GENESIS - The Seedbed Of All Bible Doctrines

TrevorL said:
Greetings again Major,

This is the first time that I have heard of the Berean version. Most translations have many aspects to commend them as most are a sincere attempt to give a faithful translation, and I prefer "Standard" Bibles, as I understand that these attempt to be a reasonably literal translation rather than an interpretation. I do not agree with the BSB and a few others with their rendition "punishment" rather than the more common "chastisement" and even here I prefer the wider range meaning "instruction" and "discipline". God did not punish Jesus. Was God punishing Joseph when he suffered? Was God punishing the Apostles with their suffering?

I agree with Genesis 3:19 "dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return". It does not say "dust is thy body and immortal is thy soul, and your body shall return to dust but your immortal soul (the real you) will go to heaven in bliss, or hell to be tormented for eternity".

Kind regards
Trevor
Click to expand...
It is to bad that you have not been exposed to the Berean Bible translation as it a translation based on the best available manuscripts and sources. Each word is connected back to the Greek or Hebrew text, resulting in a transparent and honest text that can be studied for its root meanings.

From what YOU are saying..... because one cannot justly punish an innocent person, and Jesus was innocent. Therefore, for God to literally punish him would be unjust.

Trevor, In Christianity, the question is built around holiness, justice, and righteousness: .....
“How can God forgive me and still be holy?” The only thing that answers that question is penal substitution.

Penal substitution says God is so holy that every sin will be punished. Every single sin in the life of every Christian believer through all of human history was punished. All sin must be punished. Either the sinner will bear that punishment eternally, or Christ took that punishment on the cross.

The only thing that protects the pure, righteous holiness of God is that sin is punished. That’s penal substitution. If you remove that part of the cross, then how does God reconcile His holiness with wishing sin away without a punishment? There has to be a punishment for God to maintain His justice. That punishment falls on His Son.

Biblically speaking, Punishment is an act of justice, revealing wrath, and the Chastisement is an act of mercy, love. In the Lord Jesus, we see both of those actions when He died on the cross.

Trevor........You have said that "there is NO power in the blood of Jesus". You have also said that "Jeus is not our substitute".
Now allow me ask you....Do YOU accept the Bible doctrine that Jesus was fully God and Man and as such He was the God-Man?
 
Last edited:
TrevorL said:
Greetings again Major,

This is the first time that I have heard of the Berean version. Most translations have many aspects to commend them as most are a sincere attempt to give a faithful translation, and I prefer "Standard" Bibles, as I understand that these attempt to be a reasonably literal translation rather than an interpretation. I do not agree with the BSB and a few others with their rendition "punishment" rather than the more common "chastisement" and even here I prefer the wider range meaning "instruction" and "discipline". God did not punish Jesus. Was God punishing Joseph when he suffered? Was God punishing the Apostles with their suffering?

I agree with Genesis 3:19 "dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return". It does not say "dust is thy body and immortal is thy soul, and your body shall return to dust but your immortal soul (the real you) will go to heaven in bliss, or hell to be tormented for eternity".

Kind regards
Trevor
Click to expand...
Yes I agree Trevor with Genesis 3:19. Every ones body will turn to dust because that is where we came from. That fact has nothing to do with annilation of the body. Mans fleshly body will decay at death BUT his spirt/soul lives on! The spirit of man is eternal!

Ecclesiastes 3:11......
“He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.”

Romans 6:23............
"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Ecclesiastes 12:7........
"And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."!!!!!!!!!

In addition to being separated from God's presence in a spiritual death, every day of Adam's life from this moment on would be marked by an awareness that he would one day die. That's the curse of sin that all humans have lived under ever since. For those in Christ, though, the curse of death will be overcome because our spirit will go to heaven eternally.

Now as for being tormented in Hell eternally not being said in the Bible, I draw your attention to Matthew 25:46..............
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life".

Jude 1:7............
"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."
Matt. 25:41..........
"“Then he will say to those on his left, (the lost) ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
2 Thess 1:9........
"They(the lost) will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,".

