Ye must be born again !

[Dr. Walter]

You talk about eisgesis and contentious with the truth!!! You make a patch quilt hack job of this text. You arbritrarily assign a few verses to the topic of the new birth and then presumptuously discount all the rest as unrelated and not even directed to Nicodemus on the basis of pure presumption.

1. You have no contextual basis to deny that verses 1-21 are not in their entirety spoken directly to Nicodemus.

2. The very words "born of the Spirit" demand birthed by God as The Spirit is God and thus necessarily infer those "born" are children of God and thus there is a fatherhood necessarily involved

3. I never denied "and of water" was The Spirit but expressly agreed and stated clearly that you had that correct.

4. You interpretation of verse seven is ludricous - this is no reference to any revival like in Samaria but is an explicit reference to the sovereignty of the Spirit in birthing children into God's kingdom.

5. The gospel presented in verses 14-17 has direct bearing on the new birth as it is the instrumental means, as His creative empowered word to produce the new birth just as other related scriptures clearly teach (1 Thes. 1:4-5; James 1:18) and therefore is essential to any discussion about the new birth as "born of water" is express typology found in the usage of the preists in the temple that is inclusive of both the Spirit of God and the Word of God.

6. You are completely blind to John 3:18-21 because of your Arminianism. This passage is absolutely necessary to any understanding of the new birth as it is descriptive of the reason the new birth is necessary and the difference it makes. The nature that characterizes the first birth - "born of the flesh" hates the light, loves sin, will not come to the light and therefore this langauge expresses the incapability of that nature to respond to light and thus that nature does not provide kingdom acceptance or kingdom awareness. The very need of the new birth is due to the very inability and aggravated enmity toward God/Light by the old nature "born of the flesh." If you don't understand this point and don't accept verses 18-20 as absolutely essential to any discussion of the new birth than you do not understand the doctrine of the new birth at all.

7. Verse 21 demonstrates the CONTRAST difference between what characterizes the nature "born of the Spirit" to that which is "born of the flesh" (vv. 18-20). Anyone who chooses to come to the light is evidential proof of the new birth work of God in them and their deed manifest that work just as the deeds previously described in verses 18-20 manifest those "born of the flesh."

Your arminianism blinds you to the simple truths of God's Word and the very logical development of this passage wherein every aspect is directly related to the subject first introduced by Christ in verses 3.

You are making things up Mr. Walters. Read my post. One of the first things I did was to differentiate between two kinds of birth: one physical and one spiritual; one of the flesh; one of the Spirit.

Tell me, is it your mission to attack truth for the sake of argument even when truth is presented? Have you become a different person? Are you that contentious?

Of course there is, and I pointed that out in my post. Perhaps you ought to read it.

Your close. You have #1 right. #2 is simply the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said. You must be born of water and of the Spirit. He did not mention anything of his heavenly Father. You have to read that into the passage. However, I did make it clear near the end of my post that the result of the new birth is entrance into the family of God, as one of the children of God, hence God, de facto is our heavenly father. It is not Jesus that points that out, but other Scripture which I gave. I don't think you actually read my post very carefully.

I never denied that. Thus there are two kinds of birth.

I never explained that verse to keep my explanation concise and because it is not necessary to the explanation of the new birth. However, if you look at the verse more carefully you have taken it out of its context and are making it mean something that it doesn't. Take your Calvinistic glasses off, and you will do much better.

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. (John 3:8)
--This is a reference to the work of the Holy Spirit. He works where he will as he will. It is not specific to Nicodemus. It is more relevant to perhaps a revival. In Samaria (Acts 8) a revival broke out. The Holy Spirit came. They did not hear the sound thereof; they could not tell where it came or where it would go next. But they did know it came. They could all see the results that it left. That is the application of that verse.
--Apply it to Nicodemus. He believed. And he remained a secret believer without much change in his life for a long time. He was afraid to stand up in the Sanhedrin and proclaim the name of Christ. He knew he would have paid the price and got kicked out of the Sanhedrin, possibly even faced immediate death. He went around being a secret believer, not telling anyone that he had been born again (saved), until the time of Christ's death.

