Simple Question on Sola Fide

[aidanbradypop]

Catholics don’t deny Christ’s work as “cloaking us” (imputed righteousness of Christ), but Catholics also see Christ’s work as necessarily “transforming us” too (infused righteousness of Christ).

I am just trying to clarify the Catholic ideas here so when we discuss this issue, we are not using the “same language” to talk about “different things”.

To justify is to declare righteous, to make one right with God. Justification is God’s declaring those who receive Christ to be righteous, based on Christ’s righteousness being imputed to the accounts of those who receive Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Transforming us would then be part of santification.

 

[SyCarl]

To justify is to declare righteous, to make one right with God. Justification is God’s declaring those who receive Christ to be righteous, based on Christ’s righteousness being imputed to the accounts of those who receive Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Transforming us would then be part of santification.

Transforming us can also be found in regeneration when we are born again, our sins are forgiven and we are given a new spirit and a heart of flesh.

 

[Telstar]

To justify is to declare righteous, to make one right with God. Justification is God’s declaring those who receive Christ to be righteous, based on Christ’s righteousness being imputed to the accounts of those who receive Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Transforming us would then be part of santification.

Transforming us can also be found in regeneration when we are born again, our sins are forgiven and we are given a new spirit and a heart of flesh.

But, when we are “born again” through Baptism, that’s just the beginning of our transformation. It takes a lifetime for us to fully become what God wants us to be. Sometimes we all stumble, and fall back into our old sinful habits and ways. Then, we have to get back up, dust ourselves off (through confession), and continue on our path toward our own sanctification. Only when we get to the point of sanctity, is our transformation complete. But, it’s hard work to turn around from our old ways, and be able to get to that point.

I don’t think any of us would dare to say that we’re already saints. All of us have to struggle, every day, to keep ourselves from falling back into sin. I doubt that any of us could ever claim that we’re not still sinners. But, as long as we’re willing to try to be perfect, with the help of God we can make steady progress in that direction. We just have to be willing to make that effort to do it, by cooperating with God’s grace. It’s a two way street.

 

[aidanbradypop]

But, when we are “born again” through Baptism, that’s just the beginning of our transformation. It takes a lifetime for us to fully become what God wants us to be. Sometimes we all stumble, and fall back into our old sinful habits and ways. Then, we have to get back up, dust ourselves off (through confession), and continue on our path toward our own sanctification. Only when we get to the point of sanctity, is our transformation complete. But, it’s hard work to turn around from our old ways, and be able to get to that point.

Out born again definition is a bit different. compellingtruth.org/born-again.html

The other part is well stated.

I don’t think any of us would dare to say that we’re already saints. All of us have to struggle, every day, to keep ourselves from falling back into sin. I doubt that any of us could ever claim that we’re not still sinners. But, as long as we’re willing to try to be perfect, with the help of God we can make steady progress in that direction. We just have to be willing to make that effort to do it, by cooperating with God’s grace. It’s a two way street.

Again, well stated.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

How do Protestant churches based on sola fide incorporate the Book of James and its emphasis on the necessity of good works into their theology?

The question is simple, the answer is not exactly simple. We might begin by admitting that at first glance, taken on its own, it seems to imply that sola fide is untenable. But there is a framework for a very effective argument that makes this compatible with sola fide, if you engage with what’s being said and don’t brush it aside on account of being less simple than the question was.

Step one. We would point out how James 2 explicitly references and quotes Genesis 15:6. It’s right there in the footnote, it’s not hard to find.

Step two. We would help you look up Genesis 15:6, and then we’ll point to that footnote. Genesis 15:6 is referenced three different times in the New Testament. Each and every time, it has to do with justification and with righteousness. We will insist that this is a crucial point where all three things (technically 4, counting the passage in Genesis) must be accounted for together. And I think those other places are Galatians 3 and Romans 4, yes? Something like that, maybe?

