The New Birth is a Pre-Pentecost Reality

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

1. He did not say one is an unbeliever and the other is a believer but he is referring to the SOURCE of their birth - "children OF THE FLESH" versus "children OF GOD"


2. The "children of the flesh" refers to NATURAL or PHYSICAL born children of Abraham but we are explicitly told these are not the children of promise, nor the "children of God". What other alternative is possible to "children of the flesh" if natural birth was the ONLY possible birth prior to Pentecost???


3. How could Paul even make a distinction between "children of the flesh" and "children of God" if the only possible kind of birth prior to Pentecost was physical birth??? The only other alternative is to suggest no children of promise (children of God) existed prior to the cross, but then, what is the point of contrast here then as the focus is before the cross????


Gal. 4:28-29 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.


1. If all prior to Pentecost were "born after the flesh" and none were born "after the Spirit" then what is the basis for making a comparison by the words "as then" and "so it is now" if now is not as then in regard to "born after the flesh"? If there were no other alternative to being "born after the flesh" prior to Pentecost then he has made no point at all between "as then" and "so it is now"???????

2. However, Romans 9:7-8 demands there were "children of God" prior to the cross who were not "born of the flesh." Hence, what were they "born of" to be "CHILDREN of God" if they were not "BORN OF the flesh"??? What other option is there to being "BORN OF flesh" if not "BORN OF Spirit"??????

3. John 3:3; Ezek. 44:7 also demand there were those born of God prior to Pentecost or circumcised IN HEART, which is a synonym of the new birth even in the New Testament (Col. 2:11-12).

4. If one removes the illipses "born after the Spirit" then one also denies there is an meaningful contrast being made "born after the flesh" "THEN" with "NOW"!

5. If the children of the flesh are not the children of promise either then or now then what other alternative is there then or now to be children of promise other than by new birth??????

6. Again, Paul is referring to the SOURCE of birth "born" whether than "belief" or "unbelief". He is not referring to faith or lack of faith but the NATURE of birth between "children of God" versus natural born human beings who are not "children of God." What other possible alternative is there to being "born after the flesh" in order to be "children of God" THEN or NOW if not "born of the Spirit"!

 

[HankD]

Also there is the expectation of Christ that Nicodemus should have known all about the new birth being a master in Israel.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

"born of the flesh", "born of the Spirit". Both of these tenses of "born" are perfect participles and show completed action in past time.

Young's literal :
John 3:6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.

Being "born" of both the flesh and the Spirit has been happening all along and Nicodemus should have known that.

The passage does not refer to a future event because it does not say "that which shall be born of the Spirit" shall be spirit.

Jesus even indicated that there were those existing who currently had been born of the Spirit:

John 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.

Young's literal:
John 3:8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

Again it does not say "thus is every one who will be born of the Spirit".

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

Also there is the expectation of Christ that Nicodemus should have known all about the new birth being a master in Israel.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

"born of the flesh", "born of the Spirit". Both of these tenses of "born" are perfect participles and show completed action in past time.

Young's literal :
John 3:6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.

Being "born" of both the flesh and the Spirit has been happening all along and Nicodemus should have known that.

The passage does not refer to a future event because it does not say "that which shall be born of the Spirit" shall be spirit.

Jesus even indicated that there were those existing who currently had been born of the Spirit:

John 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.

Young's literal:
John 3:8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

Again it does not say "thus is every one who will be born of the Spirit".

HankD

Of course! Christ is rebuking Nicodemus for not knowing these things and yet being a "Master of Israel." However, there is a contrast in qualifications between these TWO Masters of Israel. Nioodemus was ignorant of the new birth as taught in scriptures due to his own lack of experiencing the new birth and thus did not have eyes to see what the Scriptures taught. However, in contrast, Jesus as a Master in Israel was qualified to speak about HEAVENLY things on earth due to his EXPERIENCE with heavenly things. (1). Prior to the historical point in time of John 3:13 he had already ascended into heaven (perfect tense) and already descended from heaven (Aorist tense) and as he spoke to Nicodemus "IS" in heaven. That is a claim that no other being can make that qualifies him uniquely as no other man to teach about heavenly things ON EARTH to men. He is God.