Rev. 20:10............
"And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
Luke 16:19.......
"“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. ..."
 
TrevorL said:
The following from Vine's Hebrew could help:
"One of the major purposes of the wisdom literature was to teach wisdom and mucar (Prov. 1:2). Mucar is discipline, but more. As “discipline” it teaches how to live correctly in the fear of the Lord, so that the wise man learns his lesson before temptation and testing: “Then I saw, and considered it well: I looked upon it, and received instruction” (Prov. 24:32). This “discipline” is training for life; hence, paying attention to mucar is important. Many verbs bear out the need for a correct response: “hear, obey, love, receive, obtain, take hold of, guard, keep.” Moreover, the rejection is borne out by many verbs connected with mucar: “reject, hate, ignore, not love, despise, forsake.” When mucar as “instruction” has been given, but was not observed, the mucar as “chastisement” or “discipline” may be the next step: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (Prov. 22:15).
Click to expand...
Here is BDB...

2) more severely, chastening, chastisement: a. of God, מ׳ יהוה‎ Pr 3:11 chastening of Yahweh; מ׳ שׁדַּי‎ Jb 5:17; מוּסָֽרְךָ‎ Is 26:16; מ׳ שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ עָלָיו‎ Is 53:5 chastisement of (i.e. leading to) our peace was upon him; לקח מ׳‎ Je 2:30, 5:3, 7:28; מ׳ אַכְזָרִי‎ Je 30:14 chastisement of a cruel one, MT, but rd. מוּסָר א׳‎ cruel chastisement, Gf and esp. Gie; אני מ׳ לְכֻלָּם‎ Ho 5:2 I am a chastisement for them all. b. of man, Pr 15:5, 23:13; שִׁחֲרוֹ מ׳‎ 13:24; שֵׁבֶט מ׳‎ 22:15; מ׳ אויל‎ 7:22 chastisement of a fool; מוּסָר רָע‎ 15:10 grievous chastisement.

Compare with the section your extract is related to...

Proverbs, discipline in the school of wisdom: חכמה ומ׳‎ Pr 1:2, 1:7, 23:23; מ׳ חכמה‎ discipline of wisdom 15:33; מ׳ הַשְׂכֵּל‎ 1:3; תוכחות מ׳‎ 6:23; הָבִיאָה לַמּ׳ לִבֶּ֑ךָ‎ 23:12 apply thy mind to discipline;

These are two different senses of the same word.
 
***************************************DOCTRINE OF SIN************************************************************
Under the Umbrella of the doctrine of Sin are several other sub-doctrines =

1.Original Sin
2. Sin Nature
3. Imputed sin
4. Backsliding
5. Leaven
6. Apostasy
7. Pollution by Sin
8. Penalty of Sin
9. Flesh
10Personal Sin

If one is to discuss this doctrine, it is probably best to begin with Original Sin.

My Catholic friends will not agree with me on this, however, Original sin is the doctrine which holds that human nature has been morally and ethically corrupted due to the disobedience of mankind’s first parents to the revealed will of God. In Scripture, the first human transgression of God’s command is described as the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden resulting in the Fall of mankind. The doctrine of original sin holds that every person born into the world is corrupted by the Fall and people are powerless to restore themselves unless rescued by God.

Although the words “original sin” aren’t found together in Scripture, the doctrine is taught in many passages: ......
Romans 5:12 =
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned”.


Romans 5:18 =
“one trespass led to condemnation for all men”.

1 Corth. 15:22 =
“In Adam all die”.

Knowing this, it is no wonder that David wrote in Psalm 51:5...........
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Ephesians is another book of the Bible that people connect with original sin. Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are... “sons of disobedience.”

Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, saying that we are all.....
“by nature children of wrath.”

If this is the case, it can only be because we are all by nature sinners.

While God did not create the human race sinful, but upright, we fell into sin and became sinful due to the disobedience of Adam.
 
crossnote said:
I'm curious, how do the two views differ?
Click to expand...