Step three. We get lexical. We would point out how the same word (some form of “justify”) is used in all three passages, but the word does not always mean the same thing. We open up a lexicon and show you that the Greek word in question can mean three different things, and given how these three different passages lead us in such varied directions, it is impossible to suppose that the word “justify” means the exact same thing in all places and at all times. If it did, these three passages would plainly contradict one another, and that is a point we will come back to over and over again when we’re looking at your overall explanation for this. Seriously, we just won’t stop going there.

Step four. The Greek word in question is dikaioo, and these are the different things it can mean.

1. To render righteous or such he ought to be.
2. To show, exhibit, evince one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered.
3. To declare, pronounce one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be.

Step five. You accuse us of assigning option number 2 to James 2 as a matter of convenience, arbitrarily, or because we just want to uphold a doctrine that doesn’t hold water. And we attempt to demonstrate that when you really try to understand the important bits of Galatians 3, Romans 4, and James 2 without contradicting yourself or causing Scripture to contradict Scripture, there are obvious choices for the different passages that make the most sense, and option number 2 is the best one for James 2. We go back and forth like this all day, but in the end I think you’ll see that there’s no way to assign options 1 or 3 to James 2 without causing it to contradict something in either Romans 4 or Galatians 3.

That’s pretty much it. Not straightforward, but it’s reasonably effective if you really get into it.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

But, when we are “born again” through Baptism, that’s just the beginning of our transformation. It takes a lifetime for us to fully become what God wants us to be.

It basically implies that the babies are not really Baptized, so something more needs to be done when they grow up, to make it “real”.

Isn’t that what you’re doing, by saying that your transformation takes a lifetime? You certainly seem to be implying that infant baptism doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do. Why do anything else over the course of the rest of your life, if your baptism as an infant was valid?

 

[Cathoholic]

aidanbradypop. You said (emphasis mine):

To justify is to declare righteous, to make one right with God. Justification is God’s declaring those who receive Christ to be righteous, based on Christ’s righteousness being imputed to the accounts of those who receive Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

2nd Corinthians 5:21 does not teach imputation “only” or “covering” alone (Nor does any other verse).

2nd CORINTHIANS 5:21 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

It does NOT say:

NOT 2nd CORINTHIANS 5:21 (Phantom Verse) 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that only covered by Him, we might become the righteousness of God.

This being said, I am not denying that in some sense Jesus covers us. What I am saying is that there is MORE.

I also want to point out another aspect of what you said (again emphasis mine):

Justification is God’s declaring those who receive Christ to be righteous, based on Christ’s righteousness being imputed to the accounts of those who receive Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The issue here is God is doing the “declaring”.

What happens when God “declares” . . . “Let there be light” for example?

You and I would both affirm God’s declaration accomplishes what goes forth. Isaiah 55 teaches us this as well (bold mine)

ISAIAH 55:11 11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Actually, contextually, 2nd Corinthians 5 seems to go against what you are trying to assert.

2nd CORINTHIANS 5:17-21 17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

NOT 2nd CORINTHIANS 5:17-21 (Phantom Verse) 17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is the same creation but now covered up; the old remains and is only hidden underneath the cloak of Christ. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be covered up by our Lord Jesus. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that covered by him we might look like the righteousness of God.

I am not trying to do an apologetic here (although I admit the thread may be going in that direction). I am merely trying to show WHY Catholics and Protestants are often speaking “a different language” foundationally concerning the justification discussion, and how that spills over to the James 2 issues.

If we are aware of that (“righteousness” being “imputed righteousness” for Protestants vrs. “infused righteousness” as Catholics, or . . . . “saved” being a “mere moment” for the Protestant, vrs. “a moment followed by a life-long process” for Catholics, or . . . . “justifying grace” being “God’s Divine favor” for Protestants, vrs. “God’s Divine Favor AND God’s Divine life within us as Catholics”, etc. etc.), the discussion is facilitated in the right direction I think.

