Apples and oranges, you still refer to regeneration for unbelievers but use an argument that they had eternal life? So quote what law that Nicodemus should have known? And you could try doing it without the insults.
Darren
-
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!
A question for the Calvinists
- Thread starter Winman
- Start date
- Status
Apples and oranges, you still refer to regeneration for unbelievers but use an argument that they had eternal life? So quote what law that Nicodemus should have known? And you could try doing it without the insults.
Darren
How so?
What are you talking about?
Why? Jesus didn't. But isn't it clear that Jesus had something mind when he spoke to Nicodemus? The fact is that there are a number of OT passages that speak of the need for a changed heart. That is what regeneration is.
That is my pattern. I don't use insults. It doesn't help the conversation.
If the OT people were not born again, then you would be calling all of God's OT people "men of the flesh" who were blinded of Spiritual things, which they were not because they were born of the Spirit.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
Did Abraham see and enter the kingdom of God?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicodemus, you to must be born again, Jesus said.
Why did Nicodemus not understand these Spiritual rebirth things Jesus taught Him? why didn't the women at the well?
my opinion: You must be born again to understand spiritual things
My question after all of this is at what point do you think being "born again" started?
"Apples and oranges"
Even in the NT regeneration/being born again is clearly something that God does to believers at the event of their conversion. Now its one position to show that believers are regenerated (yeah we all agree :applause
but its something entirely different to show that unbelievers are regenerated with the intent that they will eventually be saved. As a non Calvinist I don't believe the bible teaches regeneration precedes conversion/faith so if that cannot be proven in the NT there is no case for it to be proven for the OT either. Now the big presumption of a regenerated spiritual life for the OT believer is one thing BUT worse is the presumption of the regenerated unbeliever. Big difference.
Yet the ones I mentioned show the heart of flesh was for a future time, which is the same scriptures Calvinist use for regeneration. God did not put his laws in the inward man and the Holy Spirit did not indwell OT believers other than for ministry/annointing purposes and again the presumption that that was done for unbelievers is a mighty big presumption, or if you like - deduction. To assume there was teaching on regeneration preceding faith that Nicodemus should have known leaves the onus on the one whom wants to interpret it that way, in other words, provide an OT reference and prove it.
If you say so.
Darren
Even in the NT regeneration/being born again is clearly something that God does to believers at the event of their conversion. Now its one position to show that believers are regenerated (yeah we all agree :applause
but its something entirely different to show that unbelievers are regenerated with the intent that they will eventually be saved. As a non Calvinist I don't believe the bible teaches regeneration precedes conversion/faith so if that cannot be proven in the NT there is no case for it to be proven for the OT either. Now the big presumption of a regenerated spiritual life for the OT believer is one thing BUT worse is the presumption of the regenerated unbeliever. Big difference. Yet the ones I mentioned show the heart of flesh was for a future time, which is the same scriptures Calvinist use for regeneration. God did not put his laws in the inward man and the Holy Spirit did not indwell OT believers other than for ministry/annointing purposes and again the presumption that that was done for unbelievers is a mighty big presumption, or if you like - deduction. To assume there was teaching on regeneration preceding faith that Nicodemus should have known leaves the onus on the one whom wants to interpret it that way, in other words, provide an OT reference and prove it.
If you say so.
Darren
I'm merely quoting the verses I gave. That God will put HIS laws in the inward man, this was for the New Covenant. I suggest you compare the Covenants if you don't believe me.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Darren
So why would that be different in the OT?
Do you know anyone who believes this? Most Calvinists I know believe that regeneration is simultaneous with conversion. I can't recall any who think that conversion is "eventually."
As a Calvinist, I don't either.
There is a very sound NT case to be made for it.
Who is presuming a regenerated unbeliever in either testament? I am confused as to who you are addressing here.
You want to proof text, which I disagree with, and you want to deny the import of what Christ said to Nicodemus. He said that Nicodemus should have known about regeneration from the OT. It is up to you to show why Jesus was wrong. If Nicodemus should not have known about regeneration from the OT, then why did Jesus say so? I am confused as to exactly what you are saying here.
It's true.
