the aged apostle John excercising his gift and burden of ministry, to recover the disciples reminding them of what they received from the beginning of the Christian church.In the nine or so cases which John presents in the Gospel of John, of Jesus interacting with people, he tells of the new birth. " Do not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born anew."John is bringing the readers back to the essential beginnings of the Gospel in the way of recovery - to emphasize foundational matters of life in Jesus Christ. You cannot enter into the kingdom of God unless you are born of water and of the Spirit. You must be born into this kingdom of God by divine life, by the Divine Spirit. We all know it is different. And unbelievers and skeptics of various kinds have tried to exploit this difference for years. People will always try to chase the Apostle John's writings out of the four Gospels.But this "four legged stool" of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is soveriegn of God. The perculiar design of the four Gospels, I firmly believe, is God's design.This would be an interesting discussion. I am trying to stay close to the matter of born anew - born again in the New Testament as the OP inquired. I let that go for now. But I notice they are very opened about who can have communion in an Episcapalian church , more so then most denominations. I would only say here that I do not believe that the Sheep in the parable of Matthew 25:31-46 are born again. And they do "go away into eternal life".This is not that eternal life enters into them. But they go away into an everlasting human life like Adam was before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I have been persuaded that these sheep are not sons of God and are not born again.The Lord said that the sons of God would reign forever and ever. Who are they going to reign for and over ? It is not logical that they reign over themselves. So there must be some nations left for the millennium reign and for the reign of God's sons in eternity. These are the sheep over whom they will reign forever and who are healed to be recovered to the state of Adam before his fall - a state of innocence.But that prophetic passage has a certain eschatological significance. These sheep and goats are Gentile nations who pass through the great tribulation. And their judgment is not based upon the Gospel preached in the church age. But their judgment is based on how they treated a third group, which is neither sheep or goats. That that third group is "these, the least of My brothers" .This requires another discussion thread, IMO. But these sheep and goats are judged in relation to their treatment of Jews and Christians during the time of the great tribulation.Some people love this section of the New Testament as strong support for a Social Gospel of humanitarian works. I do not think it is wrong to apply Christ's words there to encourage liberality and charity, mercy and aid to the sick, the imprisoned, the destitute and poverty stricken.It is not wrong, IMO, to apply that parable in such a way. But that is not an interpretation of the eschatological significance of it. My point was that the summaries were arrived at from rigorous exploration of the Scripture canon at that time. In other words, what you would object to as "quote mining".If I recall properly, only some New Testament books were not yet added to the canon at the time of the council of Nicea. I think Revelation and Hebrews may not have been included by then.I think you're wrong to generalize that there was no Bible. And like it or not, they did considerable "quote mining" to arrive at that Creed.I stopped lifting creeds too highly many years ago. What I mean is that I regard no historic creed from any council higher than the Scriptures. Historic creeds have their place. It is an important place but not more important than the Scripture itself. I think that only some books were not yet included in the NT canon. I think saying there was not Bible is an overstatement.However, in this post, the main thing I want people to see is that being born again is not a matter of practicing a religion.God alone can cause the believer to be born anew. We can only receive Christ, be justified by that faith by Christ so that we are in the proper position to be regenerated by His life.He is eager and willing to receive us. And I have seen people born anew in all kinds of situations. God seems willing to cause a believer to be regenerated at any time He wants.Your statements below this point I have not included. My point was made that theologians, both Jewish and Christian, have done what you charge as "quote mining" for centries to clarify, discover, and hold certain truths which they sought to verify from Scripture.I am not effected by the pejorative suggestion that "quote mining" is essentially taking verses out of context.I am willing to examine anyone's complaint that I took a certain verse out of context. But I expect reasonable evidence of that. The vague charge that "Well, you didn't quote the whole chapter" doesn't work that way with me.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What have you pointed to which is superior to receiving the life of God to be a child of God and to grow into a son of God ?I have never seen anything presented by you which is more valuable then the New Testament salvation and service in Christ. "Magical force" is your word of contempt. I do not contemptuously dismiss the Eternal Father who begets children as a "outside magical force".There is high regard for the Father throughout the whole Bible.And your caricature of "outside" seems rather strange to me. The New Testament discribes this begetting Father as not only over all (as outside) but upon the new birth is also "in all"So the eternal Father is not just outside to the Christian. He is over all and in all the members of the Body of Christ.Here again, the Father is very subjective and in the regenerated believer: So you see, the NT teaches that this Spirit of the One [the Father] Who raised Christ Jesus from the dead is subjectively indwelling the disciples and giving them divine life.And this agrees with Christ, in resurrection, becoming a life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) "Outside magical force" is your own ignorant caricature and superfiscial misunderstanding of God's economy. Jesus taught that it was the indwelling Spirit of His Father which would provide the disciples what to answer under persecution: The Spirit of the Father is an indwelling Person giving life and supplying words to speak from within under persecution. So whence your misconception of a purely "outside magical force" ?And again Jesus said He and the Father would come INTO the lover of Jesus to subjectively make an abode within them: If you learned none of this down at the Episcapal Church USA then perhaps you should pray and seek more genuine fellowship. No real harm in that, if you are not subtly using that as an excuse to dismiss God's imparting of His life to man as "outside magical force".But I think you are confusing spiritual growth with initial spiritual birth. I have written that before in this discussion. Except that if you do not receive the Lord Jesus as your Savior you will perish forever. So you should re-consider what is written in John 3: Why would you want to abide under the wrath of God ? That is to perish. They didn't teach you in the Episcapal Church that you need a Redeemer and a Savior in Jesus Christ?They taught you that it doesn't matter how you think about Jesus ? Did they tell you that such verses as showing reason to be justified in Christ's salvation, were just "out of context quote mining?"If so you were deceived by these "teachers". Don't blame me. These words of urgency come out of the mouth of Jesus. I did not make them up: Don't blame me for quote mining. Rather take these words of Jesus to God in prayer concerning your own eternal destiny. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.