No argument here. I just didn't dwell on this because there was no need to. Like I said, I wasn't there to write a book. My post was long enough as it was.

This is a great passage. I wasn't doing an exposition of the entire chapter. Again this is not relevant to the new birth, but it is a great gospel message.

Christ not once ties any of those verses into the new birth. You just did using many outside Scriptures. But Christ has gone onto another topic completely. For all we know Nicodemus is in bed by this time sleeping. This is a one-person conversation at this time. Take a poll. When people quote John 3:16 do they connect the verse to Jesus in general, or do they connect the verse to Jesus talking to Nicodemus? Which one?

That is all nice for you to say that, but you can't get it out of John 3:12-17. It is not in those verses. IT is called eisigesis. I can preach the same truths using Genesis 3:15 as my text.

My post wasn't designed to write a book.
Do you have an intent to be contentious with truth?
My post took a passage of Scripture and expounded it. And I can't believe that you have taken up an argument with Scripture.

I can't believe that you would argue and be contentious with the very words of God. Unbelievable!!

 

[Dr. Walter]

The New birth is "of the Spirit" and according to His sovereign power and will (Jn. 1:13; 3:8) and not "of the will of man or the will of the flesh." Human will power plays no role in the new birth as the new birth is a CREATIVE act of God and no man can participate in a CREATIVE act as no man can help create.

Jn. 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.


Jn. 1:8 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.


The issue has always been whether human choice to believe in the gospel is the cause or consequence of the new birth, whether some called the "elect" were chosen BECAUSE of salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and beleif of the truth or TO salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2 Thes. 2:13). Whether they were chosen before the foundation of the world BECAUSE of some foreseen holiness in them or chosen so that they MIGHT BECOME holy (Eph. 1:4)?

Eph. 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

2 Thes. 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:


The issue has always been whether what is "born of the flesh" can come to the light, can submit to God, can love righteousness or "neither indeed can" (Rom. 8:7).

Rom. 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The new covenant description in Ezekiel 36:26-27 answers this question definitively and explicitly. It clearly and unmistakenly demands that God must first give a new heart and new spirit and this new heart and new spirit is the CAUSE of any obedience to the revealed will of God rather than obedience being the cause for God giving a new heart and new spirit:

Ezek. 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Eternal life is given to God's elect through Birth - new birth first and then given to the elect legally through justification second as a legal declaration or standing or position. Hence, regeneration gives SPIRITUAL life as a child (tekna) of God and justification gives LEGAL life as a son (huios) of God.

As many as receive the Lord Jesus Christ by faith these are the children of God (Jn. 1:12) as the elect (1 Thes. 1:4) are made known through the gospel coming to them in POWER rather than in WORD ONLY and that POWER is the creative power of God behind the gospel producing the new birth which is not of the will of man or the will of the flesh but of God:

1 Thes. 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. 5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

Jn. 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power [exousia = authority] 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.

Reception and power are simeltaneous in action but not in logical order of cause and effect. Verse 13 provides the cause while "But as many as received him" describes the effect. There is no such thing as an unregenerated believer OR a regenerated unbeliever.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If one is objective with the overall Biblical evidence, the new birth is a change of nature insomuch that the Christian is called a "new creature" (2 Cor. 5:17) and "all things have become new."

It is a contrast to the nature received through "born of the flesh." The nature "born of the flesh" is a nature that is "enmity with God and is not subject to the law of God." It is a nature that loves sin and neither comes to the light. It is a nature that is not willing to repent of sin or come to Christ.

What is received in the new birth is a "new heart" and a "new spirit" that are disposed to the very opposite of the old nature, old man received through being "born of the flesh."

The heart and spirit of the OLD MAN does not possess the ability to see, hear or to perceive the things of God and this is precisely why God gives a new heart that does see, hear and perceive the things of God (Deut. 5:29; 29:4; Ezek. 36:26-27; 2 Cor. 3:3-6).

