Double Double Toil and Trouble

[The Biblicist]

I never claimed that it did represent losing personal salvation. I have always argued that it is about revelation which enables salvation, not salvation itself.

It is not about "revelation which enables salvation" either! It is about the chosen sphere from which God calls out the promised elect children of Abraham. He promised an elect seed from the very loins of Abraham in addition to the NATIONS OF THE GENTILES. All according to election.

Those "grafted in" are seeing, hearing and understanding

Simply not true! Nowhere does Romans 11 say that - nowhere! Being grafted in did not change their blindness but it is election that obtained sight (Rom. 11:5-7). To be spiritually blind is the natural condition of the fallen nature (Deut. 5:29) whereas to obtain spiritual sight is the supernatural condition of a new heart (Deut. 29:4). You are simply READING INTO the text not only what it denies but what the whole of scripture denies. Romans 8:7-8 (which you have not yet addressed any of may specific points) completely repudiates your interpretation.

If you reject the revelation long enough you grow hardened to it and eventually, if God so chooses, he may cut you off from the revelation all together making you deaf, blind and unable to even understand it anymore.

That is simply not true! The fallen natue is already blind and deaf in regard to SPIRITUAL ability to receive the truth. The NATURAL ability to recognize truth is taken away from the fallen man as he is exposed to light due to the NATURAL reaction of the fallen nature to that light (Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 8:7-8).

That is NOT a condition from birth, as Total Inability suggests.

It most certainly is and Romans 8:7-8 and John 3:19-20 proves that it is as there are no other options for existence in this world other than "in the flesh" (born of the flesh) and "in the Spirit" (born of the Spirit) and man does not come into this world "in the Spirit" but "in the flesh" and the flesh "CANNOT PLEASE GOD" (Rom. 8:7).

Your position demands a THIRD alternative to being BORN of the flesh other than the second Biblical LATER alternative of being BORN of the Spirit and no such third alternative exists anywhere at anytime on earth.

I challenge you to find one scripture where it teaches that men are born judicially blinded/hardened.

This is a straw man argument because we don't believe any such thing or assert any such thing. We believe that hardening is the natural RESPONSE by the fallen nature to light. Thus, man is not born hardened but born a fallen nature which will always RESPOND to light by hardening just as mud ALWAYS responds to Sunlight by hardening. The nature of the mud determines the reaction and thus man is born with a fallen nature and only WHEN exposed to light it will harden. Hardening is the RESULT/CONSEQUENCE to light whereas the fallen nature is the CAUSE for that hardening.

 

[The Biblicist]

You like pronouns, from what I remember in the other discussion. Can you tell us what the underlined pronouns refer to in the above section...

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

verse 28 "they" Israel in their present state of unbelief; "your" saved elect gentiles; "they" Israel in regard to election and future salvation.

verse 30 "ye" as lost gentile elect in times past; "their" Israel's present rejection of the gospel

verse 31 "these" Israel in its present state of unbelief; "your" elect saved gentiles; "they" Israel in view of their election to salvation.

verse 32 "them all" Israel in its present state of unbelief; "all" Israel in regard to election and future salvation.

 

[Protestant]

I do not think I have a unique anointing of the Holy Spirit, I think I have the same anointing of the Holy Spirit that every believer gets.

Is Christ divided?

Is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth who leads all believers into all truth?

Look, I can read.

The Jews could also read. However, they killed Christ.

Conclusion: Reading is not the issue. Reading with spiritual understanding is the issue.

Unlike the rest of you, I take Jesus's words seriously, and literally.

So did Nicodemus. He could not understand how a grown man could crawl back into his mother's womb in order to be 'born again.'

The Pharisees also took Jesus' words seriously and literally. They understood Him to be preaching the destruction of their Holy Temple.

I would bet that many Christians, including many theologians recognized that these parables clearly refute Original Sin.

Please find 3 universally recognized theologians who agree with you.

Please cite your sources.

But many were probably afraid to stand up and say so. They would have been cast out of the church or perhaps MUCH worse. They might have been beheaded or burned at the stake. This is how error persists so long in the church, because the powers that be do not like anyone who does not toe the line.

