No, I never ran across that one, brother, especially in Japan where they barely know what the Bible is, much less circumcision (which they do not practice).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does Jesus Evangelize Nicodemus in John 3?
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
There was a son of a preacher who was so ashamed, that when he became an adult, he had the matter taken care of.
His father was not happy, and berated the son, and for a number of years there was little fellowship and agreement between them.
Truly sad.
Ok, back to the OP and enough of this nonsense.
His father was not happy, and berated the son, and for a number of years there was little fellowship and agreement between them.
Truly sad.
Ok, back to the OP and enough of this nonsense.
That's very sad.There was a son of a preacher who was so ashamed, that when he became an adult, he had the matter taken care of.
His father was not happy, and berated the son, and for a number of years there was little fellowship and agreement between them.
Truly sad.
Ok, back to the OP and enough of this nonsense.
I believe Christ was explaining to Nicodemus, the things he lacked for Salvation. He didn't understand being born again as Christ had said, "Ye must be born again". That most likely confused Nicodemus even more. Then Christ went on
Christ tells Nicodemus that he has not received the witness of Himself and the disciples. Meaning he wasn't receiving Christ. Nicodemus was rejecting the good news. Then Christ told Nicodemus the plan of Salvation. To believe in the Son of God that he might be saved.
I don't believe anyone is ever saved with out believing in Christ Jesus. Believing in Christ is the main point or requirement for Salvation. It's simple, belief is a requirement. It comes not from the work of the man but by a work of God. It is He that convinces us of Him Self. If man becomes convinced He can't help but believe because he is convinced.
It seems as if Nicodemus caught a glimpse of the light. Just enough to make him curious. Yet not enough to satisfy his curiosity. He knew Christ was special and probably suspected that he just might be the messiah.
I don't know if he were saved but I certainly hope so.
MB
Oui, monsieur. Nicodemus was saved the same way all of us our, by grace through faith.
I truly believe he was.
John 19:38-42...
The Burial of Jesus
Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
Thank you for this passage. I try to remember all that I've read in scripture. I suppose this slipped by some how.
May God bless you as you just did me..
MB
John of Japan
Did you really expect to look in a systematic theology and get biographical information of Nicodemus?
What you can get is the model of how was an OT person said to be in the Covenant, and that they could break the covenant....
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/berkhof/systematictheology.iv.iii.iv.html
I do not have my hardcover with me, but was able to get it online-
Did you really expect to look in a systematic theology and get biographical information of Nicodemus?
What you can get is the model of how was an OT person said to be in the Covenant, and that they could break the covenant....
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/berkhof/systematictheology.iv.iii.iv.html
Last edited:
You misunderstand. I looked in the index and Nicodemus was not there. Now what I challenged you on (look back at your own post) was the idea that Berkhof would agree with you that the story of Nicodemus was not evangelism. If Berkhof does not even discuss Nicodemus (though he discusses regeneration from the passage), Berkhof is ergo not on your side.
This is immaterial to the discussion. We are discussing whether or not Jesus was evanglizing Nicodemus. This whole passage says nothing relevant to that. Even Nicodemus being in the covenant is irrelevant as to whether or not he was saved.
However, if you insist, I can take this Berkhof passage to be on my side, since Berkhof says, "Because they stand in the legal covenant relationship to God, they are in duty bound to repent and believe. If they do not turn to God and accept Christ by faith, when they come to years of discretion, they will be judged as breakers of the covenant."
I want to rabbit trail a bit on the thread because of the posts bringing up covenant(s). I generally do not take the covenants of God as depending upon human effort. That does not mean that God is in some manner unaware or suspending judgment, but that I take the covenants issued by God as vows. A vow that is not conditioned upon the response of the other.
An example may be grace and faith in salvation. The salvation is not conditional, and not within the authority of humankind to either author or finish. It is the responsibility to run the race and finish the course, and there are certainly consequences when one is irresponsible in this regard; however, it would be worthless if the salvation could be broken off by human effort.
Therefore, I have a problem with covenant thinking that makes some if / then statement and expecting it to hold the same level of standard when compared to the vows of God.
God gave Abram a vow, he also gave the mother of Ishmael a vow. These are unbreakable and everlasting. Neither were conditioned upon the future events, because when God made them He already new all future and no choice of humankind is ever a surprise or catches God unaware.