If we understood what each meant when they say “righteousness”, or “saved” or “grace”, etc., I think the whole Catholic-Protestant justification discussion would be much more fruitful.

Again I am not attempting an apologetic on this thread but we sure could go into more details in that realm if need be (this would illustrate first-hand what I said about many Protestant’s views about James 2 so this would certainly be “on-topic”).

badnewsbarrett. You asked:

Why do anything else over the course of the rest of your life, if your baptism as an infant was valid?

This question of yours, illustrates the thought-idea of salvation being merely “a moment” versus “a moment followed by a life-long process”.

badnewsbarrett. Right now I just want to highlight the ethos of your question (for Thomas1981). Perhaps later in this thread I will try to give you an answer to your question too.

(Again. I am not trying to do an “apologetic” here on the sola fide issue so much as I am trying to highlight reasons “why” Catholics and Protestants have foundational differences even in our daily language. This makes it very difficult to have “an apologetic” that is fruitful.

It causes people to talk past each other rather than with one another. I am not saying we should not have the “apologetic” either, but it will be more profitable if we understand one another’s pre-suppositions, differences in definitions, etc. first.)

Thomas1981 These very items above from our Protestant friends, re-affirm the reasons why I said what I did about James 2, much of Protestantism, and the “whys”.

 

[Telstar]

Out born again definition is a bit different. compellingtruth.org/born-again.html

The other part is well stated.

Again, well stated.

Thanks! At least we can agree on most of it, so that’s a good sign.

This little hiccup in our agreement, is yet another problem that we (Catholics & other Christians) have in our discussions, due to our different understandings of the terminology that we’re using. Our terms might be the same, but what those terms mean to each of us, is sometimes very different. Catholics believe that we are not actually “born again” until we’ve been Baptized. That’s what makes us righteous before God, and when we actually become members of the Body of Christ. The Apostles were not only commanded to go out and preach the Gospel of Christ to all nations, but to also Baptize those who believed (had faith) in the Word of that Gospel. Just hearing the Gospel and believing in it wasn’t enough. They weren’t justified until they actually answered that call of Christ, by being Baptized. Jesus makes it clear that Baptism (water) is the method by which we are reborn in the Holy Spirit:“John 3: [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

If we look at it through the example of Abraham, it might help illustrate why we think that way. Abraham had faith in God, so God called him to sacrifice his only son to Him. At this point, Abraham is not proved to be righteous, yet, even though he clearly has faith in God. Then, Abraham decides to make that sacrifice. He prepares the altar, gathers the wood, and puts Isaac on the altar. All of those actions were necessary for him to prepare for the sacrifice. Then, just as he raises the knife, the Angel stops him. At this point, Abraham has finally found full favor with God, and is declared to be righteous before Him. He was not considered to be righteous until he acted on his faith. Likewise, we are not considered to be righteous until we answer the call of Christ, by being Baptized (reborn through the power of the Holy Spirit) into His Body (the Church).

I hope this at least helps to clear up the Catholic reasoning for the necessity of Baptism. We also believe that Baptism is just the beginning of our walk with Jesus, and of our transformation. Baptism opens the door, but we still have to walk through it.

 

[Telstar]

It basically implies that the babies are not really Baptized, so something more needs to be done when they grow up, to make it “real”.

Let’s be honest, shall we? If you’re going to quote something I said, you should at least put the line in quotes ("-"), and show where you’re quoting me from, so others can see it in context. That line was quoted from the thread about the so-called “smoking gun” of the “anathema canon” on Baptism, that has been completely torn to shreds in that other thread. It was said as part of my argument in reference to the validity of the Catholic practice of Infant Baptism, which that “anathema canon” clearly addresses. I said it here.

Isn’t that what you’re doing, by saying that your transformation takes a lifetime? You certainly seem to be implying that infant baptism doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do. Why do anything else over the course of the rest of your life, if your baptism as an infant was valid?