All the cults use this line of reasoning....the Mormons, SDAs, JWs, Roman Catholics, etc., etc.

Like I said, I can read. Jesus spoke of 99 persons who did not go astray and need no repentance, he spoke of the elder son who never sinned against his father. It is our duty to find out who these persons are. They are not the angels, because Jesus called them just "persons" and the elder son was brother to the prodigal.

So who has never sinned? The ONLY possible answer is children who died very young before they knew right from wrong.

No, Winman. The only person who has never sinned is JESUS CHRIST.

But have there been literally MILLIONS of babies that have died before they could sin? YES.

If your sinless doctrine is true, then on what basis have millions of babies died?

Are you suggesting death is a natural course of life, having nothing to do with punishment for sin?

If so, you are leaving Biblical Christianity farther and farther behind as you gallop headlong into the dark fog of unbelief.

Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

You guys are the ones with fantastic and unbelievable interpretations for Luke 15, not me.

Your tag line above demonstrates the pride and audacity which little children have not yet acquired....the likes of which Scripture and Jesus condemns.

Jesus prefers those who come without preconceived views of their 'wisdom', 'status', 'greatness' or 'deserved honor'.

Children have none of these attributes.

It isn't until they are teenagers that it all begins to turn very ugly........

 

[Skandelon]

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

verse 28 "they" Israel in their present state of unbelief; "your" saved elect gentiles; "they" Israel in regard to election and future salvation.

verse 30 "ye" as lost gentile elect in times past; "their" Israel's present rejection of the gospel

verse 31 "these" Israel in its present state of unbelief; "your" elect saved gentiles; "they" Israel in view of their election to salvation.

verse 32 "them all" Israel in its present state of unbelief; "all" Israel in regard to election and future salvation.

That clears it all up....wow

You'd have to be a lawyer to remain a Calvinist.

 

[Skandelon]

It is not about "revelation which enables salvation" either!

Israel, were referred to as the elect nation of God, which undoubtedly meant that the Special Revelation of God went to THEM. Even Calvinistic scholars affirm this. So, why would that change? What else would Israel be cut off from if not for the special revelation?

Why else who you blind someone, if not being blinded from the 'light' (light = revelation)?

Why else send a 'spirit of stupor' of not for 'cutting them off' from seeing/hearing the revelation so as to be saved?

I don't see on what grounds you dismiss this out of hand.

It is about the chosen sphere from which God calls out the promised elect children of Abraham.

There is no 'sphere' mentioned in this text. There are two nations, one of which was know to be elect ones receiving the special revelation and the other weren't even considered a nation at all. And NOW God was cutting off the elect nation from their special revelation and sending it to another people, making them a nation. This is about as clear as it can be in this text, but maybe we will just have to agree to disagree because obviously you don't see it like I do.

Simply not true! Nowhere does Romans 11 say that - nowhere!

Lets take what I wrote line by line, "If you reject the revelation long enough you grow hardened to it..."

Every time the text says, 'they became calloused...' or 'they grew hardened' or when the text warns us, 'don't allow your hearts to grow hardened like the Israelites did...' then this statement is being supported. And what it does NOT say is that everyone was born totally and completed calloused from birth which is really what the doctrine of Total Inability suggests.

Then I said, " and eventually, if God so chooses, he may cut you off from the revelation all together making you deaf, blind and unable to even understand it anymore."
Read John 12:39-41 and Acts 28:21-28. It tells us exactly what becomes of a man who grows calloused and it contrasts that with a man who does not.

 

[Skandelon]

To be spiritually blind is the natural condition of the fallen nature (Deut. 5:29) whereas to obtain spiritual sight is the supernatural condition of a new heart (Deut. 29:4).

This is the crux of your entire argument because here is where you assert that men are born totally blind, verse 'becoming blind' over time, as the text indicates over and over again. But let's take a look at your proof texts in context:

Deut 5:29 states, "If only they had such a heart to fear Me and keep all My commands, so that they and their children will prosper forever."