This is a very simple and straightforward truth revealed throughout the scriptures and that is precisely why Jesus said "ye must be born again" IN ORDER TO see and enter the kingdom of God as the Old nature cannot "see" or "enter" God's spiritual kingdom but one must be "translated" into the Kingdom of God through the new birth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Rom. 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Take note of the personal singular pronouns "whom" and "him" proving this is being applied to INDIVIDUALS per se and not NATIONS per se.

Second, take note that mercy is by sovereign choice not by necessity or demand.

Third, take note that even though man is capable of willing/choosing and running or pursuing, that such are not causations for receiving mercy but rather God's own sovereign will is the causation for receving mercy.

Fourth, take note that it is an individual person that is a non-Jew that is the immediate illustration for this PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL application of "whom" and "him" in the person of Pharoah in verse 17 and that this personal and individual illustration is then made applicable to all individuals and persons in verse 18 which concludes the point first introduced in verses 15-16

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.


All Arminians must EXPLAIN AWAY the explicit and clear INDIVIDUALIZED language of this text. They must demand it is NATIONAL not INDIVIDUAL even though there is no mention of NATIONS but only of INDIVIDUAL persons and personal pronouns.

The bottom line is they simply reject what God has to say here and then go about perverting it by their own eisgetical bias.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

All Arminians must EXPLAIN AWAY the explicit and clear INDIVIDUALIZED language of this text. They must demand it is NATIONAL not INDIVIDUAL even though there is no mention of NATIONS but only of INDIVIDUAL persons and personal pronouns.

The bottom line is they simply reject what God has to say here and then go about perverting it by their own eisgetical bias.

Isn't that what you do with passages like John 3:17

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him

In your reformed perspective Jesus could not have come into the world to provide "Salvation" to it, the world that is. You're view is that Jesus came into the world to provide salvation only for the elect. Thus you re-read this verse to mean "but to save the few from all parts of the world". Which clearly the passage doesn't mean. Thus you read it with your eisgetical bias. In my view theoretically if the world were to choose Jesus the entire world would be saved. However in your view theoretically even if the world wanted to choose Jesus ( which admittedly it does not) it could not because Jesus didn't provide for them. Only the Elect. I believe salvation is granted all those who would believe and yes I hold to the myster that the Spirit works prior to faith to make faith available to each person. and How do you read Peter 3:9

not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance

In order to save the Elect necissarily God purposely elects those not to be saved. And in your Pharoah quotation God purposely created him to destroy him in which case You must believe that Peter was lying in the NT when he said

not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance

. God, according to you, certianly was willing that Pharoah should perish. Thus those against the christian faith can say see! contradiction!!!! To select people for non election God does not want everyone to come to reprentance. Thus God is lying somewhere and why should we take him seriously? According to your eisegitical bias.

 

[Dr. Walter]

My view of John 3:16-17 has not changed. The term world does not mean every living human from Adam to the last person born in verse 16 but all classes, genders, and races of society and in verse 17 it refers to the realm of human existence then present. That is not an eisgetical view when you consider who Jesus is talking to and how the Jews used the term "world" and how it is used in scriptures.

Anyone who says that the term "world" means one thing throughout scripture simply has not done their homework. The Jews used the term "world" to mean the same thing as the "nations" or Gentiles" as in Romans 11:11-12. It is used as a hyperbole to mean only a great number of people. It is used for the natural realm. It is used for a system or world order that is in opposition to God.

In John 3:1-18 the context of discussion is between Christ and a Jewish theologion - "master of Israel" who believed in a doctrine of salvation much like the Roman Catholic Church that was inclusive and restricted (Jews; church). The Jewish theological use of the term "world" in a soteriological setting could only mean one thing - all classes, all genders and all races of mankind something repugnant to a Jewish theologion.

Finally, YOU CANNOT RESPOND TO THE EVIDENCE I PLACED BEFORE YOU and so you side track the discussion to another subject and thus PIT SCRIPTURE AGAINST SCRIPTURE in order to avoid dealing honestly with the text and evidence I presented. This shows the weakness of your position.