No, it isn’t. This is a completely different subject. My reference to Baptism in this thread, relates to the many effects that it actually has on the soul, no matter how old you were when you were Baptized. The Sacrament of Baptism imparts many types of grace, and leaves an indelible mark on the soul. Some of the effects of Baptism are permanent, while some are conditional. My reference has nothing to do with whether or not that Baptism is valid. In fact, it presumes that it is valid.

Your bringing up that other comment in this conversation, is completely out of line. It’s your way of making it look like I’m contradicting myself, when I’m not. I think you know that. This is why I hesitate to respond to any of your posts, because you tend to twist what people say to try to confuse them, or make them look foolish to others. I admit that I’m not formally educated, but I don’t think I’m quite as foolish as you seem to think, or at least imply, that I am.

 

[SyCarl]

But, when we are “born again” through Baptism, that’s just the beginning of our transformation. It takes a lifetime for us to fully become what God wants us to be. Sometimes we all stumble, and fall back into our old sinful habits and ways. Then, we have to get back up, dust ourselves off (through confession), and continue on our path toward our own sanctification. Only when we get to the point of sanctity, is our transformation complete. But, it’s hard work to turn around from our old ways, and be able to get to that point.

I don’t think any of us would dare to say that we’re already saints. All of us have to struggle, every day, to keep ourselves from falling back into sin. I doubt that any of us could ever claim that we’re not still sinners. But, as long as we’re willing to try to be perfect, with the help of God we can make steady progress in that direction. We just have to be willing to make that effort to do it, by cooperating with God’s grace. It’s a two way street.

At least from a Reformed point of view, the salvation process involves four things. This does not mean some of them don’t overlap time wise.

The first I already mentioned is regeneration. Our sins are forgiven and we are given a new spirit and a heart of flesh. We are then capable of wanting to please God. This is where something is infused into us and we can seek to righteous although we are not yet righteous.

The second part is justification. This is where God declares us to be righteous through faith. Since we are part of Christ’s body, and Christ is perfectly righteous, we can be seen to be righteous although we have not reached the perfection God requires.

The third thing is sanctification. This is where we work out our salvation and move towards righteousness. This is a life long process. It is only completed at death when the fourth part, glorification, occurs.

Throughout our process of sanctification our works may appear good from a human point of view but they would not be perfect in God’s sight. Perfection would require that they have no other motive than love of God and neighbor. In this life it is inevitable that some other motive, no matter how slight, is involved. However because of our justification, God chooses to see our works through Jesus’s perfection and they are acceptable to Him.

I such a way, we can be judged according to our works because through Christ they are acceptable but only acceptable because through our faith we have justification.

 

[benhur]

Jesus makes it clear that Baptism (water) is the method by which we are reborn in the Holy Spirit:“John 3: [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Hi T

Not so clear. When I read this discourse, it is really an OT discourse, still under the old covenant (Christ had not died yet). It was with an OT man, even rabbi, of the one true religion of the time, Nicodemus. What Christ explained to him was supposed to be “common knowledge” especially to a teacher. And I am pretty sure you were not born again by water baptism in the old testament. The only rite towards that was circumcision and barmtitzvah. Even they were not always effectual. For sure it had to be a thing of the Spirit.

Baptism did cleanse some religious artifacts in OT, and I think what John the Baptist did was a bit new, and was for remission of sins, and not regeneration. Why would Christ infer this an old age common knowledge when indeed it was “new”, if not prophetic ? Actually the only prophetic thing was not water baptism but being baptized in the Holy Ghost, which was received at Pentecost.

Bottom line T, it is not that simple that born of water means water baptism, especially when Nicodemus just mentioned how we are born of a woman ( in water ?) the first time.

 

[Telstar]

Hi T

How ya been, ben? (sorry… couldn’t resist )

Not so clear. When I read this discourse, it is really an OT discourse, still under the old covenant (Christ had not died yet). It was with an OT man, even rabbi, of the one true religion of the time, Nicodemus. What Christ explained to him was supposed to be “common knowledge” especially to a teacher.