But neither of us deny the need for man to receive a new heart, so why do you believe this somehow counter's my view? We aren't saying that men don't need a new heart we are only saying that the person is not born totally unresponsive to God's revelation. In fact, the text indicates that they are RESPONSIBLE for the condition of their hearts.

Calvinists make this same mistake many times. They teach that men have a veil covering their eyes as proof that they have no response-ability or control over not being able to see (as if man can't do anything about this veil), but they ignore the text just before which clearly teaches, "a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

Calvinists do this with the potter and the making of vessels for noble and common use. They ASSUME that to mean men aren't response-able or in control over this in any way, because after all they aren't the potter. But they ignore the text which clearly states, "If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes..." (2 Tim 2:21)

Calvinists PRESUME that because these analogies suggest our condition need to be changed that we aren't in any way response-able to change them. Of course God is the one who cleanse the vessel, but only if the man turns to Him for cleansing. And of course only God can remove the veil, but only if the man turns to the Lord to have it removed (IF you confess, THEN He is faithful to forgive, not the other way around). That is the exact same thing you are doing in this Deut. passage...you are presuming that because the Lord is the one who must give us a new heart that we have NO RESPONSE-ABILITY in receiving that new heart.

You must stop down playing the responsibility of man in every situation and accept the mystery that comes with the clear teaching of the text which validates no only God's sovereignty but man's responsibility.

 

[The Biblicist]

Israel, were referred to as the elect nation of God, which undoubtedly meant that the Special Revelation of God went to THEM. Even Calvinistic scholars affirm this. So, why would that change? What else would Israel be cut off from if not for the special revelation?

It is one thing to placed in a position to be exposed to special revelation and quite another to draw your conclusion as your conclusion assumes the very issue we are debating to be true. You know this is an improper debate tactic to use as an argument the very thing you are trying to prove, so why do it????? I guess you imagine I am fairly stupid!

Why else who you blind someone, if not being blinded from the 'light' (light = revelation)?

Why else send a 'spirit of stupor' of not for 'cutting them off' from seeing/hearing the revelation so as to be saved?

I don't see on what grounds you dismiss this out of hand.

I can assume this exposure proves my position as well. So what have we gained? The fallen nature will always respond this way without mirculous divine intervention that creates inner light - 2 Cor. 4:6. God is perfectly just in condemning unbelief and resistance to the truth (Rom. 8:7-8).

There is no 'sphere' mentioned in this text. There are two nations, one of which was know to be elect ones receiving the special revelation and the other weren't even considered a nation at all. And NOW God was cutting off the elect nation from their special revelation and sending it to another people, making them a nation. This is about as clear as it can be in this text, but maybe we will just have to agree to disagree because obviously you don't see it like I do.

You are right there is no mention of the term "sphere" in this text just as there is no mention of making Gentiles a nation in this Text as the gentiles were recognized and called "nations" from Genesis to Revelation. Please don't try to spiritualize "nation" based on inserting 1 Pet. 2:9 into this discusssion.

I used the term "sphere" only to show that God's primary work of redemption moved from one class of people to another class of people.

Lets take what I wrote line by line, "If you reject the revelation long enough you grow hardened to it..."

Every time the text says, 'they became calloused...' or 'they grew hardened' or when the text warns us, 'don't allow your hearts to grow hardened like the Israelites did...' then this statement is being supported. And what it does NOT say is that everyone was born totally and completed calloused from birth which is really what the doctrine of Total Inability suggests.

The issue between is not that hardening is a process but what is it that is hardening. I say it is the fallen CLAY nature of man. Man is totally depraved but that does mean he is incapable of greater corruption or more intensity of hatred toward the light. Man is totally depraved but that does not mean he cannot recognize what it is that he hates and resists. Exposure of light to the clay begins this hardening process.

Then I said, " and eventually, if God so chooses, he may cut you off from the revelation all together making you deaf, blind and unable to even understand it any more."

