Are you born again ? Then here you are...

[brightfame52]

The words, "according to the Scriptures" does not mean that anyone before Jesus' death on the cross understood anything about what that death would provide. I see no indication that Abraham knew anything at all about the sacrifice of the Son of God for the sins of the world. Even the twelve who were with Jesus during his ministry here on earth did not understand until Pentecost when they were filled with the Holy Spirit.

They understood, thats why they offered sacrifices, they understood the messiah would be a sacrifice Isa 53, Abel Heb 11:4

4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

The sacrifices were pictures, types, shadows. Moses understood the Gospel and the death of Christ Heb 4:2

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Moses believed in Christ Heb 11:26

Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

 

[JIM]

That isn't changing the meaning of the word "see" or any other word.

It is not the meaning of words that is being changed, but how they are applied or what they are applied to, or differing usages of a word but not the meaning.

Just in order that I understand you here, in the meaning and use of the word "see" in John 3:3 does not really affirm total depravity and regeneration coming before faith. I have often read and heard from the Reformed community that it does.

 

[JIM]

They understood, thats why they offered sacrifices, they understood the messiah would be a sacrifice Isa 53, Abel Heb 11:4

4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

I think we can understand, after the fact, that Isaiah 53 was speaking of the sacrifice of the Son of God. I do not think anyone before the actual event of Jesus' death would have made that connection.

As for Hebrews 11:4, it is speaking about faith as believing in God. There really is no reference to the Gospel of Jesus' sacrifice for sin in that verse.

 

[Arial]

I have done that on several occasions, but of course it was not accepted.

Frankly that is why I have asked myself why I even bother with a forum such as this one, it being so heavily geared toward Calvinism. But then that was fairly obvious almost immediately.

A suggestion. Perhaps a motive other than disagreeing or proving that they are wrong, or stating they are wrong, focus on presenting your own arguments, and when they present theirs, discuss what they have said by listening to what they say, examining it, finding what you think contradicts what the Bible said and why it does.

For example: In the discussions you and I had about the imputation of Adam's sin gave the places where the Bible says that, and the same with the natural man in 1 Cor; you never saw that yes, what I said could be right. No acknowledgement that it could legitimately be interpreted the way in which I gave---whether you agree or not. You simply told me what it really meant, called my view Calvinist with a Calvinist agenda you disagree with, that twisted the scriptures, as though that settled my wrongness. If you did as I suggested, then I could examine your view, find if it had any legitimate interpretation of the scriptures, if it did acknowledge that and then move further into the scriptures to reaffirm what I have presented. So on and so forth. The conversations may be much shorter, but at least they would not digress into accusations and arguments, and anger.

 

[JIM]

A suggestion. Perhaps a motive other than disagreeing or proving that they are wrong, or stating they are wrong, focus on presenting your own arguments, and when they present theirs, discuss what they have said by listening to what they say, examining it, finding what you think contradicts what the Bible said and why it does.

For example: In the discussions you and I had about the imputation of Adam's sin gave the places where the Bible says that, and the same with the natural man in 1 Cor; you never saw that yes, what I said could be right. No acknowledgement that it could legitimately be interpreted the way in which I gave---whether you agree or not. You simply told me what it really meant, called my view Calvinist with a Calvinist agenda you disagree with, that twisted the scriptures, as though that settled my wrongness. If you did as I suggested, then I could examine your view, find if it had any legitimate interpretation of the scriptures, if it did acknowledge that and then move further into the scriptures to reaffirm what I have presented. So on and so forth. The conversations may be much shorter, but at least they would not digress into accusations and arguments, and anger.

I have no anger for anyone here at the forum. I sincerely apologize if it has appeared so.

 

[Eleanor]

Grace, faith, salvation.

Okay, keeping in mind that depravity is spiritual.
We are spiritually dead men until we are born again in the sovereign re-impartation of God's divine eternal life within our immortal human spirits (Jn 3:3-5) which Adam lost, the Holy Spirit being as unaccountable as the wind in his election to rebirth (Jn 3:6-8).
And spiritually dead men cannot spiritually hear, see (Jn 3:3-5), understand (1 Co 2:14), spiritually walk, obey, perform anything, they are spiritually dead, born condemned by Adam's sin (Ro 5:18), God's enemies at birth (Ro 5:10). Without rebirth, they will be damned at the judgment.
That being the case, they cannot even see (apprehend) God (Jn 3:3-5), much less please him (Ro 8:7-8) apart from his sovereign rebirth.

Grace, faith salvation are all gifts of God (Eph 2:8) following his sovereign gift of the new birth, they being followed by justification (forensic righteousness) and imputation of righteousness to the person (Ro 4:1-11).

