I guess you Calvanists need to sort this out, since one Reformed Christain is saying he should have known he needed to be born again, and the other is sayin git is a “new truth”. I will go with you on this one, tgG. There is no way that Nicodemus could have been exposed to this before, as it was a new revelation from God.
Not sure what you mean by “belief”. Nicodemus did not believe . He did not have any saving faith. His faith didn’t need something else. it was ineffectual on its own.
I tried to let this go but I can’t.
Nichodemus is mentioned three time in Scripture
The first is his night time visit. The first thing he tells Jesus is “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.”
He is then shown to be a believer. The second Timed was when the Pharisees wanted to have Jesus arrested and he asked them 51 `Our law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out what they are doing, does it?'
The final time is after the crucifixion when he assisted Joseph of Arimathea in Jesus burial.
I do not know where you arrive at the false conclusion that he did not believe not understanding is not the same as unbelief.
. As NT says , he was not circumcised in his heart
Where does it say this?
Not according to mcq72. I actually agree with you, Jesus is teaching a new and living truth. He doesn’t. His argument is that Nicodemus should have known what Jesus was teaching here from the OT.
What’s your thoughts on his argument?
Reply is below…
Yes but never had anyone so explicitly described reentering the womb again as Nicodemus did, calling for the exceptional response by Jesus (posibly referring to fleshly birth as born of water/amniotic fluid)…the use of born of blood may refer more to fleshly birth as in bloodline , as in human parents.not so much as in the “process” of the actual birth…we are not gestated in blood but in amniotic fluid…again Nic was speaking quite explicitly of the actual gestating process, not of bloodline
Yes he really was a literal thinking man. But Jesus was very plain with him that He was not talking about physical human birth, but a birth that occured instead by water and Spirit.
Any Jew would equate human birth with blood. This is why a cleansing was needed after the birth.
1The Lord said to Moses, 2“Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding." Lev. 12
Equating human birth with water rather than blood is just outside the thinking of a Jew.
There is never any reference to a woman being unclean after birth due to “water”. The ceremonial uncleanness during a woman’s period and after a birth was all about the blood.
Just as Jesus used wine to become His Own Blood in the Eucharist, He used water as the washing to be used in Baptism.
Not anymore than equating regeneration with water baptism
yes , that is another possibility. yet if you take the next verse Christ speaks of both births ;
“that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit”
You must explain why born of water is conjoined by the "and’ to being regenerative, if everyone agrees that John’s baptism was not regenerative.
And of course one must decide if OT folk were regenerated (even Mary, Joseph , Zacharias, Elizabeth, Simeon, not to mention David, Abraham ,Moses etc etc). Apparently they entered the kingdom once the Ascension and Calvary took place, for Christ led captivity captive (out of “paradise”, He being the firstfruit (entry into heaven, with OT saints).
I guess you lost me here. We understand that Jesus joined the Holy Spirit to the baptismal waters when He entered into them and sanctified them. I don’t see how that makes John’s baptism regenerative. Jesus instructed that people be baptized Trinitarian. John did not do that. His ministry was to point to Jesus’ baptism.
YOu seem to be suggesting that the Apostles’ baptism had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. I think the whole point of Peter’s vision and the outpouring of the HS on the house of Cornelius was to convince Peter to bring in the Gentiles BECAUSE Peter understood the HS to be connected to the baptismal waters.
There were plenty of saved OT persons. The method God has used to save mankind has never changed. OT people were also saved by grace, through faith. They could not enter heaven until He opened the doors, but they waited with eager longing for The Day!
well for sure Nic did not understand, and I say, rather the Lord says, did not believe,
“ye (Nic) receive not our witness…ye believe not (my words/message/gospel)” John 3 vs11,12
Jesus also tells him "ye must be born again’’ which to me says that Nic was not. When one is born again, he believes unto salvation. I agree that not understanding something does not always mean one is not regenerated, but for sure, and i think this is what Christ is emphatically pointing out, you certainly will not understand, much less believe, if one is not born again.