You presume contrary to clear and explicit and often repeated scripture that fallen man comes to the table in a NEUTRAL state or condition and that is simply not true. You presume contrary to clear and explicit and often repeated scripture that fallen man is capable of being and doing "good" in God's sight and that is simply not true. You presume contrary to clear and explicit and often repeated scripture that fallen man comes into this world other than "in the flesh" or a condition that is explicitly defined by Paul to be in a state of war and resistant to God (Rom. 8:7-8) and that is simply not true. They are already spiritually deaf, blind and unable to understand (Deut. 5:29) and that ablity must be given (Deut. 29:4). Hardening is simply that condition increasingly being made manifest as exposed to light.

Read John 12:39-41 QUOTE]

That is the very proof text I offered to refute your theory. The eyes christ said they had were not spiritual eyes which could actually see, perceive and understand the truth but only eyes they claimed to have but when exposed to truth they manifest the nature of their eyes by shutting them to truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is the crux of your entire argument because here is where you assert that men are born totally blind, verse 'becoming blind' over time, as the text indicates over and over again. But let's take a look at your proof texts in context:

Deut 5:29 states, "If only they had such a heart to fear Me and keep all My commands, so that they and their children will prosper forever."

You said plural "texts" but only quote one? I wonder why only one? Oh! I know the second one does not fit your arguments as the second one proves seeing, hearing only occurs when a new heart is GIVEN and not before:

Deut. 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

Must I repeat the obvious? Yes, I guess I must! Such seeing, hearing is not possible untilt he Lord "GIVES" such a heart. - case closed.

 

[Skandelon]

You said plural "texts" but only quote one? I wonder why only one? Oh! I know the second one does not fit your arguments as the second one proves seeing, hearing only occurs when a new heart is GIVEN and not before:

Deut. 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

Must I repeat the obvious? Yes, I guess I must! Such seeing, hearing is not possible untilt he Lord "GIVES" such a heart. - case closed.

You always presume a nefarious motive and that is not being kind. I just forgot to move on to the next verse after showing beyond ALL REASONABLE doubt that mankind is still responsible in the process and I notice you didn't address even one of those verses. Should I presume that you just have no answer for those verses and that your avoiding them? I doubt you are. I know you well enough to know you probably have an answer, or at least could come up with one for any passage I present.

Plus, I thought my answer would explain our perspective on that verse. Israel had already BECOME CALLOUSED, so they did need a softening of their heart. They didn't have eyes to see, but why?
Because they were born like that, as your dogma suggests? OR because they BECAME like that after years of rebellion?

Let's look at an example. Consider a child who is 12 years old, like my son. He is a sinner, obviously, but not hardened or blinded to the revelation of God. He has grown up being taught the gospel and he is open to it, asking alot of question...seeking to know more, etc. Then there is my 60 year old aunt. She grew up in a Christian home just like my mom (who is a very Godly woman), but my aunt rebelled, turned to drugs, sex and many other sins. She has been divorced three times, lives alone and claims to hate God. If you bring up anything related to God or church she goes crazy. Neither of them is 'saved' yet. Neither of them has asked God for forgiveness. But what is the difference in the two? One is set in her ways. One has grown calloused and has likely been 'given over' to her defiled mind. She needs her heart to be soften...or broken. She needs to reach the pig sty of her life. She needs to be provoke by envy, or love, or something to help her see her error.

That is the difference I'm talking about. Israel had grown hardened in their rebellion because they thought they had it all figured out and they created a religion which is deceiving them to not be able to really hear the truth. They need to be provoked...their wills need to be shaken to their core. But their condition is not one from birth. Again, it is something they "BECOME." <----

 

[The Biblicist]

But neither of us deny the need for man to receive a new heart, so why do you believe this somehow counter's my view?

If you cannot readily see that Deuteronomy 4:29 declares they have no such heart and Deuteronomy equally declares why such a heart is needed to obey His word then there is nothing I can do to help you see what it is obviously and clearly stated. It is not inferred or implied but spelled out in black and white - just read Deut. 29:4.

Deuteronomy 5:29 makes it clear they don't have such a heart and Deuteronomy 29:4 makes it clear why the need such a heart to do the very things you claim they were already capable and forfeited by hardening. Pleeeeease get glasses.

We aren't saying that men don't need a new heart we are only saying that the person is not born totally unresponsive to God's revelation.