Why would you think this was “an OT discourse”? They weren’t talking about the OT, or Jewish Law. The concept of someone being “born again” had nothing to do with either of them. Of course they were still under the Old Covenant. But, what does that have to do with it? Did it ever make any difference when Jesus taught other people? Why would it be different for teaching Nicodemus? Do you really think that subject should have been “common knowledge” to Nicodemus? How could that be? If that was true, then why would he be confused and have to ask Jesus to explain it to him? Do you really think Jesus was teaching Nicodemus what he should have already known? You seem to believe that it had been taught by the Jews in the past, even though there’s nothing in the OT that even references anything like it, as far as I know. I’m sorry, but none of that makes any sense to me.

IMHO, what Jesus means when He asks why Nicodemus doesn’t know about “these things”, is that He wasn’t talking about the ‘things of the flesh’ that Nicodemus was trying to apply to His teaching. But, the concept of it being a type of birth was still the same. Jesus was speaking about spiritual things, which Nicodemus most certainly should have easily understood, because he was a respected Jewish teacher, and a leader in the Temple. He should have realized that Jesus was speaking strictly in the spiritual sense when He said, “John 3: [6] That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. [7] Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again. The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth”.I think Jesus was being very clear, that He was referring to the spiritual rebirth of Baptism. When a child is born in the flesh, they are born through water. In that same sense, we are reborn in the spirit, through the water of Baptism. Water is the common element that signals our natural birth, as well as our rebirth in the Spirit. Water has always been a sign for the power of the Holy Spirit, even in Genesis 1, where “the Spirit of God moved over the waters”. As a certain comedian always says, “Here’s your sign!”.

And I am pretty sure you were not born again by water baptism in the old testament. The only rite towards that was circumcision and barmtitzvah. Even they were not always effectual. For sure it had to be a thing of the Spirit.

There was absolutely no Jewish practice of “baptism” in the OT, that was anything like what was being taught by Jesus in this passage. There were some practices that used water as a form of spiritual cleansing, like the ritual ‘washing’ of the Priests before entering the Temple to perform sacrifices, but they were not the same kind of thing, at all.

Christian Baptism is the spiritual Sacrament that was instituted by Jesus, to replace the Jewish practice of circumcision of the flesh. That’s probably one of the reasons that the Council of Jerusalem decided to give up that practice, because it was no longer necessary. Circumcision was a physical sign that a male Jewish child was considered to be an official member in the Old Covenant. Baptism is a spiritual Sacrament (sign) where Christians become members of the Body of Christ, and adopted sons and daughters of God, under the New Covenant.

Baptism did cleanse some religious artifacts in OT, and I think what John the Baptist did was a bit new, and was for remission of sins, and not regeneration.

Water was always a very important part of many Jewish ceremonies. John’s Baptism was meant to purify the Jews, and prepare them to receive the teachings of their Messiah. It was not the same as the Baptism that Jesus commissioned the Apostles to perform, on those who would believe in His Gospel.

Why would Christ infer this an old age common knowledge when indeed it was “new”, if not prophetic ?

He didn’t infer anything like that. See my answer, above.

Actually the only prophetic thing was not water baptism but being baptized in the Holy Ghost, which was received at Pentecost.

The Holy Ghost is first imparted to the soul through Baptism. The Catholic Church has a different way for us to receive “the laying on of hands” and “the breath of the Holy Spirit”, which is performed by the Bishop. That’s where we receive all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, like the Apostles received at Pentecost. It’s called the Sacrament of Confirmation, which we receive in our early teens (in the RCC).

Bottom line T, it is not that simple that born of water means water baptism, especially when Nicodemus just mentioned how we are born of a woman ( in water ?) the first time.