Isn't that what you do with passages like John 3:17
In your reformed perspective Jesus could not have come into the world to provide "Salvation" to it, the world that is. You're view is that Jesus came into the world to provide salvation only for the elect. Thus you re-read this verse to mean "but to save the few from all parts of the world". Which clearly the passage doesn't mean. Thus you read it with your eisgetical bias. In my view theoretically if the world were to choose Jesus the entire world would be saved. However in your view theoretically even if the world wanted to choose Jesus ( which admittedly it does not) it could not because Jesus didn't provide for them. Only the Elect. I believe salvation is granted all those who would believe and yes I hold to the myster that the Spirit works prior to faith to make faith available to each person. and How do you read Peter 3:9 In order to save the Elect necissarily God purposely elects those not to be saved. And in your Pharoah quotation God purposely created him to destroy him in which case You must believe that Peter was lying in the NT when he said . God, according to you, certianly was willing that Pharoah should perish. Thus those against the christian faith can say see! contradiction!!!! To select people for non election God does not want everyone to come to reprentance. Thus God is lying somewhere and why should we take him seriously? According to your eisegitical bias.

 

[DHK]

My view of John 3:16-17 has not changed. The term world does not mean every living human from Adam to the last person born in verse 16 but all classes, genders, and races of society and in verse 17 it refers to the realm of human existence then present. That is not an eisgetical view when you consider who Jesus is talking to and how the Jews used the term "world" and how it is used in scriptures.

Typical Calvinistic drivel. If that be true, of course, you can''t be sure of your own salvation. Perhaps Christ didn't die for you. He only died for those of the first century. That is the implication that you just gave.

Anyone who says that the term "world" means one thing throughout scripture simply has not done their homework. The Jews used the term "world" to mean the same thing as the "nations" or Gentiles" as in Romans 11:11-12. It is used as a hyperbole to mean only a great number of people. It is used for the natural realm. It is used for a system or world order that is in opposition to God.

You are the one that is avoiding context and are assigning the word to only one meaning, as you have just done. Christ died for the sins of all the world, not just the sins of the first century. If you define the word according to your interpretation, it is obvious that you cannot be one of the elect and are not saved, for his blood was shed only for the "world" of the first century, and you weren't there.

In John 3:1-18 the context of discussion is between Christ and a Jewish theologion - "master of Israel" who believed in a doctrine of salvation much like the Roman Catholic Church that was inclusive and restricted (Jews; church). The Jewish theological use of the term "world" in a soteriological setting could only mean one thing - all classes, all genders and all races of mankind something repugnant to a Jewish theologion.

Again, with no application to the rest of this world. How blind can one be!

Finally, YOU CANNOT RESPOND TO THE EVIDENCE I PLACED BEFORE YOU and so you side track the discussion to another subject and thus PIT SCRIPTURE AGAINST SCRIPTURE in order to avoid dealing honestly with the text and evidence I presented. This shows the weakness of your position.

This one is easy to respond to. The conclusion of all that you have written is that you believe you have no chance to be saved.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Typical Calvinistic drivel. If that be true, of course, you can''t be sure of your own salvation. Perhaps Christ didn't die for you. He only died for those of the first century. That is the implication that you just gave.

You are more gifted and knowledable Bible student then to stoop to such an ignorant and arrogant response! I do not know of anyone who can find any Biblical use of the term "world" in a soteriological passage or context where it means by context only first century humans any more than every human born into the world since Adam. Furthermore assurance of salvation does not rest upon knowing the precise meaning of the term "world" or knowing the precise number of the elect. Assurance of salvation rests upon an encounter with the gospel of Jesus Christ that changes you from an unrepentant unbeliever to a repentant believer:

1 Thes. 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

Take note of the above passage that Paul explicitly tells the Thessalonicans how they can "know" if they are God's elect and that knowledge rests upon the fact that the gospel did not come in "word only" but in POWER and in THE HOLY GHOST and in MUCH ASSURANCE. No mention by Paul that it was necessary to properly understand how the term "world" is used in soteriological passages for personal assurance of salvation as you suggest would be necesary!!!!! I will take Paul's word over yours and his basis of assurance of salvation of your imagined basis.