I sure do not want to anger any of my Catholic friends and this is NOT a anti-Catholic post in any way, however there is a difference in how they teach Original sin.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clarifies, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’ – a state and not an act” (CCC 404).

In other words, or better....Country Boy English =
However, when we speak of original sin in regard to the rest of humanity, it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”. Adam and Eve committed the original sin and so we inherit its consequences.
Source: https://catholicstand.com/what-is-original-sin/

This distinction is important because to truly understand how original sin is inherited, it must be clear that what is transmitted to the human race through Adam and Eve is not an actual sin or personal sin, but rather, a lack of grace.
To be as precise and concise as possible – human beings are not born with a sin, they are born without God’s grace.

Catholics theology teaches that original sin entails actually inheriting the burden of Adam's Sin, which is mortal sin keeping us from entering heaven without a method of acquiring sanctifying grace, such as baptism. In other words, works are ADDED to the grace of God in the salvation act.

The Protestant/Orthodox view of Original sin can be defined as “the moral corruption we possess as a consequence of Adam’s sin, resulting in a sinful disposition manifesting itself in habitually sinful behavior.”

Under that heading comes............
1. Pelagianism = Adam’s sin had no effect upon the souls of his descendants other than that he provided a sinful example.
2. Arminianism
3. Calvinism.
Both the Arminian and Calvinistic views teach original sin and see individuals as unable to overcome sin apart from the power of the Holy Spirit. Most all Calvinists also teach imputed sin; some Armenians deny imputation of sin, and others believe that Christ’s death has negated the effects of imputation.
 
Major said:
I sure do not want to anger any of my Catholic friends and this is NOT a anti-Catholic post in any way, however there is a difference in how they teach Original sin.
Click to expand...
This was for informational purposes only.
My eyes tend to glaze over whenever the topic arises. Thanks for the links.
 
TrevorL said:
Greetings again Major and crossnote,

I will attempt to find out more about BSB. I have an extensive library of print and electronic Bibles and reference books. I am also the librarian for our meeting. I mentioned my discussion with both of you to two of our senior expositors and they had never heard of the BSB. One of these expositors has been considering Isaiah over a number of years at our Bible Class, one chapter a night and he is up to Isaiah 62. He agreed with my view of "chastisement".

Yes, God is primarily merciful, but also just.

It seems that you worship a different God. My God is merciful Exodus 34:6-8, John 3:16. Your God seems to be vindictive and cruel.

The blood of Jesus is a figurative expression, representing the fact that he died. Jesus also gave his body and gave himself. I believe that Jesus is our representative, not our substitute.

I believe that man is mortal because of sin and when he dies he returns to the dust and when Jesus returns he will raise the faithful and some of the wicked from the grave Daniel 12:2-3.

Possibly one word with a wide range of meaning, governed in each instance by the context. I have explained how I understand "chastisement" in Isaiah 53:5. God was perfecting the character of Jesus so that he would be the perfect sacrifice, covering the sin, trespass, burnt and peace offerings, the Passover Lamb and many other typical aspects. Perhaps here in Isaiah 53:5 there is an allusion to the peace offering on our behalf as our representative, as "the chastisement of our peace was upon him".

Kind regards
Trevor
Click to expand...
What is BSB?

You failed to respond to my very simple question. Do YOU accept the fact that Jesus is 100% God and Man. As such He is the God-Man.

By the way........define what you are calling "senior expositors".

Are you willing to tell us what your denomination is?
 
Major said:
Thanks!

Any idea why You and me have one and Trevor has never ever heard of it!