That’s exactly why our rebirth in the Spirit comes through Baptism, because it is just like natural birth. It comes through water. If you don’t believe me, just ask Paul.

 

[benhur]

Why would you think this was “an OT discourse”? They weren’t talking about the OT, or Jewish Law

.Surely you jest, a “Prophet” and a rabbi before Christianity not talking about Jewish Law or OT?

The concept of someone being “born again” had nothing to do with either of them.

It most certainly did. You do not think OT saints were regenerated, born of the Spirit, making them spiritually dead ?

Of course they were still under the Old Covenant. But, what does that have to do with it?

That is a start of agreement and it had everything to do with it. Context,context,context.

Did it ever make any difference when Jesus taught other people?

Yes.

Do you really think that subject should have been “common knowledge” to Nicodemus? How could that be?

Why would Jesus rebuff Nicodemus with, "you, a leader, do not know this (about being born again, born of the spirit) ?

If that was true, then why would he be confused and have to ask Jesus to explain it to him?

Exactly.Why would a Jewish leader a rabbi,not know a basic about his own religion ? You do not think that happens today ? I think it does.Wearing priestly vestments, being learned in the Law, or in the religion, does not mean you have been circumcised, or baptized today, in the heart. Nicodemus was spiritually dead and therefore “blind”. His faith was not saving faith.

Do you really think Jesus was teaching Nicodemus what he should have already known? You seem to believe that it had been taught by the Jews in the past, even though there’s nothing in the OT that even references anything like it, as far as I know. I’m sorry, but none of that makes any sense to me.

The OT did teach that the Lord revives our spirits, fills us (from time to time in OT), gives us "understanding’’, spiritual understanding. Do we agree the OT teaches spiritual death,at the garden due to sin ? Do you think OT saints only had mental assent, or that the natural man has something good in him? Pretty sure they believed in regeneration.

There was absolutely no Jewish practice of “baptism” in the OT, that was anything like what was being taught by Jesus in this passage. There were some practices that used water as a form of spiritual cleansing, like the ritual ‘washing’ of the Priests before entering the Temple to perform sacrifices, but they were not the same kind of thing, at all.

Exactly.Then why did Jesus rebuff him for not knowing something that was “still to come”, that was not a Jewish practice, that was in the future ? He was not being rebuffed for failing to see the prophetic nature of supposed rebirth at water baptism.

Christian Baptism is the spiritual Sacrament that was instituted by Jesus, to replace the Jewish practice of circumcision of the flesh

And nobody knew this, not even the apostles at this discourse, yet it was to be “common knowledge” and you rebuff folks for not knowing ?.Do not think so.

Water was always a very important part of many Jewish ceremonies. John’s Baptism was meant to purify the Jews, and prepare them to receive the teachings of their Messiah. It was not the same as the Baptism that Jesus commissioned the Apostles to perform, on those who would believe in His Gospel.

Agree

The Holy Ghost is first imparted to the soul through Baptism.

Not always (the apostles,Cornelius).

The Catholic Church has a different way for us to receive “the laying on of hands” and “the breath of the Holy Spirit”, which is performed by the Bishop. That’s where we receive all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, like the Apostles received at Pentecost. It’s called the Sacrament of Confirmation, which we receive in our early teens (in the RCC).

Yes thank you ,understand.I agree baptism in the HG for all believers is NT dispensation

That’s exactly why our rebirth in the Spirit comes through Baptism, because it is just like natural birth. It comes through water. If you don’t believe me, just ask Paul.

And OT rabbis were supposed to know this ? I understand your take because Jesus juxtaposed the two together ( water and spirit) in this discourse .I just think the context leads elsewhere. Like, “No Nicodemus, you do not enter your mother again.You only need to be born of water once (of woman,amniotic fluid), and then you must also be born spiritually. You are born dead in sin from your mother , and the spirit must be born again”. I see Jesus as being compassionate with Nicodemus, and uses his silly objection of redoing the first birth (of woman/water amniotic) and says yes we are born of water first, of a woman but then we must be born of Spirit…I would add there are other scriptures you could use that seem to describe water baptism and new life, but not this one (it is too early).