Evidentially there is not enough information in this passage to validate your interpretation. IF Nicodemus was supposed to know something from the law and it should have been obvious regarding being born again for OT saints, then what section of the law was it? The onus is on you to demonstrate your interpretation with OT scripture.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Darren
Really? There is not enough information in the passage to say that Nicodemus should have known about the new birth from the OT? If so, then why did Jesus say, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" Jesus seemed to think that Nicodemus should have known. You think he should not have known. Who is right? Hmmmmm ...
Why? If Jesus didn't feel compelled to identify the OT Scripture, why should I? Why are you holding me to a higher standard than Jesus held himself to?
There are many things in the Bible that we do not know, especially concerning OT allusions in the NT. But to deny the clear teaching of Scripture (that Nicodemus should have known about the new birth from the OT) in order to maintain that there was no new birth in the OT is far too rigid for me.
That depends on where you are wanting to put the emphasis..
3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? - which things?? Why would Nicodemus marvel at these things?
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Jesus was not expecting Nicodemus to have a working knowledge of the heavenly things...
3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
Yet Jesus brings it back to Himself:
3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
As I said, you interpret beyond what the passage allows.
Because obviously it doesn't mean what you are interpreting it to mean, if it did Nicodemus would have been expected to obviously know some OT scriptures that talk about regeneration. However as I point out I don't believe that was the case, even if it was the case, Jesus would not contradict Eze 11:19, 36:26, Jer 31:33-34 or Heb 8:7-10
:godisgood:
Darren
He was marveling that a man must be born again. How can he enter into his mother's womb and be born a second time? That was his question.
I know you said that, but you haven't addressed the issue. Jesus is clearly talking about the new birth, correct? And he says "Are you a teacher of Israel and do not know these things?" That was a question of incredulity. He wasn't seeking information.
Why is that?
Exactly. Jesus was saying he should have known about regeneration from the OT because he taught the OT.
But you haven't explained what the case is. What was Nicodemus supposed to know?
I don't think there is any contradiction here. I think it is your lack of understanding driven by a need to preserve a position.
Were OT believers given eternal life? Of course they were. And how? By regeneration. I can't imagine that is even questioned. I am honestly astounded. I have no idea where you are going here. This is not about whether or not regeneration comes before or after faith. It is about the very nature of sin, death, and eternal life.
Nicodemus was not expected to know these things and he didn't.
The new birth is for the new covenant, simple as that. Eze 11:19, 36:26, Jer 31:33-34 or Heb 8:7-10.
Darren
Last edited by a moderator:
So why did Jesus say, "Are you a teacher of Israel and do not know these things?"
To use your line, can you show any place in Scripture where the new birth is only connected with the new covenant?
Did OT people have eternal life?
The Holy Spirit regenerates the new believer as HE indwells them. You need scripture for that?
Yes by faith, Roms ch4 and Heb ch11.
Darren
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
Pastor Larry,
You said in an earlier post that you did not believe regeneration preceeds conversion. Do you think they come at the same time, or some other way?
You said in an earlier post that you did not believe regeneration preceeds conversion. Do you think they come at the same time, or some other way?
Tom Butler
New Member
I'm sure Pastor Larry will answer for himself, but maybe this quote from one of his earlier posts will give us a hint.
This is close to what I hold. Regeneration followed by faith is as much a logical order as a chronological order. The minute one is quickened he believes.
It's sort of like flipping the light switch. The light won't come on until the switch is flipped, but the minute you flip it, it lights up.
That said, I will waffle a bit on the question, can there be any space between regeneration and faith? I am hesitant to say never.
This is close to what I hold. Regeneration followed by faith is as much a logical order as a chronological order. The minute one is quickened he believes.
It's sort of like flipping the light switch. The light won't come on until the switch is flipped, but the minute you flip it, it lights up.
That said, I will waffle a bit on the question, can there be any space between regeneration and faith? I am hesitant to say never.
It is true that Pastor Larry will not doubt speak for himself but I have spoken with him on this very subject with respect to his view here. IF I remember correctly he does hold to faith preceding regeneration chronologically, and that the person believing does so through (again, If I remember correctly) the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit upon/within the person. However I too will wait and hear his comments :thumbs:
Editted to add: Wow, Pastor Larry has an audiance just waiting to hear from him. What better to time to preach :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes.
So they have eternal life but they were not regenerated? And you think that makes sense? What is eternal life? What is regeneration? Perhaps we are having a hard time here because we are working from different definitions.
