The effect of being Born Again on our Free Will

[RandyPNW]

What is it that's "Born Again?" I believe we don't die to our volition, to our free ability to make decisions. Receiving Christ does not displace our ability to make choices in concert with Christ.

What we die to is autonomous living. We die to independence, and choose to live in continual partnership with Christ. This union of God and Christian is what it means to be "Born Again." What do you think?

[Slug1]

What is it that's "Born Again?" I believe we don't die to our volition, to our free ability to make decisions. Receiving Christ does not displace our ability to make choices in concert with Christ.

What we die to is autonomous living. We die to independence, and choose to live in continual partnership with Christ. This union of God and Christian is what it means to be "Born Again." What do you think?

Mankind is made of three parts; a soul, a spirit and a body. When Adam and Eve sinned, their spirits died just as God informed them, that "they" will if they eat of that one tree. They didn't understand God was referring to their spirit but satan sure did.

Now, due to the New Covenant through Christ, when a person believes in Him (faithfully), their spirit which was dead, is reconciled with God = made "alive" again.

This is what "Born-again" refers too.

[Athanasius]

I view it as the reorientation of one's being following the restoration of our relationship with God. But I'm also part of the bipartite gang, so there's no dividing the spiritual such that some part of it was made dead that is now not dead.

[Slug1]

I view it as the reorientation of one's being following the restoration of our relationship with God.

Do you believe God was referring to "relationship" when He informed Adam/Eve that they will "die" if they eat from that tree?

[RandyPNW]

What is it that's "Born Again?" I believe we don't die to our volition, to our free ability to make decisions. Receiving Christ does not displace our ability to make choices in concert with Christ.

What we die to is autonomous living. We die to independence, and choose to live in continual partnership with Christ. This union of God and Christian is what it means to be "Born Again." What do you think?

Mankind is made of three parts; a soul, a spirit and a body. When Adam and Eve sinned, their spirits died just as God informed them, that "they" will if they eat of that one tree. They didn't understand God was referring to their spirit but satan sure did.

Now, due to the New Covenant through Christ, when a person believes in Him (faithfully), their spirit which was dead, is reconciled with God = made "alive" again.

This is what "Born-again" refers too.

Yea, I'm not sure what God meant when He told Adam, "In the day that you eat, you'll die." I don't know if He meant Adam's spirit would die that very day, or if he would merely begin to die from that day on until he eventually died?

Regardless, I think you're right, that we tend to be stone-cold blind until the Gospel is preached to us about Christ. And then, not only does God's Word awaken us, but the truth about Christ liberates us from condemnation, bringing us to a sense of peace with God. Thanks.

[RandyPNW]

I view it as the reorientation of one's being following the restoration of our relationship with God. But I'm also part of the bipartite gang, so there's no dividing the spiritual such that some part of it was made dead that is now not dead.

I'm not sure what you mean. You believe man is bipartite, instead of tripartite? So obviously, then, Man never died spiritually or all men would be dead today?

[Athanasius]

Do you believe God was referring to "relationship" when He informed Adam/Eve that they will "die" if they eat from that tree?

I think that's part of what it meant for them to die. They experienced the death of the relationship they had with God when they became separated from God following their sin and exile from the garden. I would consider this to be a kind of spiritual death.

They would die physically as well, eventually.

I don't think the sin of Adam and Eve corrupted human nature or deadened some part of it beyond the consequences of said separation.

I'm not sure what you mean. You believe man is bipartite, instead of tripartite? So obviously, then, Man never died spiritually or all men would be dead today?

Separation from God, the source of our being, is spiritual death, so yes, any human whose relationship with God has not been restored (via Jesus) is spiritually dead, biblically speaking.

But also yes, I understand humanity to be bipartite (or dichotomous) in constitution: the natural/physical and the spiritual. I grew up being taught the trichotomous view, but I understand the dichotomous view to be representative of classical Christian anthropology.

[Slug1]

Do you believe God was referring to "relationship" when He informed Adam/Eve that they will "die" if they eat from that tree?

I think that's part of what it meant for them to die. They experienced the death of the relationship they had with God when they became separated from God following their sin and exile from the garden. I would consider this to be a kind of spiritual death.