Total spiritual depravity of all mankind at birth (Ro 5:18) simply means that everything spiritual is only of God by his sovereign rebirth, for man is born in spiritual death; i.e., total spiritual inability.

Are you thinking we have something to add to God's grace to make effective his gifts of sovereign rebirth, faith, salvation and justification,
that God shares the glory of his redemption with us (Isa 42:8, 48:11)?

 

[brightfame52]

I think we can understand, after the fact, that Isaiah 53 was speaking of the sacrifice of the Son of God. I do not think anyone before the actual event of Jesus' death would have made that connection.

As for Hebrews 11:4, it is speaking about faith as believing in God. There really is no reference to the Gospel of Jesus' sacrifice for sin in that verse.

Isaiah believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Abel did, Moses did. I dont see any reason to even continue this, because its evident God hasnt given you eyes to see the plain truth.

 

[Arial]

Just in order that I understand you here, in the meaning and use of the word "see" in John 3:3 does not really affirm total depravity and regeneration coming before faith. I have often read and heard from the Reformed community that it does.

One verse never affirms anything. And speaking for myself as I am the only one I can speak for and my view of Reformed theology, one verse is never used to affirm or deny anything, or establish a doctrine. The entire teaching of the Bible is used. For the sake of space and time, singular verses are often given on a forum to show that what is being said is indeed said in the scriptures. And then, unless the discussion immediately digresses to he said, she said, defenses such as "That's Calvinism" or "That is a false teaching" are used as refuting what is said, the conversation can move forward so that the whole counsel of God on the subject, and His self revelation can come into play.

That said let's go to John 3. In verses 1-2 Nicodemus came to Jesus by night, acknowledging that He must a man of God, and he did not even ask a question at that point. But he must have had one that Jesus surmised for that is when Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." The word "see" has many usages. It can mean to perceive by the eye; to imagine a possibility; to understand; to come to know as in discover; to have experience of i.e. undergo to name a few. But of course that was not the end of the conversation.

Nicodemus took Him literally and asked, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb?"

Jesus responds by saying, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This is likely a reference to OT passages that link "water" and "Spirit" as a single spiritual truth to express the pouring out of God's Spirit in the end times (after the resurrection) and the purification and new life that flow from His arrival. (Is 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:25-27)

In any case, Jesus is saying this new birth which is new life, new birth comes about through the agent of the Holy Spirit, and that unless this occurs one cannot enter the kingdom of God. Therefore the "see" in verse 3 relates to "cannot enter" in this verse, and "see" is logically interpreted to mean "enter." That is, experience or undergo.

Jesus goes on to underscore that this new birth is of the Holy Spirit and not through any actions or will of a man, such as believing. The new birth must come prior to believing.

Verse 8. "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

And if that were not enough it has already been attested to by John in John 1:12-13 "But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh no of the will of man, but of God."

 

[Arial]

I have no anger for anyone here at the forum. I sincerely apologize if it has appeared so.

I wasn't saying you were angry. It was a remark on what often happens when motives are skewed in the first place. But is that all you took from that post?

 

[JIM]

they are spiritually dead, born condemned by Adam's sin (Ro 5:18),

They are spiritually alive, born so by Jesus' obedience (Rom 5:18). The become spiritually dead in tresspasses and sins (Eph 2:1),

 

[JIM]

And if that were not enough it has already been attested to by John in John 1:12-13 "But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh no of the will of man, but of God."

And even there, the ones who become children of God, born of the will of God, were those who did receive Him and who believed in His name.

 

[JIM]

I dont see any reason to even continue this, because its evident God hasnt given you eyes to see the plain truth.

I could kick that accusation right back at you, but I won't.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I could kick that accusation right back at you, but I won't.

Did you resist God for years or some time before you surrendered and you were born again?

I'm asking because it seems to me that people have 2 types of testimonies in general. There is first those that had no resistance and there are those that resisted until God gave them an ultimatum of heaven or hell, and they chose heaven.

This is in no way meant to sound derogatory or argumentative. Rather, I am simply trying to find out your salvation testimony.

 

[JIM]

Did you resist God for years or some time before you surrendered and you were born again?

I'm asking because it seems to me that people have 2 types of testimonies in general. There is first those that had no resistance and there are those that resisted until God gave them an ultimatum of heaven or hell, and they chose heaven.

This is in no way meant to sound derogatory or argumentative. Rather, I am simply trying to find out your salvation testimony.

I was raised in a solidly believing home. Both my father and mother along with my grandparents were believers. I was never a resistor in the sense that I think you are referring to. In fact it was only later in life that I even questioned at all what believing was all about.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I was raised in a solidly believing home. Both my father and mother along with my grandparents were believers. I was never a resistor in the sense that I think you are referring to. In fact it was only later in life that I even questioned at all what believing was all about.