To jerk the first past tense completed action "no man has ascended up to heaven" out of this three-fold qualificaition to be God and make Christ teach that no human being has ever ascended into heaven BECAUSE Christ had not died on the cross and ascended into heaven has no basis whatsoever as this ascension by Christ preceded the cross and his bodily ascension into heaven in Acts 1:9-11. Jesus uses the perfect tense verb showing this ascension is a completed action, a perfected action already accomplished prior to speaking to Nicodemus.

 

[HankD]

Of course! Christ is rebuking Nicodemus for not knowing these things and yet being a "Master of Israel." However, there is a contrast in qualifications between these TWO Masters of Israel. Nioodemus was ignorant of the new birth as taught in scriptures due to his own lack of experiencing the new birth and thus did not have eyes to see what the Scriptures taught. However, in contrast, Jesus as a Master in Israel was qualified to speak about HEAVENLY things on earth due to his EXPERIENCE with heavenly things. (1). Prior to the historical point in time of John 3:13 he had already ascended into heaven (perfect tense) and already descended from heaven (Aorist tense) and as he spoke to Nicodemus "IS" in heaven. That is a claim that no other being can make that qualifies him uniquely as no other man to teach about heavenly things ON EARTH to men. He is God.

To jerk the first past tense completed action "no man has ascended up to heaven" out of this three-fold qualificaition to be God and make Christ teach that no human being has ever ascended into heaven BECAUSE Christ had not died on the cross and ascended into heaven has no basis whatsoever as this ascension by Christ preceded the cross and his bodily ascension into heaven in Acts 1:9-11. Jesus uses the perfect tense verb showing this ascension is a completed action, a perfected action already accomplished prior to speaking to Nicodemus.

OK, but even with the theory that the reborn spirits of the justified men of the OT had to wait for the promise "I go to prepare a place for you" supports the idea that they (though born again) had to also wait for that to be fulfilled in God's timing.

I know that is somewhat problematic but I believe that Hebrews 12 makes the distinction between the heavenly places of God's house of many mansions else why did Jesus make the promise to prepare a special place for us and them (after all He still remains eternal God (the Logos) the second person of the Trinity before as well as after His ascension).

Hebrews 12
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

What do you think? Why did He have to "prepare" a special place for us of post Pentecost rebirth (and presumably bring in the OT rebirth saints as well)?

Thanks
HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

OK, but even with the theory that the reborn spirits of the justified men of the OT had to wait for the promise "I go to prepare a place for you" supports the idea that they (though born again) had to also wait for that to be fulfilled in God's timing.

2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4 ¶ And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

Jesus did not go to heaven to prepare or build the Father's "house" it already existed and in that house were already "many mansions." So he did not go to heaven to provide abiding places. He simply went to heaven to "prepare" specific places for them. Entrance into heaven has to do with salvation but PLACES in heaven have to do with the merits or our works according to our calling. The twelve have a special place reserved only for them in heaven (Rev. 21:14)

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. - Rev. 21:14

Of course this langauge is metaphorical and refers to the position of the twelve in heaven as the "foundation" (Eph. 2:20) of the church.

However, previous to John 14 Jesus said their names were already written in heaven. There salvation in heaven had already been established BEFORE going to heaven to prepare their special place reserved for them alone.

Hebrews 12
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company ]of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

The "spirits" were not made "perfect" in heaven as that would require them entering as "imperfect" or unrighteous spirits. They had been "justified" on earth as was Abraham was justified on earth and prior to his circumcision while he was in uncircumcision. His spirit had been born again and that is why it was suitable for entrance into heaven.

 

[Van]

All these arguments for being born anew in Christ before Christ died are bogus. They have been addressed, but the rebuttals have been ignored and the argument reposted.

Nowhere in scripture can be found any actual support for Jesus sending the Helper before Christ died and ascended to heaven, the abode of God.

All these inane arguments go like this: This is like that, and that is like this other thing, therefore what was not said or implied is claimed as a meaning. Pure twaddle.

Lets look at just one of the bogus claims, Abraham was made righteous before Christ died. Just read Romans chapter 4. Abraham's faith, repeat faith, was credited to him as righteousness. These agenda driven views are simply repeated and repeated.

 

[The Biblicist]

All these arguments for being born anew in Christ before Christ died are bogus. They have been addressed, but the rebuttals have been ignored and the argument reposted.

