Questions about when people get "saved"

[MT1926]

Jesus didn’t actually apply his message to Nicodemus. He said, "unless ONE is born of water… " not unless you, Nicodemus, are born of water…

Jesus was showing a new and living truth Nicodemus didn’t know.

Not according to mcq72. I actually agree with you, Jesus is teaching a new and living truth. He doesn’t. His argument is that Nicodemus should have known what Jesus was teaching here from the OT.

What’s your thoughts on his argument?

 

[mcq72]

Reply is below…

 

[mcq72]

Except that natural human birth is never referred to in Scripture as “born of water”. Natural human childbirth is always associated with blood.

Yes but never had anyone so explicitly described reentering the womb again as Nicodemus did, calling for the exceptional response by Jesus (posibly referring to fleshly birth as born of water/amniotic fluid)…the use of born of blood may refer more to fleshly birth as in bloodline , as in human parents.not so much as in the “process” of the actual birth…we are not gestated in blood but in amniotic fluid…again Nic was speaking quite explicitly of the actual gestating process, not of bloodline

 

[guanophore]

Ok…good point…but you never have anyone so explicitly talk of reentering the womb as in first fleshly birth as Nicodemus did

Yes he really was a literal thinking man. But Jesus was very plain with him that He was not talking about physical human birth, but a birth that occured instead by water and Spirit.

Any Jew would equate human birth with blood. This is why a cleansing was needed after the birth.

1The Lord said to Moses, 2“Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding." Lev. 12

Yes but never had anyone so explicitly described reentering the womb again as Nicodemus did, calling for the exceptional response by Jesus (posibly referring to fleshly birth as born of water/amniotic fluid)…the use of born of blood may refer more to fleshly birth as in bloodline , as in human parents.not so much as in the “process” of the actual birth…we are not gestated in blood but in amniotic fluid…again Nic was speaking auite explicitly of the actual gestating process, not of bloodline

Equating human birth with water rather than blood is just outside the thinking of a Jew.

There is never any reference to a woman being unclean after birth due to “water”. The ceremonial uncleanness during a woman’s period and after a birth was all about the blood.

Just as Jesus used wine to become His Own Blood in the Eucharist, He used water as the washing to be used in Baptism.

 

[mcq72]

Equating human birth with water rather than blood is just outside the thinking of a Jew

Not anymore than equating regeneration with water baptism

 

[mcq72]

Yes he really was a literal thinking man. But Jesus was very plain with him that He was not talking about physical human birth, but a birth that occured instead by water and Spirit.

yes , that is another possibility. yet if you take the next verse Christ speaks of both births ;

“that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit”

You must explain why born of water is conjoined by the "and’ to being regenerative, if everyone agrees that John’s baptism was not regenerative.

And of course one must decide if OT folk were regenerated (even Mary, Joseph , Zacharias, Elizabeth, Simeon, not to mention David, Abraham ,Moses etc etc). Apparently they entered the kingdom once the Ascension and Calvary took place, for Christ led captivity captive (out of “paradise”, He being the firstfruit (entry into heaven, with OT saints).

 

[guanophore]

You must explain why born of water is conjoined by the "and’ to being regenerative, if everyone agrees that John’s baptism was not regenerative.

I guess you lost me here. We understand that Jesus joined the Holy Spirit to the baptismal waters when He entered into them and sanctified them. I don’t see how that makes John’s baptism regenerative. Jesus instructed that people be baptized Trinitarian. John did not do that. His ministry was to point to Jesus’ baptism.

YOu seem to be suggesting that the Apostles’ baptism had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. I think the whole point of Peter’s vision and the outpouring of the HS on the house of Cornelius was to convince Peter to bring in the Gentiles BECAUSE Peter understood the HS to be connected to the baptismal waters.

And of course one must decide if OT folk were regenerated (even Mary, Joseph , Zacharias, Elizabeth, Simeon, not to mention David, Abraham ,Moses etc etc). Apparently they entered the kingdom once the Ascension and Calvary took place, for Christ led captivity captive (out of “paradise”, He being the firstfruit (entry into heaven, with OT saints).