So you were born again later in life or not?

 

[Arial]

And even there, the ones who become children of God, born of the will of God, were those who did receive Him and who believed in His name.

Exactly. Why is it that you are assuming and therefore adding things that are not there while ignoring what is there. It says,

who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh no of the will of man, but of God."

Not of blood.
Nor of the will of the flesh.
Nor the will of man.
But of God.

You are adding all those things back in there as though the passage read, "Those born of blood, and the will of the flesh, and the will of man, choosing to receive Christ and believe in Him are the children of God. Why do you do that?

And what do you have to say about the first part of my post that shows Jesus explicitly explaining the new birth and how no one can enter the kingdom unless they are born again FIRST? Why just pick bits and pieces to address? Especially since that part addressed something that you asked about by accusing "Calvinists" of changing the meaning of the word "see". It is disingenuous. And inconsiderate.

 

[JIM]

Exactly. Why is it that you are assuming and therefore adding things that are not there while ignoring what is there. It says,

Not of blood.
Nor of the will of the flesh.
Nor the will of man.
But of God.

You are adding all those things back in there as though the passage read, "Those born of blood, and the will of the flesh, and the will of man, choosing to receive Christ and believe in Him are the children of God. Why do you do that?

And what do you have to say about the first part of my post that shows Jesus explicitly explaining the new birth and how no one can enter the kingdom unless they are born again FIRST? Why just pick bits and pieces to address? Especially since that part addressed something that you asked about by accusing "Calvinists" of changing the meaning of the word "see". It is disingenuous. And inconsiderate.

I, frankly, don' understand the problem you are having. To be born again is to enter the kingdom. Being born again is regeneration. Regeneration is salvation. Paul tells Titus that salvation is by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.

 

[JIM]

So you were born again later in life or not?

No, late preteen.

 

[Arial]

I, frankly, don' understand the problem you are having. To be born again is to enter the kingdom. Being born again is regeneration. Regeneration is salvation. Paul tells Titus that salvation is by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.

Just in order that I understand you here, in the meaning and use of the word "see" in John 3:3 does not really affirm total depravity and regeneration coming before faith. I have often read and heard from the Reformed community that it does.

That is what I was responding to, 95% of which you ignored in responding back. If you can't keep track then why do I bother? You also say that regeneration, the new birth, comes after we believe. I have been going to the trouble to show you that the Bible, Jesus HImself, says otherwise.

 

[Augustin56]

John 1:31-34: Jesus was baptized. If you compare the parallel passage in St. Matthew’s gospel (3:16), you find that when Jesus was baptized, “the heavens were opened” and the Spirit descended upon him. Obviously, this was not because Jesus needed to be baptized. In fact, St. John the Baptist noted that he needed to be baptized by Jesus (see Matthew 3:14)! Jesus was baptized in order “fulfill all righteousness” and “to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins,” according to Scripture (cf. Matt. 3:15; Luke 1:77). In other words, Jesus demonstrably showed us the way the heavens would be opened to us so that the Holy Spirit would descend upon us… through baptism.

John 2:1-11: Jesus performed his first miracle. He transformed water into wine. Notice, Jesus used water from “six stone jars … for the Jewish rites of purification.” According to the Septuagint as well as the New Testament these purification waters were called baptismoi (see LXX, Numbers 19:9-19; cf. Mark 7:4). We know that Old Testament rites, sacrifices, etc. were only “a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). They could never take away sins. This may well be why “six” stone jars are specified by St. John—to denote imperfection, or “a human number” (cf. Rev. 13:18). It is interesting to note that Jesus transformed these Old Testament baptismal waters into wine—a symbol of New Covenant perfection (see Joel 3:18; Matthew 9:17).

John 3:22: Immediately after Jesus’ “born again” discourse to Nicodemus, what does He do? “… Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.” It appears he baptized folks. This is the only time in Scripture we find Jesus apparently actually baptizing.

John 4:1-2: Jesus’ disciples then begin to baptize at Jesus’ command. It appears from the text, Jesus most likely only baptized his disciples and then they baptized everyone else.

In summary, Jesus was baptized, transformed the “baptismal” waters, and then gave his famous “born again” discourse. He then baptized before commissioning the apostles to go out and baptize. To deny Jesus was teaching us about baptism in John 3:3-5 is to ignore the clear biblical context.

I Peter 3:20-21: “… in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Romans 6:3-4: “Are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.”

Galatians 3:27: “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”

I Cor. 12:13: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit (See also Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and Col. 2:11-13).

If baptism is the way the unsaved are brought into Christ, no wonder Christ spoke of being “born of water and spirit.” Baptism is the instrument of new birth according to the New Testament.