Van is quite right. All my arguments and evidence have been addressed and rebutted JUST AS THEY ARE IN THIS POST - ridicule without substance! Never once dealing with details of any of my arguments but only addressed by GENERAL RIDICULE!

When you are wrong, this is all you can do and that is what Van does best!

The TRUTH is that Van has NEVER addressed the composite details of my arguments in this OP or in any post he has ever written. All he has to do to prove me wrong is simply provide his post! Come on Van, provide the readers any post you have ever written that addresses IN SPECIFIC any of the details presented in the OP above!

The only posts he can point you to are posts that ridicule or speak in generalties without specfiics addressed.

BTW I thought you told the readers that you neither read or respond to my posts much less a thread originated by me????????? Another half-truth????

 

[HankD]

2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4 ¶ And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

Jesus did not go to heaven to prepare or build the Father's "house" it already existed and in that house were already "many mansions." So he did not go to heaven to provide abiding places. He simply went to heaven to "prepare" specific places for them. Entrance into heaven has to do with salvation but PLACES in heaven have to do with the merits or our works according to our calling. The twelve have a special place reserved only for them in heaven (Rev. 21:14)

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. - Rev. 21:14

Of course this langauge is metaphorical and refers to the position of the twelve in heaven as the "foundation" (Eph. 2:20) of the church.

However, previous to John 14 Jesus said their names were already written in heaven. There salvation in heaven had already been established BEFORE going to heaven to prepare their special place reserved for them alone.




The "spirits" were not made "perfect" in heaven as that would require them entering as "imperfect" or unrighteous spirits. They had been "justified" on earth as was Abraham was justified on earth and prior to his circumcision while he was in uncircumcision. His spirit had been born again and that is why it was suitable for entrance into heaven.

OK I'm not arguing that the salvation of the apostles was not yet accomplished before the preparation. I understand that.

What of the baptism in the Spirit spoken of by John the baptist? The "you" in the sentence is plural and the verb is in the future tense.

Surely there is a theological difference before and and after this baptism and probably one of great significance.

What is your take?

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

OK I'm not arguing that the salvation of the apostles was not yet accomplished before the preparation. I understand that.

What of the baptism in the Spirit spoken of by John the baptist? The "you" in the sentence is plural and the verb is in the future tense.

Surely there is a theological difference before and and after this baptism and probably one of great significance.

What is your take?

HankD

You have correctly pointed out two out of three characteristics and that is the plural "you" and the future tense. However, the other characteristics is that these are already water immersed believers in Christ that John had already baptized.

John was sent to "prepare a people made ready for the Lord" (Lk. 1:17) and it is from this prepared people (baptized believers) that Christ took and assembled around him from the baptism of John until His ascension (Acts 1:21-22). That assembly is the institutional new "house of God" not made of literal stones as seen in the temple "house of God" but of "spiritual stones" assembled around him from the time of John the Baptist (Acts 1:21-22; 1 Pet. 2:5). Hence, this is the very same immersion that occurred after the first "house of God" had been finished by a chosen builder in Exodus 40:35. This is the very same immersion that occurred after the second "house of God" had been finished by a chosen builder in 2 Chron. 7:1-3. This is an historical institutional immersion that has nothing to do with individual salvation, but with "prepared" materials (baptized believers or already saved persons) as the public house of worship. The phrase "house of God" is used a total of 88 times in the Bible. The 84th time is found in 1 Timothy 3:15 in the context of a qualified public ministry over the house of God as a public place of worship as this house of God does in fact assemble in "one place" (Acts 2:1; 1 Cor. 11:17-32).

In all previous 83 occurrences to 1 Tim. 3:15 it ALWAYS refers to the public place of worship where a publicly qualified ordained ministry administer qualified ordinances. This new "house of God" is not the same "temple of the Spirit" as in 1 Cor. 6:19 but the plural water baptized believers fitly framed into a public assembly as in 1 Cor. 3:16.

The "promise of the Spirit" is multifacted of which the "baptism in the Spirit" is but one facet among many others. The problem is that these other facets of the "promise of the Spirit" are confused with the baptism of the institutional house of God in the Spirit. One other facet being the promise to provide a new body of scriptures by the Holy Spirit (Isa. 8:16-18) under the supervision of "my disciples" specifically the apostles and prophets. Another facet being the empowerment of the gospel to a new people of God (Gentiles - Rom. 11). Another facet to provide spiritual revelatory gifts and confirming signs as a temporal provision until the new body of scriptures is completed.