I think (as most Calvinists do) that they are chronologically simultaneous. The issue is logical order, or causation. Most Calvinists think that regeneration enables or causes faith. I think faith causes regeneration. I think the effectual call is a unilateral, sovereign, and effectual enablement of response of faith. It is different than regeneration. Many Calvinists think that regeneration and the effectual call are the same thing.
Logical, not chronological.
DeafPosttrib
New Member
I would like to say something on Nicodemus.
Calvinism's doctrine on the one of the five points- 'Irresisitble Grace'. They believe that a elect cannot come to God till God's effect power with Holy Spirit regenerates into elect's soul, THEN believe Jesus immediately without being resist with Holy Spirit.
Is this Bibilical?
In John chapter 3, during that time, Nicodemus came to Jesus, and called Him, "Rabbi".
Christ told him, that he must be born again.
Did Nicodemus got born again immediately at that same time after Christ commands him? No.
I do not consider that Nicodemus was finally got saved till about 3 years later when he saw Christ died on the cross, it realized him, that Jesus is the Messiah and savior. So, he brought equiptments to wrapped cover Christ's body in the tomb after Christ died on the cross.
Nicodemus didn't get saved immediately when Christ told him that he must be born again at that same day. I believe Nicodemus doesn't understood Christ, what He was talking about. Till 3 yeaes later he finally understood the gospel.
I believe "ye must be born again" is part of the gospel. I am pretty sure that the Holy Spirit did working on Nicodemus' heart for a while till he finally got saved about 3 years later. Which Christ or Nicodemus make decision to be saved? Nicodemus. Not Jesus, because Nicodemus did made his decision by believed on Christ.
I believe John chapter 3 doesn't prove Irresistible grace doctrine of Calvinism's. Because this chapter doesn't say that Nicodemus did got saved or did born again in that same day.
Probably, during in that time, Holy Spirit did already working on Nicodemus while Christ was spokening to Him at same time, and Nicodemus was seem not understand what Christ was talking about, and probably, he was doubting Christ that time. Not get understood and saved till about 3 years later. It took time for Nicodemus finally to understand and saved. Therefore, Christ/Holy Spirit doesn't push or force Nicodemus to get saved right away. Christ just gave seeds of God's Word to Nicodemus, it tooks him to get understand for a while.
Bible teaches us that salvation by through our decision with faith and believe on the gospel first before Holy Spirit regenerates into us.
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Calvinism's doctrine on the one of the five points- 'Irresisitble Grace'. They believe that a elect cannot come to God till God's effect power with Holy Spirit regenerates into elect's soul, THEN believe Jesus immediately without being resist with Holy Spirit.
Is this Bibilical?
In John chapter 3, during that time, Nicodemus came to Jesus, and called Him, "Rabbi".
Christ told him, that he must be born again.
Did Nicodemus got born again immediately at that same time after Christ commands him? No.
I do not consider that Nicodemus was finally got saved till about 3 years later when he saw Christ died on the cross, it realized him, that Jesus is the Messiah and savior. So, he brought equiptments to wrapped cover Christ's body in the tomb after Christ died on the cross.
Nicodemus didn't get saved immediately when Christ told him that he must be born again at that same day. I believe Nicodemus doesn't understood Christ, what He was talking about. Till 3 yeaes later he finally understood the gospel.
I believe "ye must be born again" is part of the gospel. I am pretty sure that the Holy Spirit did working on Nicodemus' heart for a while till he finally got saved about 3 years later. Which Christ or Nicodemus make decision to be saved? Nicodemus. Not Jesus, because Nicodemus did made his decision by believed on Christ.
I believe John chapter 3 doesn't prove Irresistible grace doctrine of Calvinism's. Because this chapter doesn't say that Nicodemus did got saved or did born again in that same day.
Probably, during in that time, Holy Spirit did already working on Nicodemus while Christ was spokening to Him at same time, and Nicodemus was seem not understand what Christ was talking about, and probably, he was doubting Christ that time. Not get understood and saved till about 3 years later. It took time for Nicodemus finally to understand and saved. Therefore, Christ/Holy Spirit doesn't push or force Nicodemus to get saved right away. Christ just gave seeds of God's Word to Nicodemus, it tooks him to get understand for a while.
Bible teaches us that salvation by through our decision with faith and believe on the gospel first before Holy Spirit regenerates into us.
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
- Status