You are the one that is avoiding context and are assigning the word to only one meaning, as you have just done.

Typical Arminian ignorant and arrogant drivel! Some kind of meaning must be attached to the term "world" and you assign a meaning just as much as I do. The difference is does the immediate and overall soteriological context where "world" is found supports your definition or mine. You cannot deny that my definition takes into consideration the historical and cultural context of John 3 and that two JEWISH rabbi's are the ones in this discussion and thus the term "world" must be defined according to a Jewish theological understanding and usage by Theological Jews.

Christ died for the sins of all the world, not just the sins of the first century.

Certainly Christ died for the sins of "the whole world" but again what does the term "world" mean. I have suggested that it means "all classes, all genders, all races" of mankind! Do I fit within that description? Do I fit within a certain social class of human beings? Do I fit within a certain gender of human beings? Do I fit within a certain race of human beings? According to your conclusion I do not as you say:

If you define the word according to your interpretation, it is obvious that you cannot be one of the elect and are not saved, for his blood was shed only for the "world" of the first century, and you weren't there.

Anyone reading your response knows your words above are simply nonsensical and empty of any rational thought! You reject my interpretation of the term "world" and replace it with one of your choosing and then assign it to me as though it were mine and thus build a straw man and burn it! I know you are capable of better scholarship, you need to step up to the level of scholarship you are capable and quick stooping to such low tactics.

This one is easy to respond to. The conclusion of all that you have written is that you believe you have no chance to be saved.

What is easy to see is that your response is nonsensical, empty, void of rationality and just stupid! Stupid, because you reject the very definition I assign to the word "world" and make up one of your own and attempt to convince the readers that it is my definition. Stupid, because you create a fictious straw man and then burn it and conclude you are triumphant!!

The fact of the matter it is not easy for you to answer my post on Romans 9:13-17 or esle you would do it! You can't and so you do the very same thing Thinkingstuff does and that is pit scripture against scripture but then stoop one step lower and attribut to me a definition I nowhere have ever provided or supported and which has no relationship whatsoever to the defintion I gave. You would call such a response to your posts as stupid!

 

[Dr. Walter]

In John 3:1-21 you have two Jewish Rabbi's discussing soteriology between each other. It should be obvious that Jesus is attempting to communicate truth to Nicodemus and use language that Nicodemus would understand as a theologion in discussing soteriology!

Hence, the question is easy - How would Jewish theologions of that day understand the term "world" in a soteriological context? What did the word " world" mean to the Jewish Theologion when he talked about salvation? How would a Jewish Theologion understand the term "world" when used in a soteriological context?

It does not take much study of the Scriptures to understand how Jewish theologions used the term "world" when it came to salvation topics. It is clear from scriptures that Jewish theologions restricted salvation to BEING CIRCUMCISED AS A JEW and thus taught an ETHNIC soteriology.

It is clear from another Jewish Rabbi (Paul) in a context of soteriology that they used the term "world" in contrast to the term "Israel" or "Jew" (Rom. 11:11-12). It is easy to see from reading Jewish literature of that time the term "world" was used to represent all other races and their classes and genders in addition to Jewish.

It is easy to see that the letter of first John is written by a Jew to Jewish believers and must remind them that Christ did not merely die for Jews or the circumcision but "for the whole world" or all races, classes and genders.

 

[DHK]

In John 3:1-21 you have two Jewish Rabbi's discussing soteriology between each other. It should be obvious that Jesus is attempting to communicate truth to Nicodemus and use language that Nicodemus would understand as a theologion in discussing soteriology!

Even other Calvinists will disagree with you about the meaning of John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)

The "whosoever's" of the Bible cannot be ignored. The are not confined to a conversation to one man, otherwise they would not be "whosoever." Christ did not say "that if you Nicodemus should believe..." He said, "that whosoever believeth..." meaning anyone out of everyone. It was all inclusive, and not confined to one man. Your salvation is denied to you if Christ was referring to only one man. For all intent and purposes your position is absurd.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Even other Calvinists will disagree with you about the meaning of John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)

The "whosoever's" of the Bible cannot be ignored. The are not confined to a conversation to one man, otherwise they would not be "whosoever." Christ did say "that if you Nicodemus should believe..." He said, "that whosoever believeth..." meaning anyone out of everyone. It was all inclusive, and not confined to one man. Your salvation is denied to you if Christ was referring to only one man. For all intent and purposes your position is absurd.