 

[HankD]

You have correctly pointed out two out of three characteristics and that is the plural "you" and the future tense. However, the other characteristics is that these are already water immersed believers in Christ that John had already baptized.

John was sent to "prepare a people made ready for the Lord" (Lk. 1:17) and it is from this prepared people (baptized believers) that Christ took and assembled around him from the baptism of John until His ascension (Acts 1:21-22). That assembly is the institutional new "house of God" not made of literal stones as seen in the temple "house of God" but of "spiritual stones" assembled around him from the time of John the Baptist (Acts 1:21-22; 1 Pet. 2:5). Hence, this is the very same immersion that occurred after the first "house of God" had been finished by a chosen builder in Exodus 40:35. This is the very same immersion that occurred after the second "house of God" had been finished by a chosen builder in 2 Chron. 7:1-3. This is an historical institutional immersion that has nothing to do with individual salvation, but with "prepared" materials (baptized believers or already saved persons) as the public house of worship. The phrase "house of God" is used a total of 88 times in the Bible. The 84th time is found in 1 Timothy 3:15 in the context of a qualified public ministry over the house of God as a public place of worship as this house of God does in fact assemble in "one place" (Acts 2:1; 1 Cor. 11:17-32).

In all previous 83 occurrences to 1 Tim. 3:15 it ALWAYS refers to the public place of worship where a publicly qualified ordained ministry administer qualified ordinances. This new "house of God" is not the same "temple of the Spirit" as in 1 Cor. 6:19 but the plural water baptized believers fitly framed into a public assembly as in 1 Cor. 3:16.

The "promise of the Spirit" is multifacted of which the "baptism in the Spirit" is but one facet among many others. The problem is that these other facets of the "promise of the Spirit" are confused with the baptism of the institutional house of God in the Spirit. One other facet being the promise to provide a new body of scriptures by the Holy Spirit (Isa. 8:16-18) under the supervision of "my disciples" specifically the apostles and prophets. Another facet being the empowerment of the gospel to a new people of God (Gentiles - Rom. 11). Another facet to provide spiritual revelatory gifts and confirming signs as a temporal provision until the new body of scriptures is completed.

Thanks Biblicist, yes this seems to be the "mikvah" which exists to this very day in Talmudic Judaism. Sometimes for conversions, sometimes for renewal and or re-commitment and cleansing rites.

Most Christian scholars agree that John's baptism is not Christ Trinitarian formula baptism.

One does not often hear a sermon based upon - Christ the NT baptizer.

I believe there is more to know and understand about this baptism in the Spirit and fire. I might try the Early Church Fathers but that can be problematic as well as a weariness to the flesh. Let me know if you have any other information or sources (right or wrong).

HankD

 

[Van]

All these arguments for being born anew in Christ before Christ died are bogus. They have been addressed, but the rebuttals have been ignored and the argument reposted.

Nowhere in scripture can be found any actual support for Jesus sending the Helper before Christ died and ascended to heaven, the abode of God.

All these inane arguments go like this: This is like that, and that is like this other thing, therefore what was not said or implied is claimed as a meaning. Pure twaddle.

Lets look at just one of the bogus claims, Abraham was made righteous before Christ died. Just read Romans chapter 4. Abraham's faith, repeat faith, was credited to him as righteousness. These agenda driven views are simply repeated and repeated.

Was Abraham made righteous or was his faith credited to him as righteousness? His faith was credited to him as righteousness. So that is a specific rebuttal, not general.

The arguments are without validity, logic, reason, or merit. When did Jesus send the Helper? Before he died to indwell OT Saints? Nope. This is a specific rebuttal, not general.

Here are the scriptural facts: All the OT Saints had to wait to be made perfect until after Christ died, thus they were not born anew. In the NT, saints are made blameless, holy (perfect) when they undergo the washing of regeneration (rebirth).

 

[The Biblicist]

Was Abraham made righteous or was his faith credited to him as righteousness? His faith was credited to him as righteousness. So that is a specific rebuttal, not general.

