How important is knowledge in getting saved?

[bmerr]

Exactly how again did Jesus tell Nicodemus he was supposed to be ‘born of the word?’ Keep in mind here DHK, all the references to Word of God in the NT that you refer too, hadn’t yet been penned.

Agnus,

bmerr here. That's a good point. We also need to realize that the kingdom of which Jesus spoke in John 3 had also not yet come into existence. This was the kingdom which the Jews had been waiting for, though they didn't understand the nature of it.

Peter had been told that he would be given the keys (plural) to the kingdom (Matt 16:19), and when asked what to do by his audience in Acts 2, we all know what he told them. He commanded repentance and baptism, which we see later on to be a baptism in water (Acts 8:38-39; 10:47-48). Born of Spirit by the word, born of water in baptism.

You made a good point. Keep asking those investigative questions.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

There is no one alive who was not born naturally. We have all had a physical birth.

Jesus was not telling Nicodemus to be born physically, as you claim I was asserting.

Jesus statement was to answer Nicodemus's query about the meaning of "born again."

Jesus was telling already physically-born Nicodemus of the need to be spiritually born.

Darron,

bmerr here. That's my point. Unless I mistook you position, you equated "born of water" with physical birth. There is no need to even speak of the need to be born physically with one who has been.

Jesus said that being born of water and of the Spirit was the condition for entrance into the kingdom. "Born of water and of the Spirit" is simply a restatement of "born again". Logic does not allow for "born of water and of the Spirit" to be speaking of two different births.

It would be like me posting a response to one of your posts, and telling you, "Well, Darron, in order for me to reply to your post, you're going to have to submit a post." Had you not already submitted one, I could not be responding to it. Had Nicodemus not already been born physically, Jesus could not have been speaking to him in the first place.

The argument that "born of water" is a reference to physical birth mocks at reason, and quite frankly, I'm suprised to see you using it. Others, maybe don't suprise me so much, but you? I've come to expect a lot better from you, Darron. "Come let us reason together..." (Is 1:18).

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Why mention a physical birth? Because of its importance.
If you are born once, you will die twice.
If you are born twice, you will die once.
You must be born again.

GE:

Well said! I wont be able to forget you statement.

But as to what "water" means:
Jesus said He is the water of Life. So one must be born again into the New Man, Jesus Christ --- through the operation of the Holy Spirit. It is the new birth; to be born again; regeneration = justification and salvation.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

bmerr:

"born of water in baptism . . ." = 'baprismal regeneration' = Roman catholicism = error, heresy.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Just to make sure:

bmerr:

"born of water in baptism . . ."

CG:

= 'baptismal regeneration' = Roman catholicism = error, heresy.