I never said that the conversation was restricted to Nicodemus only that it was directed toward Nicodemus and the Jewish soterioligical thinking. I see no problem in making "whosoever" addressing "all classes, genders and races of mankind" presently living and being confronted with the gospel! So my position is not absurd or irrational. If I addressed a great crowd of people and said "whosever" will come up to the podium will get a dollar and by "whosoever" I am extending this to all genders, classes and races hearing this offer. There is nothing absurd in that usage or reasoning.

I am a little emotionally exhausted and so I will take a breather for now. I may come back later

 

[savedbymercy]

It is not a command to do !

Jn 3:6-7

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Ye must be born again is not Jesus giving a command for people to do. No more would Jesus command a person to be born Spiritually as He would command a person to be born physically, for its just not in mans power to be born.

vs 6

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

When speaking of that which is born, its always in the passive voice, not the active voice.

However though it is not a imperative for one to go do, it is a biological necessity ! When I say biological, I means as in biology, having life. Man cannot give himself life, though its necessary to have in order to perform functions in life.

You see men by nature is only flesh, and corrupt sinful flesh, so says Jesus in vs 6. The flesh can be reformed, cultured and instructed, but it remains sinful flesh. The word flesh is generic as well and scripture uses it to constitute man as a whole, soul and body and spirit; And men by nature [flesh] is dead, dead in trespasses and sins Eph 2:1

1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; See Matt 8:22

Eph 2:1 is a biological condition. This does not mean that man has no living vitality, but its in a sphere that is alienated from the Life of God Eph 4:18

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

Take plant life for example and Animal life, both have life, however there is a biological difference in their type of lives, Animal Life is of a Higher order than plant life, so it is with the Spiritual that is of the incorruptible seed Christ, and that Natural Life in Adam of corruptible seed. See 1 Pet 1:23.

We by natural birth are alive only in that Life derived from Adam, the sphere of the flesh Rom 8:5

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

And we are dead and alienated to the things of God all the while in the flesh. Even when and if we are super religious, and very sincere and serious about it, we are still only functioning in the sphere of the flesh. That is what Jesus was telling a very religious man at the time.

Nicodemus, ye must be born again, or there is no life in you. Jn 6:53

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

To eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man is a evidence of life, of spiritual life. To believe on Him, for thats what to eat and drink mean here, we must have already have been given life from the dead. For its a spiritual eating and a spiritual drinking by Faith.

 

[preacher4truth]

It is not a command to do !

Jn 3:6-7

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Ye must be born again is not Jesus giving a command for people to do. No more would Jesus command a person to be born Spiritually as He would command a person to be born physically, for its just not in mans power to be born.

vs 6

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

When speaking of that which is born, its always in the passive voice, not the active voice.

However though it is not a imperative for one to go do, it is a biological necessity ! When I say biological, I means as in biology, having life. Man cannot give himself life, though its necessary to have in order to perform functions in life.

You see men by nature is only flesh, and corrupt sinful flesh, so says Jesus in vs 6. The flesh can be reformed, cultured and instructed, but it remains sinful flesh. The word flesh is generic as well and scripture uses it to constitute man as a whole, soul and body and spirit; And men by nature [flesh] is dead, dead in trespasses and sins Eph 2:1

1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; See Matt 8:22

Eph 2:1 is a biological condition. This does not mean that man has no living vitality, but its in a sphere that is alienated from the Life of God Eph 4:18

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

Take plant life for example and Animal life, both have life, however there is a biological difference in their type of lives, Animal Life is of a Higher order than plant life, so it is with the Spiritual that is of the incorruptible seed Christ, and that Natural Life in Adam of corruptible seed. See 1 Pet 1:23.