By the way, Am I the only one that has a funny feeling about this conversation?
Click to expand...
I only have a BSB in digital form, later I may pick up a hard copy (if my wife promises not to smack me with it.) lol
I'm dying to hear the response to your post #79
 
BibleLover said:
The Hebrew word used in Gen 1:1 is in the plural form, so Heavens is correct.
Click to expand...
Biblelover the Hebrew word Shamayim is used over 400 times in the bible around half as heaven and other times as heavens depending on the context. The king James translators chose heaven for good reason because it’s referring to the physical creation of the heaven around the earth and not the heaven where the heavenly abode and throne room of God resides. That be eternal and completely seperate from the creation account. The king James translators got it right. Also God is plural in Genesis 1:1. What’s to stop the reasoning of certain people from rendering Genesis 1:1 for future generations into reading ( In the beginning Gods or the Gods created the heavens and the earth.) instead of the reading ( In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 
Last edited:
TrevorL said:
Greetings again Major and crossnote,


I have started to respond to post #79 in reverse. At this point of time I would prefer to describe what we are, rather than who we are. I belong to a relatively small denomination with larger numbers in some countries and some regions. My impression is that we have a larger proportion here in Australia by comparison to the USA. There are a reasonable number of meetings in the capital cities, but there are 8 meetings in our region, and this may be because we also have a private school for 5-18 y.o's and a Conference Centre that accommodates 450 for the 3 family occasions of 7 days with three speakers giving morning sessions for 5 days. This facility is also used for Youth and Senior events.

Each of our 8 meetings have more or less the same Statement of Faith, and we meet in a combined weekend once a year. I was busy yesterday as we have a Sunday School for 4-18 y.o's., with a Senior Class for adults which I attend. We then have a Memorial Meeting partaking of the bread and wine and with an address by one of our members. On Sunday Evening we have a public address for our own benefit and interested friends. We then have a Wednesday Night Bible Class and often consider one Bible Chapter. My main function is as the Librarian, but also operate the PA and Video equipment for most meetings, especially Sunday and Wednesday evenings. We have two technocrats who have installed this equipment.

We are a lay fellowship with no paid ministry. Many of our members are given speaking appointments and the two "senior expositors" are older members known for their competent exposition.

I would prefer to discuss one subject at a time, and one verse at a time. I could give a summary of my understanding, but please note my response to your other thread, and looking again you both endorsed my post despite the fact that many use this verse to support the Trinity and the member was using that verse to support that particular perspective. The following links to your OP but the post that I am referring to is post #10:

The MOST Important Bible Doctrine

There many, many Bible doctrines. I am not posting this as a TEST or something to be argued. Just a way to get you to think! In your opinion, what do YOU believe is the 31 most important Bible doctrine and WHY do you think that? Personally, I believe that the doctrine of the TRINITY is the...
christianforumsite.com
As such I would prefer to discuss one passage at a time, and there may be 5 or more explanations of Genesis 1:26-27. The next paragraph is a continuation of my policy of discussing one passage at a time.

I have already tested the BSB on Isaiah 53:5 and disagree with "punishment" and endorse a particular view of "chastisement". Seeing you both approve the BSB, could you briefly check how the BSB renders Exodus 3:14, in the main text or in the margin or other portion commentating on this rendition. I believe that Exodus 3:14 should be rendered "I will be", not "I AM". I support this rendition by the Tyndale Bible translation, the RV and RSV margins and comments by AB Davidson in Hastings Bible Dictionary.

Kind regards
Trevor
Click to expand...
So then........simply said, you are not willing to tell us if you accept the Bible Doctrine that Jesus is the God-Man, that He was 100% God and 100% man. Trevor, Your response is exactly what I thought it would be. It is called "Deflection".

You also are not willing to name the Denomination that you belong to.

You have stated that there is NO power in the blood of God.

You have stated that Jesus Christ is not our substitute for the payment of our sin.

You have stated that there is not eternal punishment in hell.

You said............
"I would prefer to discuss one subject at a time, and one verse at a time."

Me too!.......So again lets talk about Jesus as the God-Man. There is ONE topic and here is ONE Scripture...........

Colossians 2:9 - "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Is Jesus fully God in the flesh?
 