There were plenty of saved OT persons. The method God has used to save mankind has never changed. OT people were also saved by grace, through faith. They could not enter heaven until He opened the doors, but they waited with eager longing for The Day!

 

[mcq72]

not understanding is not the same as unbelief.

Hi H,

well for sure Nic did not understand, and I say, rather the Lord says, did not believe,

“ye (Nic) receive not our witness…ye believe not (my words/message/gospel)” John 3 vs11,12

Jesus also tells him "ye must be born again’’ which to me says that Nic was not. When one is born again, he believes unto salvation. I agree that not understanding something does not always mean one is not regenerated, but for sure, and i think this is what Christ is emphatically pointing out, you certainly will not understand, much less believe, if one is not born again.

Agree, difficult to accept that a man of the cloth, so to speak, which Nicodemus was, could not be born of God, or ready or able to see or enter into the kingdom.

 

[guanophore]

Not anymore than equating regeneration with water baptism

Oh I agree! I am sure they were as confused as Naaman was when he was told to dip himself in the Jordan!

But it is significant that the Apostles understood and taught this connection, which was espoused by the Church until the Anabaptists departed from it.

 

[mcq72]

Where does it say this? (that Nicodemus was not circumcised of the heart)

correct, it is Paul I believe who mentions this , that unbelieving Jews are not circumcised of the heart.

 

[mcq72]

You are expecting a religious Jew to know something that had never before been taught to the Jews?

Correct, in that Nic was supposed to have known something and was chided for it, and now we discuss just what did he not know.

I say Nic did not know two things. First he did not correctly perceive (and believe) the current wind of the Spirit (the message and testimony of both John and Jesus), and he did not know that such understanding/faith only comes from that same “wind” that regenerates , that makes one born again. Nic assumed he was spiritually born already, or that he could understand with the flesh.

So the chiding was not for unbelief, but in not understanding how one comes to believe, or that our spirit must be revived to receive the Fathers gift.

 

[mcq72]

But it is significant that the Apostles understood and taught this connection,

yes, but this is new, yet do not think jesus would chide something that is new, but for something an OT rabbi was to know.

 

[mcq72]

There were plenty of saved OT persons. The method God has used to save mankind has never changed. OT people were also saved by grace, through faith. They could not enter heaven until He opened the doors, but they waited with eager longing for The Day!

So we agree OT saints were born again ?

 

[guanophore]

So we agree OT saints were born again ?

I doubt it. I think our concepts of “born again” are probably not agreeable.

They were saved.

Jesus said a person could not be saved unless he is born again. So they must be born again according to Jesus’ teaching. What that is might be the point of disagreement.

 

[mcq72]

I doubt it. I think our concepts of “born again” are probably not agreeable.

They were saved.

Jesus said a person could not be saved unless he is born again. So they must be born again according to Jesus’ teaching. What that is might be the point of disagreement.

right. one must be born again not only to see but enter the kingdom of God.

Not sure we disagree on ‘born again’. it is where our spirits are "revived , or made alive towards God spiritually after its death from sin…maybe what later was to be called original sin…for sure started with Adam and Eve, where they sinned but were then spiritually dead, hiding from God, and God restored them after the shedding of blood .

 

[mcq72]

I guess you lost me here. We understand that Jesus joined the Holy Spirit to the baptismal waters when He entered into them and sanctified them. I don’t see how that makes John’s baptism regenerative. Jesus instructed that people be baptized Trinitarian. John did not do that. His ministry was to point to Jesus’ baptism.

YOu seem to be suggesting that the Apostles’ baptism had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. I think the whole point of Peter’s vision and the outpouring of the HS on the house of Cornelius was to convince Peter to bring in the Gentiles BECAUSE Peter understood the HS to be connected to the baptismal waters.

mcq72:

First, we agree that John’s baptism was not regenerative, but preparatory, and with no “name” attached but the with expectancy of the future messiah (though after baptizing jesus his message was specific, that Christ is the messiah.) it could be argued however, that such obedience was indicative of a revived, even reborn inner man…born again)

As to the apostles baptizing, not sure when they started. Not sure if it was before the Nicodemus discourse or not. This is pertinent to this thread because some have said that being born of water means baptism, yet to which baptism, John’s or the apostles .