No, that was a question and then an assertion not a rebutal. I specificaly rebutted your assertion by simply placing the disputed text (Rom. 4:5-8) back into its immediate context which begins in Romans 3:24-26 and closes with Romans 4:23-5:1. In specific it is the OBJECT of that faith that provided justification as that faith had to be "IN" Christ and "IN" His blood as the basis for justificaiton. So it was not "faith" that is credited as righteousness but it is specifically faith in Christ's "blood" or "in" Christ as the provision for justification that righteousness is legally imputed to the believer. This is plainly spelled out for the reader in Romans 3:24-26 and Romans 4:23-5:1 and so there is no basis for your assertion or question! You have NEVER responded to this rebuttal - NEVER!

Again, even in this thread you continue to ignore the specifics of the OP and attempt to derail the OP to some other issue. DEAL WITH THE OP or go some place else!

All you do is repeat disproven assertions and then enhance it by ridicule rather than follow the discussion and deal with the specifics placed squarely before you. For example, like the specifics in this OP! What do you do instead? Change to another subject and try to derail the thread - that is your MO!

 

[The Biblicist]

Most Christian scholars agree that John's baptism is not Christ Trinitarian formula baptism.

They are wrong. It is the only baptism Christ submitted to and it is not "CHRIST-ian" baptism? It is the only baptism the apostles submitted to. It is the only baptism existing when the Great Commission was given to the end of the age and could fit the past tense "HAVE" commanded you. It is the only baptism ordained by God's counsel (Lk. 7:29-30). It is the same baptism in the Great Commission in Luke 24:47 or preaching "repentance" for remission of sins.

John preached the same gospel (Jn. 3:36) of eternal life PRESENT TENSE at the point of faith. John preached Christ and when he found out Jesus of nazereth was the Christ, he preached Jesus is the Christ (Acts 19:5) as the Son of God (Jn. 3;36). The "baptism of repentance" is simply repentance is required to be baptized as well as faith in the coming Christ (Mat. 3:6-8; Acts 19:5).

The whole Prostestant view of the baptism in the Spirit is the ERROR that perverts the baptism of John and denies it was a baptism in the TRINITARIAN name of God. John believed in one God and claimed that this ONE God has ordained and sent him to baptize (Jn. 1:29); which is to baptize in His name. He recognized this ONE God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Jn. 3:30-36).

I believe there is more to know and understand about this baptism in the Spirit and fire. I might try the Early Church Fathers but that can be problematic as well as a weariness to the flesh. Let me know if you have any other information or sources (right or wrong).

HankD

There is more to know and understand but you will never find it in Roman Catholic historical sources - never! It is known by coming to a better understanding of the church as the institutional public house of worship. It is known by a better understanding of the apostolic office and its role in relationship to the Spirit of God in confirming and producing a new body of Scriptures - the New Testament. It is known by coming to a better understanding of a shift in the redemptive sphere of salvation from the nation of Israel to the Gentiles (Rom. 11). All of these are distinct and different aspects of the "promise of the Spirit" in this new covenant dispensation but they have been confused with just one aspect - the baptism in the Spirit.

If you want to better understand the baptism in the Spirit study the Biblical requirements for that historical baptism to even occur upon a "house of God." That house had to have certain fundemental prerequisites for that baptism. It had to be built by a designated builder. It had to be built according to the specifics of a divine pattern. It had to have a ministry and ordinances that met the exact specifications of that divine pattern.

In regard to the baptism in fire just look at the next verse where believers and RELIGIOUS unbeleivers are distinguished from each other:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Take note unto whom the fire is reserved for versus unto whom the garner is reserved for.

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

1. He did not say one is an unbeliever and the other is a believer but he is referring to the SOURCE of their birth - "children OF THE FLESH" versus "children OF GOD"


2. The "children of the flesh" refers to NATURAL or PHYSICAL born children of Abraham but we are explicitly told these are not the children of promise, nor the "children of God". What other alternative is possible to "children of the flesh" if natural birth was the ONLY possible birth prior to Pentecost???


3. How could Paul even make a distinction between "children of the flesh" and "children of God" if the only possible kind of birth prior to Pentecost was physical birth??? The only other alternative is to suggest no children of promise (children of God) existed prior to the cross, but then, what is the point of contrast here then as the focus is before the cross????


Gal. 4:28-29 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.