TrevorL said:
Greetings again Major and crossnote,



I now own an electronic copy of BSB and this was free for the Logos Bible Program. I have an old computer and can only run Logos8.
Exodus 3:14 (BSB): God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
I was disappointed that this electronic copy does not have margin notes or footnotes. I compared the similar electronic copy of the ESV in Logos8, and this also does not have the footnotes. My print ESV has "I AM WHO I AM" and the footnote: "or I AM WHAT I AM or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE". Next time I am in the vicinity I will drop into my local Christian Bookshop and check Exodus 3:14 and also the Introduction to consider some of the credentials of this BSB translation. I endorse the future tense translation and have been interested in the Yahweh Name theme since it was first expounded to me at a YP's weekend at the Southern Highlands 60 years ago when I was 19 yo. I also started to court my future wife, and we were married 4 years later, and been married 56 years. I consider this Bible theme and my wife, both "first loves".

I am in no hurry. I am willing to consider this subject carefully, possibly starting again at Genesis 1:26-27 and then Exodus 3:14. I have some more information on Exodus 3:14 if you are interested. Have you considered this verse previously? Surprisingly you have endorsed my view of Genesis 1:26-27 but you have not commented on Exodus 3:14 yet.

On the other end of the scale, do you fully endorse all the details of the Athanasian Creed and does this correctly represent what the Bible teaches? My mind is still spinning after reading one copy of this, and it concludes: "This is the catholic faith: one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully."

Is your statement "the Bible Doctrine that Jesus is the God-Man, that He was 100% God and 100% man." a good summary of the Athanasian Creed? My starting point to respond to this concept would be to carefully consider Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35 and John 1:14. Have you carefully considered and understood these passages and do these correspond with your statement, especially as you claim that your summary is "the Bible Doctrine"?

We are already discussing three different Bible teachings, and I may not be the best representative for discussing all the subjects in our statement of faith.

I believe that the blood of Jesus is the confirmation or initiation of the New Covenant. His blood was human blood, and I do not know what blood type he was. If collected and preserved it would have no benefit if sprinkled, just as the many pieces of "the original cross" have any benefit, despite the Pope's recent gift to King Charles. There are other figures for what Jesus did and accomplished. He gave his body, he gave himself, and he was the perfect sin, trespass, burnt and peace offerings and the true Passover Lamb. Those people (enthusiastic Evangelicals?) that only speak about "the Blood" seem to ignore this fuller picture, typical of those that subscribe to substitution.

Yes, I believe that Jesus was our representative. Before I retired I spoke to one of my workmates. He was an ex-Baptist, and became a part time Pentecostal Pastor. I gave him an article on the Atonement and he was to some extent interested. He stated that the popular substitution concept could be based upon a pagan practice where the tribe would pick on an innocent victim and beat and kill him to appease the wrath of the local deity. In exchange he handed me his paper on the Trinity, which I still have. This paper was to gain his graduation to be a pastor. As a Pentecostal, similar to Hillsong, he believed in healing, speaking in tongues and the prosperity doctrine and loud worship entertainment music.

A few years ago we buried my mother in law at the age of 100. She had been a widow for 38 years. When we buried her, the cemetery people stated that it was an old part where there had not been any activity for a long time. Both head stones now have "In Hope of the Resurrection". As far as activity, they apologised that they found an additional corpse in that grave and her son and myself decided that we did not mind. Possibly he was a local gangster, or one of God's hidden poor. In the distance was another ceremony and possibly a Minister was dispatching the bodies' immortal soul to heaven, no matter how bad was the individual. If he sent him to hell he could miss out on his fee.

Yes, but possibly not in the sense that you seem to be implying. My full exposition would be based on Exodus 3:14. In what sense is Jesus what Yahweh would become?

Kind regards
Trevor
Click to expand...
Trevor.............You say a lot, but you do not have any substance. You keep explaining things that no one cares about and YOU refuse to answer very simple questions.

What in the world do you think a retired Baptist preacher falling into the trap of a Cult has anything to do with this conversation, other that to be a deflection.

By your own words you do not believe that Jesus is God.
By your own words you do not believe that Jesus is our substitute for our sins.
By your own words you do not believe that the blood of Jesus is the blood of God.
By your own words you refuse to say that you are a born again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.
By your own words you refuse to say what denomination or even if you are a Christian.