Do not know if apostles used trinitarian formula during the 3 and half years when Jesus was with them (for sure after the Ascension). For sure Jesus was to baptize with the Holy Ghost, but again, was this to be before and or after His ascension, before or after Pentecost .We know some of the apostles were baptized by John. Do not know that any had to be rebaptized. The Acts 19 “rebaptizing” discourse is with those who may have not heard that Christ was the Messiah, only that He was coming…not sure it is foolproof template that all needed rebaptizing. Christ himself alludes that those who obeyed John’s baptism “would enter into heaven” before the pharisees.Matt 21:31

Maybe after all, all water baptism is preparatory , non regenerating. The gift of the Spirit could come before or after water, or with the laying of hands. We baptize folks with water , but jesus with the Holy Ghost. It seems the apostles received the indwelling when jesus breathed on them(after resurrection ?), and received the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, all way after any kind of baptism (either from themselves of John’s)…I would also add they were all born again , believed , before such HG “gifting” or indwelling

 

[mcq72]

Wait…we agree that John’s baptism was not regenerative, so how could it be a stumbling block? Jesus had not even begun baptizing yet!

In Matt 21:31 and elsewhere Christ references those who obeyed and believed John as getting into the Kingdom of God before those who did not obey and believe John.

“The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” luke 16:16

'But wisdom is vindicated by all her children." Luke 7:35…those who believed and were baptized by John were the “children”

 

[mcq72]

The idea that a person cannot believe unless they are “born again already” is a Calvanistic concept that did not appear until 1500 years after the Apostles taught the faith.

So one can believe, enter the kingdom, without new birth. ? Adam and Eve died when they ate the apple, for in that day you shall surely die…I thought they lived hundreds of years more, at least there flesh did…was it not a spiritual death ? yet were they not "revived’ , or had the ability to converse with God again, who is a spirit ?

Regardless jesus says you must be born again to enter the kingdom…but if you can believe unto salvation without this rebirth then we have a contradiction.

 

[mcq72]

It is not the “water” that regenerates, but the Holy Spirit, through the Water, as Peter teaches.

“In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. 21And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you — not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” 1 Pet 3:21

There is no way that humans can achieve a clear conscience toward God by a dunking in water. Baptism, which is the circumcision made without hands by the Holy Spirt, can cleanse, regenerate, and seal.

Seems confusing… not sure you need to differentiate baptism from water or dunking. Water baptism is water baptism (dunking or sprinkling aside)…symbolize is not just the flood waters but water baptism also…a symbol , of crying out to God , for a clear conscience, that we do not save ourselves but thru faith in what Christ did , partaking in His resurrection.

If regeneration is associated with baptism , it is probably because it was done immediately upon belief, or upon seeing the need to be saved etc…not like today where we often wait , or get catechized first.

 

[guanophore]

it could be argued however, that such obedience was indicative of a revived, even reborn inner man…born again

Definitely pre-venient grace, at the least.

As to the apostles baptizing, not sure when they started. Not sure if it was before the Nicodemus discourse or not. This is pertinent to this thread because some have said that being born of water means baptism, yet to which baptism, John’s or the apostles .

"After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. "John 3

John places Jesus’ baptizing separately from John after the encounter with Nicodemus.

But then in chap. 4…1Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples."

Christ himself alludes that those who obeyed John’s baptism “would enter into heaven” before the pharisees.Matt 21:31

Another testimony that God is not bound by the Sacraments.

It seems the apostles received the indwelling when jesus breathed on them

I wonder about that, because there is no record of all of them being baptized, and in the same passage Jesus declares that the Apostles were made clean by the words he spoke to them.

So one can believe, enter the kingdom, without new birth. ?

Catholics don’t see faith so black and white. Jesus told many they were “near” or “close” to the Kingdom. They had some faith and did respond to being drawn toward the Kingdom, but some still walked away. So no, I don’t think they believed unto salvation, but that does not mean they didn’t have any belief. Nicodemus had sufficient faith to come to Jesus and ask about salvation. Someone who is dead in trespasses and sins does not do that.