In other words you are clearly repudiating the very meaning of Deuteronomy 29:4!!! You are claiming they already had such ability to see and hear and through hardening they became the condition described in Deuterononmy 29:4 while Deuternomy 29:4 says THE VERY OPPOSITE!

In fact, the text indicates that they are RESPONSIBLE for the condition of their hearts.

And where do you get that idea from? Not Deuteronomy 5:29 if it is interpreted in connection with Deuterony 29:4. No, you get it by disregarding Deut. 29:4 and READING IT INTO Deuteronomy 5:29 in spite the absolute contradiction to that eisgetical insertion by Deuteronomy 29:4. If this is how you think and reason then we are in for along unproductive discussion.

Calvinists make this same mistake many times. They teach that men have a veil covering their eyes as proof that they have no response-ability or control over not being able to see (as if man can't do anything about this veil), but they ignore the text just before which clearly teaches, "a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

Read 2 Cor. 3:3-7 and you will find out how they come to faith and how the veil is removed. It is the New Covenant work of God the same new covenant work clearly expressed in Ezek. 36:26-27 and Jermiahs 31:33-34 which is spelled out again in Hebrews as the "new" covenant (Heb. 8, 10). The gospel is preached but the Holy Spirit writes it upon the heart giving the desire just as Ezekiel 36:26 gives the cause while Ezek. 36:27 gives the consequence which includes the desire. The writing on the heart is the cause while the desire is the effect.

Calvinists do this with the potter and the making of vessels for noble and common use. They ASSUME that to mean men aren't response-able or in control over this in any way, because after all they aren't the potter. But they ignore the text which clearly states, "If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes..." (2 Tim 2:21)

Calvinists PRESUME that because these analogies suggest our condition need to be changed that we aren't in any way response-able to change them. Of course God is the one who cleanse the vessel, but only if the man turns to Him for cleansing. And of course only God can remove the veil, but only if the man turns to the Lord to have it removed (IF you confess, THEN He is faithful to forgive, not the other way around). That is the exact same thing you are doing in this Deut. passage...you are presuming that because the Lord is the one who must give us a new heart that we have NO RESPONSE-ABILITY in receiving that new heart.

You must stop down playing the responsibility of man in every situation and accept the mystery that comes with the clear teaching of the text which validates no only God's sovereignty but man's responsibility.

I have answered these repeated objections in minute detail and demonstrated your interpetations are simply false but you just keep repeating them as though they are valid. If you want to take one at a time and make them a separate thread, I will be more than happy to demonstrate in detail once again why your interpretations are simply inaccurate.

 

[Skandelon]

Pleeeeease get glasses.

Titus 3:10:
Warn a divisive person once, then a second time; and after that, have nothing more to do with him.

Good bye.

 

[The Biblicist]

Titus 3:10:
Warn a divisive person once, then a second time; and after that, have nothing more to do with him.

Good bye.

If Titus 3:10 were applicable on this forum I would have already said goodbye to you and many others. However, you do usually attempt to respond rationally and reasonably.

We both know why you are doing this though! What I said was true and you can't get out of it any other respectable way and so touche!

 

[Skandelon]

For those following along, you will need to decide for yourselves if Israel was born totally hardened and calloused and thus never able to see, hear, understand God's revelation and turn, or if they GREW CALLOUSED or BECAME HARDENED, as the text actually reads.

Psalm 17:10
They have become hardened; their mouths speak arrogantly.

Hebrews 3:13
Instead, keep exhorting each other every day, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you will become hardened by the deceit of sin. (tell us why he would need to warn them not to become what they were born already...)

John 9:39
Yeshua said, "It is to judge that I came into this world, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind."

Acts 28
26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

 

[Skandelon]

Here are a few more texts which clearly show that we are not born calloused/hardened (which is what the human condition of "Total Inability" actually is), instead you will notice that this is something everyone is at RISK of BECOMING:

Acts 19:8 Then he entered the synagogue and spoke boldly over a period of three months, engaging in discussion and trying to persuade them about the things related to the kingdom of God. 9 But when some became hardened and would not believe, slandering the Way in front of the crowd, he withdrew from them and met separately with the disciples...