1. If all prior to Pentecost were "born after the flesh" and none were born "after the Spirit" then what is the basis for making a comparison by the words "as then" and "so it is now" if now is not as then in regard to "born after the flesh"? If there were no other alternative to being "born after the flesh" prior to Pentecost then he has made no point at all between "as then" and "so it is now"???????

2. However, Romans 9:7-8 demands there were "children of God" prior to the cross who were not "born of the flesh." Hence, what were they "born of" to be "CHILDREN of God" if they were not "BORN OF the flesh"??? What other option is there to being "BORN OF flesh" if not "BORN OF Spirit"??????

3. John 3:3; Ezek. 44:7 also demand there were those born of God prior to Pentecost or circumcised IN HEART, which is a synonym of the new birth even in the New Testament (Col. 2:11-12).

4. If one removes the illipses "born after the Spirit" then one also denies there is an meaningful contrast being made "born after the flesh" "THEN" with "NOW"!

5. If the children of the flesh are not the children of promise either then or now then what other alternative is there then or now to be children of promise other than by new birth??????

6. Again, Paul is referring to the SOURCE of birth "born" whether than "belief" or "unbelief". He is not referring to faith or lack of faith but the NATURE of birth between "children of God" versus natural born human beings who are not "children of God." What other possible alternative is there to being "born after the flesh" in order to be "children of God" THEN or NOW if not "born of the Spirit"!

John 3:16 and John 3:36, and John 5:24 all use the very same PRESENT TENSE for obtaining ETERNAL LIFE at the point of faith. What kind of life is it if it is not SPIRITUAL LIFE - they already have physical life? None say if one believes they "SHALL" have eternal life but "HATH" everlasting life - present tense simultaneous action with believing which is also present tense.

Hence, more proof of new birth PRIOR to Pentecost.

 

[Robert William]

Regeneration precedes faith.

Rom. 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

1. He did not say one is an unbeliever and the other is a believer but he is referring to the SOURCE of their birth - "children OF THE FLESH" versus "children OF GOD"


2. The "children of the flesh" refers to NATURAL or PHYSICAL born children of Abraham but we are explicitly told these are not the children of promise, nor the "children of God". What other alternative is possible to "children of the flesh" if natural birth was the ONLY possible birth prior to Pentecost???


3. How could Paul even make a distinction between "children of the flesh" and "children of God" if the only possible kind of birth prior to Pentecost was physical birth??? The only other alternative is to suggest no children of promise (children of God) existed prior to the cross, but then, what is the point of contrast here then as the focus is before the cross????


Gal. 4:28-29 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.


1. If all prior to Pentecost were "born after the flesh" and none were born "after the Spirit" then what is the basis for making a comparison by the words "as then" and "so it is now" if now is not as then in regard to "born after the flesh"? If there were no other alternative to being "born after the flesh" prior to Pentecost then he has made no point at all between "as then" and "so it is now"???????

2. However, Romans 9:7-8 demands there were "children of God" prior to the cross who were not "born of the flesh." Hence, what were they "born of" to be "CHILDREN of God" if they were not "BORN OF the flesh"??? What other option is there to being "BORN OF flesh" if not "BORN OF Spirit"??????

3. John 3:3; Ezek. 44:7 also demand there were those born of God prior to Pentecost or circumcised IN HEART, which is a synonym of the new birth even in the New Testament (Col. 2:11-12).

4. If one removes the illipses "born after the Spirit" then one also denies there is an meaningful contrast being made "born after the flesh" "THEN" with "NOW"!

5. If the children of the flesh are not the children of promise either then or now then what other alternative is there then or now to be children of promise other than by new birth??????

6. Again, Paul is referring to the SOURCE of birth "born" whether than "belief" or "unbelief". He is not referring to faith or lack of faith but the NATURE of birth between "children of God" versus natural born human beings who are not "children of God." What other possible alternative is there to being "born after the flesh" in order to be "children of God" THEN or NOW if not "born of the Spirit"!

Howdy biblisist, my understanding of scripture is that all humans are born children of the flesh or natural men, we are also born in bondage to sin and are under the spirit of the air, and only the predestined elect before they do anything good or bad are born from above as the Holy Spirit Sovereignly chooses the predestined elect. I believe regeneration precedes faith.