As it comes to Nicodemus, he was born in a covenant family, but that family had not the whole story but in picture form. Some were given insight and looked longingly to the messiah / redeemer. One can read about it in the earliest years of Jesus as some come and rejoice. Others, though, were so wise in their understanding of nuances of Scriptures and traditions and had placed credible reliance upon duty, that they missed the larger picture of the messiah / redeemer. Such (imo) was Nicodemus.
He didn't need the evangelism to start with "the law," for he knew more about it than most of his day (imo). What he needed was the "rest of the story" in which Christ gave. It confused Nicodemus, and there is no account of his salvation (though I do consider that he was), and I also have no doubt that he influenced a greater number of the people who responded at Pentecost and later - though there is no account to give other than speculation.
What part of discomfort I have with the covenant thinking is the "family" aspect as it pertains to gentiles that I see as a hold over from the papists. Most covenant folks hold in some way that family members of a believer are in some manner "held in trust" (my term) until there is some age of accountability or until that family member makes a determination. To me such thinking flies in the face of the D. of G. in which God is the sole authority.
Berkhof and others would attempt to place the children of believers in the same relationship as the children of the covenant of promise given Abraham. Yet, then they must make inventions that would exclude the children if they don't follow the path of righteousness. Paul's statement in Roman's 9 means that children of the flesh are not automatically by birth right the children of God (Ishmael), but only those who are by promise (Isaac). No gentile family is by birth right able to lay claim to the promise of Abraham as the child of God because of the advantage of father Abraham. That adoption is given by God, and humankind have no power or authority in the matter.
I am not saying that covenant theology is in total wrong, I am saying that at times some thinking would seem to be carried into the living of gentile believers with Jewish aspects that are not correct.
An example may be grace and faith in salvation. The salvation is not conditional, and not within the authority of humankind to either author or finish. It is the responsibility to run the race and finish the course, and there are certainly consequences when one is irresponsible in this regard; however, it would be worthless if the salvation could be broken off by human effort.
Therefore, I have a problem with covenant thinking that makes some if / then statement and expecting it to hold the same level of standard when compared to the vows of God.
God gave Abram a vow, he also gave the mother of Ishmael a vow. These are unbreakable and everlasting. Neither were conditioned upon the future events, because when God made them He already new all future and no choice of humankind is ever a surprise or catches God unaware.
As it comes to Nicodemus, he was born in a covenant family, but that family had not the whole story but in picture form. Some were given insight and looked longingly to the messiah / redeemer. One can read about it in the earliest years of Jesus as some come and rejoice. Others, though, were so wise in their understanding of nuances of Scriptures and traditions and had placed credible reliance upon duty, that they missed the larger picture of the messiah / redeemer. Such (imo) was Nicodemus.
He didn't need the evangelism to start with "the law," for he knew more about it than most of his day (imo). What he needed was the "rest of the story" in which Christ gave. It confused Nicodemus, and there is no account of his salvation (though I do consider that he was), and I also have no doubt that he influenced a greater number of the people who responded at Pentecost and later - though there is no account to give other than speculation.
What part of discomfort I have with the covenant thinking is the "family" aspect as it pertains to gentiles that I see as a hold over from the papists. Most covenant folks hold in some way that family members of a believer are in some manner "held in trust" (my term) until there is some age of accountability or until that family member makes a determination. To me such thinking flies in the face of the D. of G. in which God is the sole authority.
Berkhof and others would attempt to place the children of believers in the same relationship as the children of the covenant of promise given Abraham. Yet, then they must make inventions that would exclude the children if they don't follow the path of righteousness. Paul's statement in Roman's 9 means that children of the flesh are not automatically by birth right the children of God (Ishmael), but only those who are by promise (Isaac). No gentile family is by birth right able to lay claim to the promise of Abraham as the child of God because of the advantage of father Abraham. That adoption is given by God, and humankind have no power or authority in the matter.
I am not saying that covenant theology is in total wrong, I am saying that at times some thinking would seem to be carried into the living of gentile believers with Jewish aspects that are not correct.
What happens if the covenant theory is correct? What conclusions can be drawn?