Zechariah 7:12
They made their hearts as hard as rock and would not listen to the teachings of the Lord All-Powerful. And they would not hear the words he sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord All-Powerful became very angry.

 

[The Biblicist]

No onee denies that hardening is a process and so simply quoting scriptures to prove that point is a staw man effort.

The issue is whether these persons had a fallen nature already when they entered the world as described in Romans 3:10-20 and 8:7-8. That is, were they "born of flesh" and thus "in the flesh" when they entered into the world as Romans 8:7 is the condition of existing "in the flesh" according to Romans 8:8. That is the real issue.

If all these quotations of hardening were POST-fallen condition occurrences then no amount of logic can make hardening the cause of the fallen condition.

No one yet has dared deal with Deuteronomy 5:29 IN RELATIONSHIP WITH Deuteronomy 29:4 because it contradicts Skandelon's position in clear explicit languague and I quote:

Deut. 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

This text denies that incapability to perceive, see and hear was forfeited by a later hardening! It clearly establishes that such abilites must be "given" in connection with the creation of a new heart. It is that simple! Hence, hardening cannot possibly be the consequence of an already seeing, hearing perceiving condition as Skandelon presumes. His use of scriptures are abusive and misleading.

 

[Skandelon]

The issue is whether these persons had a fallen nature already

Actually, we all agree that the nature is fallen too. The issue is what does that fallen condition look like? What is it able or not able to do? Can a fallen man respond to God when He appeals for that fallen man to be reconciled? That is the issue.

Calvinism's dogma of Total Inability teaches that mankind is already born unable to see, hear, understand or turn, which is the condition of one who has 'become hardened.' How does someone born totally blind become blinder? How does someone born totally hard become harder still? They don't. That is the point and the issue up for debate.

 

[Protestant]

But my point is that a man is not born, according to scripture, as a totally hardened clay pot (unable to see, hear, understand and turn, as Calvinism's Total Inability teaches).

But is that not the very point Jesus makes when explaining the new birth from above, by the Spirit, the absolute requirement to seeing, and therefore, to entering the Kingdom of God?

Despite all the positive attributes and extensive education of Nicodemus, he was still blind to spiritual truth. Even Nicodemus, the greatest Teacher in Israel, needed the new birth.

And is not that new birth the sole, sovereign work of God's good pleasure upon a passive sinful man of flesh who no more hinders nor helps the new birth than he did his first fleshly birth?

Does not His analogy of the wind (i.e., 'spirit' = pneuma) further prove the point that the necessary new birth is under the absolute control and authority of the Lord who directs His Spirit, as He does the wind, to 'blow upon' (i.e., regenerate) only those whom He wills regeneration?

 

[Winman]

But is that not the very point Jesus makes when explaining the new birth from above, by the Spirit, the absolute requirement to seeing, and therefore, to entering the Kingdom of God?

Despite all the positive attributes and extensive education of Nicodemus, he was still blind to spiritual truth. Even Nicodemus, the greatest Teacher in Israel, needed the new birth.

And is not that new birth the sole, sovereign work of God's good pleasure upon a passive sinful man of flesh who no more hinders nor helps the new birth than he did his first fleshly birth?

Does not His analogy of the wind (i.e., 'spirit' = pneuma) further prove the point that the necessary new birth is under the absolute control and authority of the Lord who directs His Spirit, as He does the wind, to 'blow upon' (i.e., regenerate) only those whom He wills regeneration?

Actually, Jesus is speaking of the word of God, read again;

Jhn 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.

Almost everyone overlooks the phase, "and thou hearest the sound thereof". Jesus was speaking of the word of God. The scriptures tell us that a person is born again by receiving or believing on Jesus;

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

To those persons who receive Jesus and believe on him to save them, to these persons God gives the power to become the sons of God. This is the new birth that only God can work.

And this is also what Jesus tells Nicodemus;

Jhn 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Jesus by his word tells Nicodemus how to be born again in a way he can understand. As the children of Israel who were bitten by the fiery serpents in the wilderness were saved by looking in faith to the brazen serpent on a pole, those who look to Jesus to save them from their sins are given the new birth, eternal life, and shall not perish.