Anyone reading your posts would come to the obvious conclusion that you are purposefully being deceptive.

Now with all due respect, by the way you manipulate and deflect I would be lead to think that YOU are a Jehovah Witness.

As for Exodus 3:14, which again is nothing more that DEFLECTION from responding to direct questions.......
God identifies Himself using a phrase which is actually a description, or a statement: "I AM WHO I AM" or simply "I AM." The first phrase, in Hebrew, is e'heyeh aser' e'heyeh. This is most simply translated as "I am who I am." Other translations of this important phrase include, "I am what I am," or, "I will be what I will be," and it could be taken to mean "that which will be, I am, that which will be" or similar ideas. Even in Hebrew, this is a statement which is not merely expressed as a name, or a word, or a description. This is a poetic expression of God's very nature.

The statement carries a sense of necessity, simplicity, and absolute-ness. In using this particular phrasing, God identifies Himself as the self-existent One—the eternal, unique, uncreated God. God just is. He is the ultimate truth, the only necessary being, the beginning and end, the first cause. The question of who speaks from the burning bush is given an answer which is both simple and profound: "I AM." This is how Moses would have interpreted the response, given the Hebrew words used.

At this point in history, this name for God is new to mankind. The following verse indicates that this is to be a name used and understood for the rest of history (Exodus 3:15). Jesus will later use the name "I AM" in reference to Himself (John 8:58); His audience immediately recognizes this as a claim to divinity (John 8:59).

In the next verse, God will also identify Himself using the term YHWH, a Hebrew word which was considered so holy that it was not spoken aloud. This appears in most English translations of the Bible using small capitals: "The LORD." It is also transliterated as Yahweh, or Jehovah. Since the word e'heyeh is related to the word YHWH, this is probably a deliberate play on words. Using the word YHWH invokes the concept of "I AM."

Now since you refuse to believe that Jesus was God and you refuse to believe that As God He died as a substitute to pay for YOUR SINS.....my friend, YOU are then still in your sins. Any common sense thinking person would then say, mate.........you can not be a Christian!
 
Before TrevorL highjacked the thread to talk about his own personal religion, we were in the DOCTRINE OF SIN.

What then is "Personal Sin"??????

Romans 3:23..........
"ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God".

If you lived isolated on an island in the middle of the sea, then perhaps your private sin would not affect anyone but yourself. However, since the maxim is "no man is an island," there is a good chance that you have family, friends, and acquaintances that you come into contact with on a continual basis.

In other words, All of them will be affected in some way by your sin because sin has consequences.

Romans 6:23...........
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

That is a principle that follows the pattern laid down at the creation. Everything created has a seed from which it propagates itself after its "kind" as seen in Genesis 1:11, 21 and 25.

In other words, you do not plant corn and expect to harvest beets. You cannot “plant” sin—even in private—and not expect to reap a harvest of consequences. And consequences have a way of spilling out over everyone and anyone that comes into contact with us because of another principle called "association." This means that those around you can be blessed or hurt by association with you and the choices and actions you make, both privately and publicly.
 
TrevorL said:
Greetings again Major and crossnote (I assume you are possibly endorsing ALL of what Major has posted,
Click to expand...
You would be assuming too much. I believe we agree on the essentials.
TrevorL said:
I did not go forward. Is this what you mean by "a born again believer"?
Click to expand...
If you are asking about what it means to be born again, then all you have written thus far has been a waste because that is the first step...one first needs to be born again, or are you just asking to test?
 
TrevorL said:
Greetings again crossnote,

My understanding of being born again is when a person affectionately believes the Gospel of the Kingdom and Name and is thus motivated to be baptised in water in identification with the (representative not substitution) death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God Acts 8:5-6,12 and the result of this process is the forgiveness of sins. This is the first major step of a life in Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor
Click to expand...
Sounds like a textbook answer.

Affections for God and His Word are actually the result or fruit of being born again, another way of putting it is...

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Which also describes the effects.
But how does it come to pass?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top