Joh 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.
Joh 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?
Joh 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.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 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.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Howdy biblisist, my understanding of scripture is that all humans are born children of the flesh or natural men, we are also born in bondage to sin and are under the spirit of the air, and only the predestined elect before they do anything good or bad are born from above as the Holy Spirit Sovereignly chooses the predestined elect. I believe regeneration precedes faith.

Joh 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.
Joh 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?
Joh 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.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 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.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Hi Robin, good to make your acquaintence. Your post is interesting point of discussion and it is related to the immediate context of John 3 however, it is not related to the specific topic of this thread. I don't want to derail this thread by following your topic. I hope you understand, I am not trying to be offensive. Open a thead on that topic and I will be glad to address it.

 

[HankD]

They are wrong. It is the only baptism Christ submitted to and it is not "CHRIST-ian" baptism? It is the only baptism the apostles submitted to. It is the only baptism existing when the Great Commission was given to the end of the age and could fit the past tense "HAVE" commanded you. It is the only baptism ordained by God's counsel (Lk. 7:29-30). It is the same baptism in the Great Commission in Luke 24:47 or preaching "repentance" for remission of sins.

John preached the same gospel (Jn. 3:36) of eternal life PRESENT TENSE at the point of faith. John preached Christ and when he found out Jesus of nazereth was the Christ, he preached Jesus is the Christ (Acts 19:5) as the Son of God (Jn. 3;36). The "baptism of repentance" is simply repentance is required to be baptized as well as faith in the coming Christ (Mat. 3:6-8; Acts 19:5).

The whole Prostestant view of the baptism in the Spirit is the ERROR that perverts the baptism of John and denies it was a baptism in the TRINITARIAN name of God. John believed in one God and claimed that this ONE God has ordained and sent him to baptize (Jn. 1:29); which is to baptize in His name. He recognized this ONE God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Jn. 3:30-36).





There is more to know and understand but you will never find it in Roman Catholic historical sources - never! It is known by coming to a better understanding of the church as the institutional public house of worship. It is known by a better understanding of the apostolic office and its role in relationship to the Spirit of God in confirming and producing a new body of Scriptures - the New Testament. It is known by coming to a better understanding of a shift in the redemptive sphere of salvation from the nation of Israel to the Gentiles (Rom. 11). All of these are distinct and different aspects of the "promise of the Spirit" in this new covenant dispensation but they have been confused with just one aspect - the baptism in the Spirit.

If you want to better understand the baptism in the Spirit study the Biblical requirements for that historical baptism to even occur upon a "house of God." That house had to have certain fundemental prerequisites for that baptism. It had to be built by a designated builder. It had to be built according to the specifics of a divine pattern. It had to have a ministry and ordinances that met the exact specifications of that divine pattern.

In regard to the baptism in fire just look at the next verse where believers and RELIGIOUS unbeleivers are distinguished from each other:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Take note unto whom the fire is reserved for versus unto whom the garner is reserved for.

Thanks biblicist,

Not all the ECF should be included under the umbrella of the Church of Rome. I think you know that though, although it seemed you might think differently.

Yes Kyredneck also pointed out the fire part of the passage to me.


HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

Thanks biblicist,

Not all the ECF should be included under the umbrella of the Church of Rome. I think you know that though, although it seemed you might think differently.

Yes Kyredneck also pointed out the fire part of the passage to me.


HankD

You are welcome Hank!

 

[Robert William]

Hi Robin, good to make your acquaintence. Your post is interesting point of discussion and it is related to the immediate context of John 3 however, it is not related to the specific topic of this thread. I don't want to derail this thread by following your topic. I hope you understand, I am not trying to be offensive. Open a thead on that topic and I will be glad to address it.

The New Birth is a Pre-Pentecost Reality

Biblicist, everything I have written is related to the new birth, the Holy Spirit is like the wind and regenerates the predestined elect at their appointed time.

 

[The Biblicist]

The New Birth is a Pre-Pentecost Reality

Biblicist, everything I have written is related to the new birth, the Holy Spirit is like the wind and regenerates the predestined elect at their appointed time.

Well, the argument is a time issue rather than the nature of regeneration. The issue is whether or not the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit preceded Pentecost. There are some on this forum who deny regeneration occurred before Pentecost. However, those who deny regeneration prior to Pentecost obviously do not understand the nature of regeneration or they would never take such a position.