They would die physically as well, eventually.

I don't think the sin of Adam and Eve corrupted human nature or deadened some part of it beyond the consequences of said separation.

OK. I have an understanding of your position now. Can I begin with your personal labeling as: "But I'm also part of the bipartite gang,"

1 Thess 5: ²³ Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This one is even more prolific:

Hebrews 4: ¹² For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
While mankind is both physical and spiritual in nature (at this fact, I agree with you), there are two parts concerning the spiritual nature of mankind. So we have to ask ourselves, what role does the soul of a person have and what role does the spirit of a person have?
The OT reveals much. Israel experienced physically what people of the New Covenant experience spiritually. The Tabernacle. The Outer Court, the Inner Court and the Holy of Holies. What does each represent for mankind as a whole? The Outer Court represents the flesh, the Inner Court represents the soul and the Holy of Holies represents the spirit.

Also, when we understand what was done in each of those areas of the Tabernacle in relation/represents for God, then we can understand various Scriptures of the NT that deal with the flesh, the soul and the spirit of mankind.

If there are any verses that point out man being bipartite in nature and not tripartite in nature, what verses would you use to support a bipartite nature only?
 

[Athanasius]

OK. I have an understanding of your position now. Can I begin with your personal labeling as: "But I'm also part of the bipartite gang,"

1 Thess 5: ²³ Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This one is even more prolific:

Hebrews 4: ¹² For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

While mankind is both physical and spiritual in nature (at this fact, I agree with you), there are two parts concerning the spiritual nature of mankind. So we have to ask ourselves, what role does the soul of a person have and what role does the spirit of a person have?

The issue with the trichotomous interpretation of these two verses is that there are many others that testify to a dichotomous view of human being. With respect to 1 Thessalonians 5:23, we could look at a verse like Luke 10:27:

"He answered, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

And come to a view of human being as heart, soul, strength, mind. But we wouldn't, of course. We understand that the heart and strength, for example, belong to the physical and aren't distinct from the physical (i.e. the distinction is functional not ontological). Paul's emphasis in 1 Thessalonians, rather, seems to be am emphasising the wholeness of a person rather than on making some ontological statement on the composition of human beings.

A similar reply would apply to Hebrews 4. Are thoughts ontologically distinct from intents? Pauls' purpose here seems to be to emphasise how deeply the word of God can penetrate a person. But as with before, Paul isn't affirming ontological divisions. He hasn't sided with Plato in opposition to Aristotle.

Besides, if you affirm that human beings are physical and spiritual, then you hold to a dichotomous view. Dividing the spiritual further into two components doesn't suddenly make a trichotomy with respect to substance (adding, however, does).

The OT reveals much. Israel experienced physically what people of the New Covenant experience spiritually. The Tabernacle. The Outer Court, the Inner Court and the Holy of Holies. What does each represent for mankind as a whole? The Outer Court represents the flesh, the Inner Court represents the soul and the Holy of Holies represents the spirit.

Also, when we understand what was done in each of those areas of the Tabernacle in relation/represents for God, then we can understand various Scriptures of the NT that deal with the flesh, the soul and the spirit of mankind.

Don't forget:

- That ancient mystic trinity
- The past and the present and the future
- It takes three legs to make a tripod or to make a table stand
- It takes three wheels to make a vehicle called a tricycle
- Every angle has three corners
- Every triangle has three sides
- A man and a woman had a little baby

I would say only that you're engaging in the tendency to see trinities everywhere, like the song. (And yes, I hold to trinitarian doctrine.)

If there are any verses that point out man being bipartite in nature and not tripartite in nature, what verses would you use to support a bipartite nature only?

Matthew 10:28
Matthew 22:37
Mark 8:36
Mark 12:30
Acts 20:10
1 Corinthians 2:14-15
1 Corinthians 7:34
2 Corinthians 4:16
2 Corinthians 5:10
Romans 1:9
Hebrews 4:12
1 Peter 3:9
Revelation 8:9
etc.

That is, verses where we see mentions of 'spirit' or 'soul' without a mention of the other.