This is a story that Nicodemus would have understood. So God reveals how to be saved through his word which a man can hear.

 

[Protestant]

Actually, Jesus is speaking of the word of God, read again

Please respond to my earlier post #183 which was directed specifically to you.

 

[Winman]

Is Christ divided?

No.

Is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth who leads all believers into all truth?

Well, if they LISTEN to the Holy Spirit, then yes. If they do not listen to the Holy Spirit, then no.

The Jews could also read. However, they killed Christ.

Conclusion: Reading is not the issue. Reading with spiritual understanding is the issue.

I would agree, but what is reading with spiritual understanding? When someone denies what scripture clearly says, I would say that is not reading with spiritual understanding.

So did Nicodemus. He could not understand how a grown man could crawl back into his mother's womb in order to be 'born again.'

At first, no he could not. But once Jesus used an analogy he could understand he did understand.

The Pharisees also took Jesus' words seriously and literally. They understood Him to be preaching the destruction of their Holy Temple.

Correct, they did not understand he was speaking of his body. His disciples probably did not understand either, until he expressly explained this to them.

Please find 3 universally recognized theologians who agree with you.

Please cite your sources.

I don't care about your recognized theologians. No one is more recognized than Augustine, and I think he introduced more error into the church than any other man.

All the cults use this line of reasoning....the Mormons, SDAs, JWs, Roman Catholics, etc., etc.

Actually, all the cults have their "recognized" teachers or theologians, the Mormons have Joseph Smith, the SDAs have Ellen G. White, and you Reformed have many teachers.

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

No, Winman. The only person who has never sinned is JESUS CHRIST.

Romans 9:11 shows us that babies have committed no sin. If they were to die at this stage they would be sinless. There have been millions of children who have died at this age. That would explain the "99 just persons which need no repentance" that Jesus spoke about.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that it was Jesus who spoke of 99 just persons which need no repentance, 99 sheep which went not astray, and the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time.

It was Jesus that spoke of these persons, not me. I don't think think you are letting the Holy Spirit lead you into all truth by dismissing Jesus's words.

If your sinless doctrine is true, then on what basis have millions of babies died?

I don't understand this question. Are you denying that millions of unborn or little children have died?

Are you suggesting death is a natural course of life, having nothing to do with punishment for sin?

All men die as a consequence of Adam's sin. When Adam and Eve sinned, God chased them out of the garden and prevented them from eating of the tree of life. This is why all men physically die.

If so, you are leaving Biblical Christianity farther and farther behind as you gallop headlong into the dark fog of unbelief.

It is you that does not believe Jesus's words. It was Jesus that spoke of 99 just persons which need no repentance, it was Jesus who said the elder son never transgressed his father's commandment at any time. I believe Jesus, you do not.

Your tag line above demonstrates the pride and audacity which little children have not yet acquired....the likes of which Scripture and Jesus condemns.

You do not know scripture then, or do not believe it. Jesus told his disciples they must be converted and become as little children to enter heaven. Do you really believe Jesus was telling his disciples they need to be converted and become sinners? That is ridiculous and I think even YOU know that.

Jesus said to be careful not to offend little children as their angels do always behold his Father's face. Does that sound like Jesus is describing wicked sinners that God hates? Absurd.

Jesus prefers those who come without preconceived views of their 'wisdom', 'status', 'greatness' or 'deserved honor'.

And children are naturally humble.

Children have none of these attributes.

Again, you either do not know, or do not believe scripture, Jesus said little children were humble.

Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

It isn't until they are teenagers that it all begins to turn very ugly........

Actually, the scriptures do teach that about the time that a person becomes a teenager is when they begin to sin.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

God didn't say man's imagination is evil from birth, he said man's imagination is evil from his "youth". Most scholars interpret this to mean the "teenage" years.

The Jews believed a person became accountable at this age, the boys were to study the law at age 13, the girls age 12. At their Bar and Bat Mitzvah they became accountable before God. Up until this age the parents were held responsible for their child's actions, but after this age the child was himself held responsible for his own actions.

And that is what the scriptures show, but you would rather listen to your teachers than the word of God.