 

[Telstar]

Surely you jest, a “Prophet” and a rabbi before Christianity not talking about Jewish Law or OT?

This was not just an OT ‘prophet’ talking, it was the Messiah, the Son of God. They were already in the Messianic Era. It began when Jesus Christ was born.

It most certainly did. You do not think OT saints were regenerated, born of the Spirit, making them spiritually dead ?

No, it didn’t. Our salvation begins with our regeneration (rebirth in the Holy Spirit) that comes to us through Baptism. Why would there be any need of a Savior if people were already regenerated (born again) in the Holy Spirit, in the OT?

Yes.

They were under the Old Covenant during the whole time Jesus was publicly teaching. Why do you think their conversation was any different?

Why would Jesus rebuff Nicodemus with, "you, a leader, do not know this (about being born again, born of the spirit) ?

Jesus was not saying that he should know about being “born again”. Did you miss this part of my post, or just ignore it?“IMHO, what Jesus means when He asks why Nicodemus doesn’t know about “these things”, is that He wasn’t talking about the ‘things of the flesh’ that Nicodemus was trying to apply to His teaching. But, the concept of it being a type of birth was still the same. Jesus was speaking about spiritual things, which Nicodemus most certainly should have easily understood, because he was a respected Jewish teacher, and a leader in the Temple. He should have realized that Jesus was speaking strictly in the spiritual sense”

Exactly.Why would a Jewish leader a rabbi,not know a basic about his own religion ?

Nicodemus was thinking from a physical POV, instead of a spiritual one. That’s what Jesus was correcting.

Nicodemus was spiritually dead and therefore “blind”. His faith was not saving faith.

He still had faith in God, or he wouldn’t be there. Faith = belief.

The OT did teach that the Lord revives our spirits, fills us (from time to time in OT), gives us "understanding’’, spiritual understanding. Do we agree the OT teaches spiritual death,at the garden due to sin?

OK, but that’s not a sign of “regeneration”. God imparts His grace and inspires lots of people, whether they’re Jewish, or Christians, or even atheists.

Do you think OT saints only had mental assent, or that the natural man has something good in him? Pretty sure they believed in regeneration.

God certainly worked in faithful souls that followed His Law, but there’s no formula for regeneration in the OT. Can you find it?

Exactly.Then why did Jesus rebuff him for not knowing something that was “still to come”, that was not a Jewish practice, that was in the future ? He was not being rebuffed for failing to see the prophetic nature of supposed rebirth at water baptism.

He didn’t. As I said above, Jesus was explaining that He was speaking of spiritual things (which Nicodemus should have known). ^

Agree

At least we can agree on some things.

Not always (the apostles,Cornelius).

The Apostles received the gifts of the Holy Spirit directly from Jesus, at Pentecost. Cornelius was given a special grace from God to believe, but did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until he was Baptized.

And OT rabbis were supposed to know this?

No, they weren’t. You’re the one that seems to think what Jesus said Nicodemus “should have known”, was about being “born again”, but, that wasn’t what Jesus thought he should have known. Nicodemus asked what Jesus meant, because he wasn’t thinking about it from a spiritual perspective. That’s what Jesus meant, and why Nicodemus couldn’t understand how anyone could be “born again”. He didn’t realize Jesus was talking about us being “born” into the spiritual life (thus, being born “again”).

Our spiritual birth comes ‘through water’ in Baptism, just like we all come ‘through water’ when we’re born in the flesh. In my post, I was just trying to explain how the two events are related to each other. They both happen through a similar application of water. Water is the key that ties our two “births” together. Why else would Jesus tell us that we had to be “born again, in water and the Holy Ghost”?"Romans 6 [3] Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? [4] For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life."What else could Paul mean by “newness of life” if not our second “birth”, into our new spiritual life, that can only come to us through the waters of Baptism?