We by natural birth are alive only in that Life derived from Adam, the sphere of the flesh Rom 8:5

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

And we are dead and alienated to the things of God all the while in the flesh. Even when and if we are super religious, and very sincere and serious about it, we are still only functioning in the sphere of the flesh. That is what Jesus was telling a very religious man at the time.

Nicodemus, ye must be born again, or there is no life in you. Jn 6:53

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

To eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man is a evidence of life, of spiritual life. To believe on Him, for thats what to eat and drink mean here, we must have already have been given life from the dead. For its a spiritual eating and a spiritual drinking by Faith.

It cannot be a command as only God can give the new birth.

 

[DHK]

It cannot be a command as only God can give the new birth.

Calvinistic drivel.

You must be born again! A statement of necessity. You must do it.

Unless you are born again you cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
--A statement with a condition. Unless the condition is fulfilled (by you), you will be denied access into the kingdom. This is your obligation--being born again. You fulfill it, and God will allow you into his kingdom. That is how it works.

You must be born again. A command; a necessity. But how?
By water and the Spirit, that is by the word of God and the Spirit of God.
God has given us the means by which we are to be born again.

Further elaboration is given in John 1:12
As many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name. The new birth comes by receiving the gift of God (eternal life) which in turn comes by believing on the name of Jesus Christ.

It is all very simple. The gospel was never a complicated message as some make it out to be.

 

[preacher4truth]

Calvinistic drivel.

You must be born again! A statement of necessity. You must do it.

Unless you are born again you cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
--A statement with a condition. Unless the condition is fulfilled (by you), you will be denied access into the kingdom. This is your obligation--being born again. You fulfill it, and God will allow you into his kingdom. That is how it works.

You must be born again. A command; a necessity. But how?
By water and the Spirit, that is by the word of God and the Spirit of God.
God has given us the means by which we are to be born again.

Further elaboration is given in John 1:12
As many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name. The new birth comes by receiving the gift of God (eternal life) which in turn comes by believing on the name of Jesus Christ.

It is all very simple. The gospel was never a complicated message as some make it out to be.

Drivel? Drivel: childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle.

I reject your personal attack.

It's not drivel whatsoever, it's plain fact, and it's unecesssary behavior and word choice from you. I recall getting an infraction for calling someone childish, yet you continue this?

OK.

It's in the indicative mood, as you've been told many times. It's not a command.

Which mood is it in, or do you have some allowance to apostolic proportions to change mood?

Now, repent? That is a command. It's part of the Gospel. :love2:

Further elaboration of what? A different subject other than it being a command? You're saying John 1:12 elaborated further that it, John 3:7, is a command? Where? Nothing in John 1:12 elaborates to prove it a command.

Who said new birth isn't Gods gift? Not here. Now you're onto a completely different subject altogether.


- Peace

 

[DHK]

it's plain fact,

If it is plain fact why don't you accept it as such?

It's in the indicative mood, as you've been told many times. It's not a command.

What do you think the indicative is? The indicative is that which indicates. In other words it is a statement of fact. The statement of fact is that if you are not born again you cannot enter the kingdom of God. Hence "You must be born again!!"
See Webdog's explanation.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1700877&postcount=78

Which mood is it in, or do you have some allowance to apostolic proportions to change mood?

One that indicates a statement of truth. You must be born again. Not much difference than a command is it?

Now, repent? That is a command. It's part of the Gospel. :love2:

Not if you had any kind of soteriological understanding of the gospel

Further elaboration of what? A different subject other than it being a command? You're saying John 1:12 elaborated further that it, John 3:7, is a command? Where? Nothing in John 1:12 elaborates to prove it a command.

John 3:7
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:7)
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: (John 1:12)
--When one is born again they are born into God's family and become his children as it says in John 1:12. Comprenez vous?
As far as the English translation is concerned John 3:7 is a command.

Who said new birth isn't Gods gift? Not here. Now you're onto a completely different subject altogether.

Romans 6:23 says that eternal life is the gift of God. Eternal life is the result of the new birth.