If you're attempting to try to point out an error in holding to a dichotomous view, or demonstrate that trichotomy is correct, then know that these positions are as old as the Greek and Latin church fathers, and that I won't be compelled out of my view.

William Lane Craig touches on the subject here as well. Note that he tends towards the dichotomous view https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-man/doctrine-of-man-part-9/. On the Pauline examples above he sees these as functional rather than ontological, as I was getting at.

[Pablo]

The bible does not teach freewill, although it teaches that we have a will that we do use to make choices.

The only usage of the word "freewill" in the bible is freewill offerings.

God chose not to use that word because it apparently does not apply to our salvation or otherwise.

God is our creator and we belong to God. Not only Christians but everyone who entered the world, also including angels and any other being He created.
Thus we are obligated to conform to God's will and not doing so is called disobedience.

It is God who sets the rules, and we ought to pay close attention to his word. Many preacher will lead others into hell because we trust the Pastor and not the bible.

When Jesus was asked about the end times by his disciples, the first sentence out of his mouth was this.

Mat 24:3  And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 
Mat 24:4  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Becoming a passive recipient of the word from others is death, because the deceived is just as guilty as the perpetrator of those who deceive others, whether through ignorance or presumption.

[Athanasius]

The bible does not teach freewill, although it teaches that we have a will that we do use to make choices.

The only usage of the word "freewill" in the bible is freewill offerings.

God chose not to use that word because it apparently does not apply to our salvation or otherwise.

God is our creator and we belong to God. Not only Christians but everyone who entered the world, also including angels and any other being He created.

Thus we are obligated to conform to God's will and not doing so is called disobedience.

Of course, the Bible attests to the reality of human freedom (of the will). Unless you have some special definition of 'freewill' <sic> that you're using?

It is God who sets the rules, and we ought to pay close attention to his word. Many preacher will lead others into hell because we trust the Pastor and not the bible.

Just had to get that slight in, huh? Tell you what, let's stay away from bearing false witness about some nebulous undefined mass of hell-bent preachers. Let's stay away from conspiratorial notions, too. The clergy aren't out to deceive the masses into damnation.

When Jesus was asked about the end times by his disciples, the first sentence out of his mouth was this.

Mat 24:3  And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
Mat 24:4  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Becoming a passive recipient of the word from others is death, because the deceived is just as guilty as the perpetrator of those who deceive others, whether through ignorance or presumption.

Okay, we won't let you deceive us, Pablo. Promise. Stick to the topic: the effects of being born again on the will. No more warnings about preachers, for many reasons, but because it's also off-topic.

[Pablo]

In life we all have to say our piece.
Even Satan has to say his piece as he was allowed to do so in the garden.

Each man true to himself should truly express his thoughts, which of course will be judged by God on that day.

But can you imagine all those people who through plagiarism will be expressing others thoughts as their own and will be judged for it as though it were their own.

God is not mocked whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.

Say your piece, even if you are wrong, for then God can correct you and you will understand why you were wrong because it came from you.

But how are you going to understand what you said wrong when using other men's thoughts and speeches as your own. You will not have a clue as only those originators of those thoughts can truly know what they meant and how they came about those things when they said those things.

[RabbiKnife]

And whose wife shall she be in the resurrection?

[Athanasius]

In life we all have to say our piece.
Even Satan has to say his piece as he was allowed to do so in the garden.

Each man true to himself should truly express his thoughts, which of course will be judged by God on that day.

But can you imagine all those people who through plagiarism will be expressing others thoughts as their own and will be judged for it as though it were their own.

God is not mocked whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.

Say your piece, even if you are wrong, for then God can correct you and you will understand why you were wrong because it came from you.

But how are you going to understand what you said wrong when using other men's thoughts and speeches as your own. You will not have a clue as only those originators of those thoughts can truly know what they meant and how they came about those things when they said those things.

But can you imagine staying on topic?

[RandyPNW]

Should I sing "Holy, holy, holy" or "I Wish You A Merry Christmas?" If I choose freely, only I know which I shall choose, or if I will even sing at all. Pablo, I wish you a merry Christmas. And I will spare you my awful screechy voice (at least I'm not tone deaf). Carry on....