 

[benhur]

This was not just an OT ‘prophet’ talking, it was the Messiah, the Son of God. They were already in the Messianic Era. It began when Jesus Christ was born.

No, it didn’t. Our salvation begins with our regeneration (rebirth in the Holy Spirit) that comes to us through Baptism. Why would there be any need of a Savior if people were already regenerated (born again) in the Holy Spirit, in the OT?

They were under the Old Covenant during the whole time Jesus was publicly teaching. Why do you think their conversation was any different?

Jesus was not saying that he should know about being “born again”. Did you miss this part of my post, or just ignore it?“IMHO, what Jesus means when He asks why Nicodemus doesn’t know about “these things”, is that He wasn’t talking about the ‘things of the flesh’ that Nicodemus was trying to apply to His teaching. But, the concept of it being a type of birth was still the same. Jesus was speaking about spiritual things, which Nicodemus most certainly should have easily understood, because he was a respected Jewish teacher, and a leader in the Temple. He should have realized that Jesus was speaking strictly in the spiritual sense”

Nicodemus was thinking from a physical POV, instead of a spiritual one. That’s what Jesus was correcting.

He still had faith in God, or he wouldn’t be there. Faith = belief.

OK, but that’s not a sign of “regeneration”. God imparts His grace and inspires lots of people, whether they’re Jewish, or Christians, or even atheists.

God certainly worked in faithful souls that followed His Law, but there’s no formula for regeneration in the OT. Can you find it?

He didn’t. As I said above, Jesus was explaining that He was speaking of spiritual things (which Nicodemus should have known). ^

At least we can agree on some things.

The Apostles received the gifts of the Holy Spirit directly from Jesus, at Pentecost. Cornelius was given a special grace from God to believe, but did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until he was Baptized.

No, they weren’t. You’re the one that seems to think what Jesus said Nicodemus “should have known”, was about being “born again”, but, that wasn’t what Jesus thought he should have known. Nicodemus asked what Jesus meant, because he wasn’t thinking about it from a spiritual perspective. That’s what Jesus meant, and why Nicodemus couldn’t understand how anyone could be “born again”. He didn’t realize Jesus was talking about us being “born” into the spiritual life (thus, being born “again”).

Our spiritual birth comes ‘through water’ in Baptism, just like we all come ‘through water’ when we’re born in the flesh. In my post, I was just trying to explain how the two events are related to each other. They both happen through a similar application of water. Water is the key that ties our two “births” together. Why else would Jesus tell us that we had to be “born again, in water and the Holy Ghost”?"Romans 6 [3] Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? [4] For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life."What else could Paul mean by “newness of life” if not our second “birth”, into our new spiritual life, that can only come to us through the waters of Baptism?

Hi T quickly (limited time) .I did read your explanation ,that Nick was not seeing spiritually but my point is what seeing rebirth spiritually which you claim is “new”. So you are saying Nick did not understand a new teaching(and of course a spiritual teaching) and he should have understood Jesus .I am saying the teaching was not new and Nick should have known it anyways(before Jesus teaching).

The whole point is that Nick did not have faith , did not believe in Jesus, and Christ is saying why, because he was not born again,born of the spirit, which allows spiritual sight (which you correctly claim Nick did not have , at least in this instance)

Anyways ,thanks ,will have to get back to you but still say OT folks who believed were “born of the spirit” and will have to show some scriptures. That is, our spiritual connection to God, (which it must be spiritual for God is spirit), is broke at the fall (sin) and God reconnects us ,as he did with Adam and Eve (God shed blood and "clothed"them) and they believed in the future promise of Christ as we believe in the past Calvary. OT saints looked forward to salvation act as we look backwards to 2000 years ago act (nothwithstanding His second coming but that is not for salvation)…Christ still had to come for both testaments.