 

[preacher4truth]

If it is plain fact why don't you accept it as such?

What do you think the indicative is? The indicative is that which indicates. In other words it is a statement of fact. The statement of fact is that if you are not born again you cannot enter the kingdom of God. Hence "You must be born again!!"
See Webdog's explanation.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1700877&postcount=78

One that indicates a statement of truth. You must be born again. Not much difference than a command is it?

Not if you had any kind of soteriological understanding of the gospel

John 3:7
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:7)
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: (John 1:12)
--When one is born again they are born into God's family and become his children as it says in John 1:12. Comprenez vous?
As far as the English translation is concerned John 3:7 is a command.


Romans 6:23 says that eternal life is the gift of God. Eternal life is the result of the new birth.

You failed to answer your John 1:12 elaboration. Why? Because it doesn't prove John 3:7 a command.

Stay on track.

The english translation proves it a command? This sounds like KJVOnlyism here. English correcting Greek? Not.

Indicative indicates? :laugh:

That proves it a command? Not even close. I see what the problem is here, you don't know what indicative mood is. Stating something as a fact doesn't mean it's a command, it only means it's a fact! :laugh:

If I told you (indicated) leaves are green, is that a command to go eat them?

:wavey:

Your logic is the same. You're clearly incorrect. Handle it.

- Peace

 

[DHK]

That proves it a command? Not even close. I see what the problem is here, you don't know what indicative mood is. Stating something as a fact doesn't mean it's a command, it only means it's a fact! :laugh:

If I told you (indicated) leaves are green, is that a command to go eat them?

:wavey:

Your logic is the same. You're clearly incorrect. Handle it.

- Peace

Whose logic???
It is in the indicative. Correct. Now think about it.
Here is the indicative statement--a statement of truth.
Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom of God.
Understand?
Let me repeat it:

Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom of God.
That is the indicative statement--a statement of fact.
The solution: Be born again--an actual command.
Either way, from the indicative statement alone, it is imperative that one be born again or they cannot enter the kingdom God.

Is it clear now?

 

[preacher4truth]

Whose logic???
It is in the indicative. Correct. Now think about it.
Here is the indicative statement--a statement of truth.
Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom of God.
Understand?
Let me repeat it:

Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom of God.
That is the indicative statement--a statement of fact.
The solution: Be born again--an actual command.
Either way, from the indicative statement alone, it is imperative that one be born again or they cannot enter the kingdom God.

Is it clear now?

You're clearly in error. That it is "imperative to be saved" doesn't retro back and make John 3:7 in the "imperative mood."

John 1:12 doesn't elaborate to prove you correct either. How you came up with this to prove it is beyond me.

I've tried, yet you still adhere to your erroneous notion. It's not in the text. The English doesn't correct the Greek. You are incorrect about the whole thing.

- Peace

 

[Dr. Walter]

Whose logic???
It is in the indicative. Correct. Now think about it.
Here is the indicative statement--a statement of truth.
Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom of God.
Understand?
Let me repeat it:

Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom of God.
That is the indicative statement--a statement of fact.
The solution: Be born again--an actual command.
Either way, from the indicative statement alone, it is imperative that one be born again or they cannot enter the kingdom God.

Is it clear now?

What did you do to obtain your first birth - born of flesh? You are making the new birth something easier than the first birth! However, Galatians 1:15-17 gives God the credit for both births while taking no credit for either.

No wonder you deny it is a CREATIVE ACT of God (Eph. 2:10a; 4:24; Col. 3:10) and an internal act of the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5) and giving of a new heart and new spirit (Ezek. 36:26-27) and that you reject the idea that the new birth cannot be accomplished by the "will of man" or the "will of the flesh" (Jn. 1:13) or that it is quickening by the Spirit of God (Eph. 2:1,5,10; 4:18) BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE MEN CAN DO IT as you believe it is a COMMAND that man can accomplish.

You and I both know that if it were something a man could do and should do it would not be found in the indicative mood but in the imperative mood as the indicative mood conveys nothing more than a regarded fact not a responsibility.