Agree, difficult to accept that a man of the cloth, so to speak, which Nicodemus was, could not be born of God, or ready or able to see or enter into the kingdom.
Oh I agree! I am sure they were as confused as Naaman was when he was told to dip himself in the Jordan!
But it is significant that the Apostles understood and taught this connection, which was espoused by the Church until the Anabaptists departed from it.
correct, it is Paul I believe who mentions this , that unbelieving Jews are not circumcised of the heart.
Correct, in that Nic was supposed to have known something and was chided for it, and now we discuss just what did he not know.
I say Nic did not know two things. First he did not correctly perceive (and believe) the current wind of the Spirit (the message and testimony of both John and Jesus), and he did not know that such understanding/faith only comes from that same “wind” that regenerates , that makes one born again. Nic assumed he was spiritually born already, or that he could understand with the flesh.
So the chiding was not for unbelief, but in not understanding how one comes to believe, or that our spirit must be revived to receive the Fathers gift.
yes, but this is new, yet do not think jesus would chide something that is new, but for something an OT rabbi was to know.
So we agree OT saints were born again ?
I doubt it. I think our concepts of “born again” are probably not agreeable.
They were saved.
Jesus said a person could not be saved unless he is born again. So they must be born again according to Jesus’ teaching. What that is might be the point of disagreement.
right. one must be born again not only to see but enter the kingdom of God.
Not sure we disagree on ‘born again’. it is where our spirits are "revived , or made alive towards God spiritually after its death from sin…maybe what later was to be called original sin…for sure started with Adam and Eve, where they sinned but were then spiritually dead, hiding from God, and God restored them after the shedding of blood .
First, we agree that John’s baptism was not regenerative, but preparatory, and with no “name” attached but the with expectancy of the future messiah (though after baptizing jesus his message was specific, that Christ is the messiah.) it could be argued however, that such obedience was indicative of a revived, even reborn inner man…born again)
As to the apostles baptizing, not sure when they started. Not sure if it was before the Nicodemus discourse or not. This is pertinent to this thread because some have said that being born of water means baptism, yet to which baptism, John’s or the apostles .
Do not know if apostles used trinitarian formula during the 3 and half years when Jesus was with them (for sure after the Ascension). For sure Jesus was to baptize with the Holy Ghost, but again, was this to be before and or after His ascension, before or after Pentecost .We know some of the apostles were baptized by John. Do not know that any had to be rebaptized. The Acts 19 “rebaptizing” discourse is with those who may have not heard that Christ was the Messiah, only that He was coming…not sure it is foolproof template that all needed rebaptizing. Christ himself alludes that those who obeyed John’s baptism “would enter into heaven” before the pharisees.Matt 21:31
Maybe after all, all water baptism is preparatory , non regenerating. The gift of the Spirit could come before or after water, or with the laying of hands. We baptize folks with water , but jesus with the Holy Ghost. It seems the apostles received the indwelling when jesus breathed on them(after resurrection ?), and received the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, all way after any kind of baptism (either from themselves of John’s)…I would also add they were all born again , believed , before such HG “gifting” or indwelling
In Matt 21:31 and elsewhere Christ references those who obeyed and believed John as getting into the Kingdom of God before those who did not obey and believe John.
“The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” luke 16:16
'But wisdom is vindicated by all her children." Luke 7:35…those who believed and were baptized by John were the “children”
So one can believe, enter the kingdom, without new birth. ? Adam and Eve died when they ate the apple, for in that day you shall surely die…I thought they lived hundreds of years more, at least there flesh did…was it not a spiritual death ? yet were they not "revived’ , or had the ability to converse with God again, who is a spirit ?
Regardless jesus says you must be born again to enter the kingdom…but if you can believe unto salvation without this rebirth then we have a contradiction.