Though many hold to that position it doesn't make it right. It is wrong and contrary to Scripture. Even in the OT salvation was justification by faith, just as it is in the NT. Nicodemus was an adult. He was responsible for his own actions. He was as unsaved as Ahab or Jezebel for he had not trusted Christ. Now that Christ had given him even more light he was that much more responsible, for with more revelation (or light) comes more responsibility to respond to that light.
If that theory is correct then Saul would not have needed salvation, for he was in the covenant.
If that theory is correct then Annas and Caiphas, the ones that crucified Christ were saved, being in the covenant thought they put Christ to death and urged others to do the same. Christ said "they know not what they do." Remember that both Saul and Nicodemus belonged to the same group of people as Annas and Caiphas: they were all members of the Sanhedrin.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
'You must be born again'. - Jesus Christ to Nicodemus
I just saw this tucked inside the quote from Berkhof in your post. That made it really hard to follow you, so please be careful how you post.
If I read this right--everyone who was circumcised was in the covenant, therefore all circumcised Jewish men were saved--then you are a sacramentalist, sadly mistaken about how Jews were saved before Christ.
Salvation in every age is by grace through faith, "not by works of righteousness." Circumcision and all other covenant keeping actions are works, not faith. So absolutely, I believe that Nicodemus was unsaved in John 3. Everyone who has voted so far has agreed with me, so you are in an extreme minority. (Do you plan to vote?)
I daresay Berkhof would disagree with you, since in his sys. theo. he argues for regeneration from John 3 in a number of places.
Agreed.
One of the best examples (imo) is the experience of Saul who became the Apostle Paul. As one who was in the flesh covenant of Abraham, he was still unsaved until he was brought to salvation. He more than once expressed concern for his heritage, who were blinded by God to the truth.
I think perhaps you are either not understanding what I posted, or thinking that I am in agreement that heritage is in some way granting a pass into heaven.
That is what I argued against when discussing the writing I have read (for example Berkhof) of the reformed who take being born into a family that have parents as believers has some special covenant relationship extended over the children. Such thinking (imo) takes the covenant given to the Jews (that birth right) as something that gentiles should also be privileged to bear.
I don't see that as Scriptural. Rather, God chooses of the gentiles those that He purposes for His own, irregardless of blood line and heritage.
I knew you didn't believe that. I meant to say: "If that theory is correct."
I believe we are in agreement here.
John of Japan
It is you who misunderstand. Berkhof was dealing about the nature of those in covenant with God. That is all you had to concern yourself with as Nicodemus speaks with Jesus pre-cross.
I personally do not think he was saved as of yet. That was between him and God however.
It is you who misunderstand. Berkhof was dealing about the nature of those in covenant with God. That is all you had to concern yourself with as Nicodemus speaks with Jesus pre-cross.
You are again mistaken. Nicodemus was in the covenant and if indeed he was saved, he did not "need to be evangelized." To say it is irrelevant does not show an understanding of God dealing with Israelites in salvation.
I personally do not think he was saved as of yet. That was between him and God however.
Israelites had to live by faith as we do. They needed divine enablement as we do.
And thus the need for evangelism! Three times Jesus told him: You must be born again.
Berkhof said nothing about Nicodemus. This thread is about Nicodemus. Period. End of story.
Okay, I'll bite. Tell me how being circumcised helped an Israelite to be saved? And again I ask, are you a sacramentalist?
Well, you certainly have changed your tune. You say "If indeed he was saved." So you admit he might not have been saved. If he was not saved, he needed to be evangelized. Jesus evangelized him. Period. End of story.
The thread is not about living by faith; it is about evangelism.
I chose other in that I see John 3 as the more understandable answer to the question of the rich young ruler, Matt 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And also the answer to the disciples. 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John 3:7 Shall I do? Maybe it is God that needs to do, the doing.
However I also believe that to be evangelism. Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, Heb 2:3-5 NKJV how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels.
I believe it will be the born again man, born in the image of, the firstborn from the dead, the world to come, the kingdom of God will be subjected to.
And also the answer to the disciples. 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John 3:7 Shall I do? Maybe it is God that needs to do, the doing.
However I also believe that to be evangelism. Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, Heb 2:3-5 NKJV how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels.
I believe it will be the born again man, born in the image of, the firstborn from the dead, the world to come, the kingdom of God will be subjected to.
Last edited: