Ye must be born again !

I don't believe you have a clue! Your ditty is quite correct but I don't believe you understand your own ditty! If a man is born twice he will only die once and that is PHYSICAL death. He will not suffer SPIRITUAL death because he is made SPIRITUALLY ALIVE by a creative act of God called the new birth. However, you cannot understand SPIRITUAL birth if you don't understand SPIRITUAL DEATH because the former is a reversal of this latter.

To conclude the new birth is giving SPIRITUAL LIFE is quite correct but you fail to understand what is SPIRITUAL LIFE! It is the reverse of spiritual death! Ask yourself what is spiritual death? Spiritual death is SEPARATION or being "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). Spiritual death is a CONDITION or STATE of mind and heart which is incapable of seeing, hearing, loving God and the things of God. It is a CONDITION of spiritual DARKNESS and lack of spiritual UNDERSTANDING. Negatively it is SPIRITUAL UNION with Satan and thus inseparable from the spiritual condition of Satan (Eph. 2:2 "worketh IN them"). You cannot separate UNION with CONDITION both of which are manifested by CONSEQENCES. You cannot separate UNION with God from a CONDITION/NATURE of God any more than you an separate UNION with Satan from a CONDITION/NATURE of Satan. That union/condition/state with Satan is spelled out in Ephesians 2:2-3 and 4:18.

New Birth is the reverse of spiritual death! The New birth is being given Spiritual EYES to see, spiritual EARS to hear, spiritual APPETITES - love for God and the things of God. IT is a CONDITION of existence. The New Birth is being brought into spiritual UNION with God and that union is spiritual life and life is BEING FUNCTIONALLY ALIVE to spiritual things - seeing, hearing, understanding, perceiving, loving righteousness and this is its CONDITION of existence. The new birth is being MADE ALIVE TO GOD AND THE THINGS OF GOD! It is being given a new heart, a new spirit and this is a CREATIVE act of God as we are "of His own will he begat us" (James 1:18) and not of the will of man, the flesh or of blood (John 1:13). It is a created CONDITION of existence that perceives, sees, hears and loves God and the things of God.

To answer that the new birth is spiritual life, eternal life or union with God is too simplistic (although true). It is too simplistic because the Scripture has much more to say concerning the nature of the new birth. It is inseparable from an inward "washing" and "renewing" (Titus 3:5). It is inseparable from an inward spiritual function of seeing, hearing and loving the things of God that comes only by God giving a "new heart" and "new spirit" (Ezek. 36:26-27; 2 Cor. 3:3-6). It is inseparable from being translated out of spiritual darkness into light (2 Cor. 4:6). It is inseparable from spiritual union with God (Jn. 17:3; Eph. 2:10; etc.).

 

It may mean what you say, but that is not what Christ is talking about. That is what Paul is talking about.

I may agree with some of the things you say, but you cannot get that out of the text in John 3. Jesus said "You must be born again." Your above answer does not explain what it means to be born again by expounding that passage. In fact it really doesn't make clear the new birth at all.

Yes, he told him he must be born from above. But the question is: what does that mean? That is what this entire thread is about.

Much of what your posting is not wrong; just off topic. It doesn't answer the question: What one must do to be born again.

Basically I did. Quoting Eph.4 is not expounding John 3:1-12.
Secondly, going outside of the dialog between Nicodemus and Christ does not help either. You have gone out of the context.

No it isn't. Let's look at that again. I believe you are reading Calvinism into that passage.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? (John 3:10)
--There is nothing in this rebuke to suggest the idea of "inability," a Calvinistic doctrine that has to be eisigeted instead of honestly exegeting the Scriptures and looking for the truth. Christ gave him a gentle rebuke. He should have known these things. He had the ability. Why didn't he know? He rebuked him for not knowing.

It is not false. The dialog ends around verse 12. The last thing that Nicodemus said is recorded in verse 10. A dialog or conversation takes two people. You have one of two choices here. From verse 13 onward it is either John or Jesus speaking. If it is Jesus he is probably speaking to the general public. By this time the interview with Nicodemus is over. There is no one-way conversation.

Yes, and I can sit in my chair and talk to the wall and call it a conversation. Such is John 3:12-19. There is only one person talking.
Secondly, you make some points of the new birth being a creative act of God. True or false, you don't get that out of the teaching of Jesus do you? You have gone all over the place--NT and OT.

First I said nothing about the new birth. You quoted John 3:21, which is not necessarily directed to Nicodemus. For all we know he might be home sleeping.
Here is a "looser" translation (Great Word) that has the same thought that I was giving you:

But people who do what is true come to the light so that the things they do for God may be clearly seen.

Yes, we do good works because we are saved. So?

God is always the cause of good works. If he weren't we would be able to work our way to heaven. What has this to do with the new birth?

Wow! You just ignored about 16 verses of dialog and jumped to a text that is spoken when we aren't even sure if Nicodemus is present or not. Your hermeneutics is really good here.

You have come a bit closer to the truth here. At least you got to verse 6, something in the context that deals with the new birth. And it does contrast with the flesh. Perhaps we can explore more of that.

 

Apparently you believe the teaching of the new birth is confined to John 3:3-11 and nowhere else in scripture. I say apparently because you reject Ephesians 2:1-10 as teaching about the new birth. You reject Ephesians 4:18 as instructive about the new birth. You reject John 1:13 as instructive about the new birh or James 1:18.

Secondly, you falsely presume the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus ends with verse 11 in John 3. I say falsely presume because the grammar contradicts your presumption. Verse 12 and the pronoun "you" proves the conversation is continuing. Have you ever had a conversation with someone and all of a sudden they stopped talking because they have just confessed ignorance of the topic and so they stop talking and LISTEN while you explain it to them??????? That is precisely what occurs in verse 12-21 - Nicodemus stops talking and starts listening.

You have NOTHING to base your presumption that verse 12 forward takes place somewhere else with someone else. I have proven that verse 12 and the pronoun "you" and the following connectives "and" demonstrate Jesus is still talking to Nicodemus and Nicodemus is being instructed in something he already admitted ignorance, already tried to grapple with but could not. Tell me, if you opened your mouth in a conversation with someone over a topic that very shortly proved you were ignorant about but the other person was not ignorant about would you continue to babble your ignorance or would you stop babbling and start listening? That is what you need to do with John 3 as you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Thirdly, I see your problem clearly. You have an issue with Calvinism. You have such an inssue that you can't except the truth if it supports Calvinism, so you have made up your mind what you will believe and not believe regardless of the facts, regardless of the grammar, regardless of the truth.

Quote any translation you please but it does not help your case at all. It does not change the grammatical antecedents of "you" and verse 12. It does not do away with the "and" connectives in verses 13-21 all of which show that Jesus is still talking to a Nicodemus who finally has stopped babbling ignorance and has begun to listen and learn.

John 3:16 speaks to the responsibility of man and the promise of the gospel to all who believe it. However, John 3:16 is not the new birth. John 3:16 is what YOU do but the new birth is FROM ABOVE and it is what The Spirit of God does "Born OF THE SPIRIT."

Birth has to do with coming into a world with a nature given to you by the birther. The first birth brought you into a PHYSICAL world with the NATURE of your PHYSICAL parent. The New birth brings you into a SPIRITUAL world with a SPIRITUAL nature from God. That SPIRITUAL world is called the "kingdom of God" and apart from the SPIRITUAL birth you cannot "see" or "enter" that kind of world just as you cannot "see" or "enter" the PHYSICAL world without being PHYSICALLY birthed.

The New Birth is ABILITY to "see" and "enter" the Spiritual world (kingdom of God" as the New Birth is God creating a NATURE that "sees" perceives and understands SPIRITUAL things. The New birth is a SEEING and HEARING divine nature that occurs by a CREATIVE act of God and those SEEING and HEARING come to the light because they can SEE the light (Jn. 20:21).

The New birth is described in Ezekiel 36:26-27 as God giving a NEW HEART and a NEW SPIRIT. It is explained in 2 Cor. 3:3 as handwriting on the heart that gives a NEW DISPOSITION and then clearly explained in 2 Cor. 3:4-6 as LIFE out of death by the QUICKENING Spirit. It is explained in Ephesians2:1-10 and Ephesians 4:18 in both a positive and negative way.

 

13 pages now and no clarity on the new birth. This is really hard to believe. This is one of the most important doctrines of the Bible, if not the most important doctrine in the Bible, and one needs to understand it with the utmost clarity.

First, Nicodemus comes to Jesus by night for fear of the Jews. He was a Rabbi, a member of the Sanhedrin. To arrange such a meeting was risky. He acknowledges that Jesus “came from God,” and that “no man could do these things unless God was with him.” It is evident that he had been hearing Jesus and had seen his miracles. Now he wanted to learn more.

In verse three the first thing that Jesus tells him is: Unless a man is born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus is confused. Perhaps he thinks that Jesus is speaking of reincarnation. (BTW, Hinduism had been around a long time, and is much older than Christianity). For in answering Jesus, he says:
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? (John 3:4)

But Jesus says:
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)
--This is the second time Jesus makes reference to the necessity of the new birth. This time he mentions to agencies that are necessary, born of: 1) water, and 2) Spirit.
We all agree that Spirit refers to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is active in the New Birth. Without the Holy Spirit one cannot be born again. But what does the “water” mean. That is the question that needs to answer. Before we look at that in detail, let’s consider verse 6.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)
--There are two kinds of births; two kinds of life. One is flesh. That is how we all got here. We were all born of the flesh. The other is spiritual. Not everyone is born of the spirit. Thus Jesus says a third time:

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:7)
You must be born of water and of Spirit. The Holy Spirit is essential.
Again, what does “water” refer to?
Some, like the RCC believe that it refers to baptism. In fact their catechism states that the new birth = baptism. Without baptism you cannot be saved. But this teaches the heresy of baptismal regeneration, one of early heresies of the church that water could wash away sins. We can dismiss this view right away.
Some say that it refers to the amniotic fluid that surrounds an infant during pregnancy making it a straight parallel to the physical birth. That is a plausible explanation. The trouble with that explanation is that I do not believe Nicodemus would have been thinking about amniotic fluid when Jesus said this.

To find the proper interpretation we must go back into the first century and see what best fits the context. What would water refer to? “Water” does refer to something, just what? What one thing does a person use water for more than anything else, both now and then? Cleansing or washing.
Water cleanses. That is its purpose. Nicodemus’s thoughts could easily go back to the Temple where as soon as he would enter there would be the laver of washing, where he would wash his hands. The Rabbis had added so many other ceremonial washings as well. Jesus sometimes referred to them, even rebuking Jesus and his disciples for not washing their hands.

And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. (Mark 7:2-4)

But water and washing extend one step further. Nicodemus may well have been thinking of the symbolism of the washing and cleansing effect of the washing of the Word of God.

Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. (Psalms 119:9)
--Water symbolizes God’s Word which cleanses our soul. The OT clearly teaches this. And so does the NT. Keep in mind that John 3:5 mentions two agencies by which a man is born again: water and the Spirit.

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. (John 15:3)
--Now Jesus says you are clean through His word. It is the word that cleanses. Water is symbolic of the Word of God.

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)
--The word begat or begotten means to be born. We are born with the word of truth. It speaks of a spiritual birth. There are only two agencies by which a person is born again. One is the Holy Spirit and the other is the Word of God.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)
--Here we see it clearly. We are born again by the word of God. The “water” is symbolic of the Word of God. There are only two agencies by which a man is born of God: one is the Word of God, and the other is the Spirit of God. These two agencies are absolutely necessary to salvation; to the new birth. Without the word of God—that is the gospel message, one can never be born again. It is the gospel that saves. It is the power of God unto salvation. One cannot be born again except by the word of God. That is what Peter declares in 1Peter 1:23.
Secondly, the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential. One cannot be born again without the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit works through the Word of God to bring a person into the family of God, to give him a new life in Christ. Thus water refers to the word of God.

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)
--We enter into the family of God by believing on his name; by receiving Christ. He then makes us his children. That is the plain teaching of this verse. It goes on to say:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)
--Which were born of God. Those that received him and believed on his name were born of God. Those who were not born of God are these:
1. not of blood—You are not born a Christian. Because your parents are Christians doesn’t make you a Christian.
2. Not of the will of the flesh. That is not of good works. No amount of reformation can get you to heaven.
3. Not of the will of man. My parents baptized me as an infant. That won’t get me to heaven. What others do on your behalf won’t help.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)
--There is nothing that we can do to earn our way to heaven. He saved us according to his mercy. The working of the Holy Spirit as he works through the word of God is entirely responsible for the new birth or as it is put here, “the washing of regeneration,” again using the symbolic action of a cleansing.
--You must be born again.

 

Excellent post Bro DHK! :thumbs:

 

You have not identified what the new birth is! All you have done is identified the means used for the new birth! You obviously do not understand the context or what is the new birth.

You come close but close counts only in horseshoes and handgrenades and we are not talking about either.

We are born from PHYSICAL parents into a PHYSICAL world with a PHYSICAL nature with PHYSICAL eyes, ears and a PHYSCICAL heart to pump the blood of life through our bodies. This is the the NATURAL birth. However, this NATURAL birth with its NATURAL nature and NATURAL ears, eyes and heart are under condemnation (Jn. 3:18-20). This NATURAL cannot "see" or "enter" into a SPIRITUAL kingdom.

The New birth is from SPIRITUAL parents ("our Father in heaven") with a SPIRITUAL NATURE with SPIRITUAL eyes, ears and heart into a SPIRITUAL world/kingdom.

Such a SPIRITUAL birth is the work of God as it is God that gives such a heart with such spiritual eyes and ears:

Deut. 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

This text is directed toward those PHSYICALLY alive by PHYSICAL birth with a PHYSICAL nature and PHYSICAL eyes and ears and heart just like Nicodemus. What they need is God to give them a NEW HEART with SPIRITUAL capabilties to see, perceive, hear spiritual things.

This is what the new birth is - it is God giving PHYSICAL living by PHYSICAL birth from PHYSICAL parents with PHYSICAL eyes and ears and heart the SPIRITUAL COUNTER PART BIRTH.

This should be so obvious, simple and clear because without this SPIRITUAL birth which comes with a SPIRITUAL nature it is impossible to "see" or "enter" into a SPIRITUAL world/kingdom.

That God uses as the means the gospel as His CREATIVE Word to produce this SPIRITUAL NATURE in people is not contradictory to the nature of the New birth.

 

Here's one who demands a proof-text for everything and everyone who disagrees and proves him wrong with Scripture. A proof-text needed for all but himself.

I believe this to be an convenient way to dismiss proper hermeneutics, as a way of escape, only to reappear and present self as authority.

Now:

Where is your proof text that Nicodemus was thinking "reincarnation and Hinduism?" You prove it by your words that its been around a long time? Is that your proof? Well, it's not there in the text anywhere. Where's your proof-text? You demand this from everyone when you've been proven wrong on many occasions. So I ask the same of you. Where is it? Where is it in the text?

It's not there and never will be. Please show me one scholar who suggests Nicodemus meant "Hinduism" with proofs in the text. You cannot. It again is not there. To suggest such is really stretching this. As a matter of fact there is nothing remotely within the text to even slightly suggest this. Nothing.

Here is what is in the text;

He was clearly confused and asked how he could re-enter his mothers womb. Now that is in the text. Nowhere did he ask if Jesus spoke of "reincarnation," nor did he inquire of Hinduism as you suggest. This is not in the text.

So too is Jesus leading him to change his mind about religion and what saves. This is definitely in the context. But nothing about Hinduism and reincarnation. This is called repentance this leading him to change his mind. It's in the text. It's part of the "born-again" process.

In the context is a Jew/Pharisee who needed to change his mind about what saved. It was not his religion that saved. It was not his patronization of Jesus being come from God, or belief and faith. It was that he needed to change his mind about self-righteousness and accept that he needed to be born-again, something he could not do, something only God could do. If he were to be saved it would come from God's Grace alone. This is what he needed to change his mind about.

Also his coming at night does not prove your premise that he did so in a cowardly fashion, or to escape persecution. Prove that by the text. Perhaps he came at night to avoid the throng. You can't prove what you say by the text.

Grant to others the same grace you grant unto yourself when "exegeting" Scripture.


- Peace

 

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

I expounded the passage or text. Did you read it?

I said Hinduism had been around a long time, longer than Christianity. Go read a book on World Religions if you don't believe. Facts are facts. I did not say that Nicodemus believed in Hinduism. That would be a false statement on your part. Now what does the passage say:

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? (John 3:4)
"Can he enter into his mother's womb a second time and be born?"
--It is worded very similarly to the Hindu's belief of reincarnation. It doesn't mean he believed it. It is a question. How can this be so? What is Jesus speaking about? Is he referring to reincarnation (a common belief of those days)? That is a possibility isn't it? Not only one that I believe, but which many others share as well. I can't read Nicodemus's mind. I admit that. But it is a possibility that this is what he was thinking.

My explanation is above.

There is nothing about repentance in this passage. That is where you fail.

You can preach all the sermons you want. But that is not the one Jesus was teaching.

Yes I can. I did not give other supporting Scripture to avoid making the post too long.

 

It seems like you have hit a hard place that you can't get by. I went verse by verse throughout that entire conversation and supporting it with other Scripture. I told you exactly what the new birth was. Your problem is that you do not believe what I said (what the Scriptures say) about the new birth, and with that I can't help you, except to advise you to open your mind a bit to what the Scriptures actually teach.

Talk about context. In 13 pages I am the only one to tackle the context here--verse by verse exposition. You have avoided the context like the plague. You have gone to Eph.4--no context. Gone to Ezekiel--out of context. You have proof-texted here and there, but have stayed away from the actual text itself. Whatever did happen to context??

 

Again, you have not said one word in defining the new birth. You have only defined the instrumental means while completely avoiding the cause and nature of the new birth.

Furthermore, I completely demonstated that your interpretation of John 3:1-11 to be distinct and separate from John 3:12-21 is completey and entirely false. The grammatical antecedents and conjunctions prove it!

You are correct that the water symbolizes the cleansing power by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God. However, that is only one aspect of the new birth. You apparently believe that John 3 is the final and full description of the new birth when it is but one part of Scripture emphasizing but one aspect of the New Birth. You make the fundemental error that attempts to confine a doctrine to one passage and one aspect of a truth presented in a passage and ignore/deny that the scripture has much more to teach about the new birth not found in John 3.

I understand your biased interpretation of John 3 and the New Birth to be a frontal attack on Calvinism. You are so biased that you are incompetent to deal with this passage and related passages objectively.

I would be more than happy to do a verse by verse exposition of John 3:1-21 which will include the truths you do admit to and the truths that are there you simply ignore and deny.

I do not deny the typology of water in its use in the temple and ordinances. It symbolizes cleansing of the HOly Spirit through the Word. In part, the new birth is an inward cleansing as Titus 3:5 clearly states but it is much more than a mere cleansing as cleansing merely addresses one aspect of the new birth. It is also are renewing in the image of God and the provision of spiritual nature capable of perceving, hearing, and existing in a spiritual world - the kingdom of God. However, if you think that mere inward cleansing is the entirety of the New birth you are sorely mistaken and you make a common error by assuming that John 3:1-21 states all there is to say about the New birth.

 

The mechanics of the board will not allow me to publish a book on this thread. Instead I explained in one concise post what the new birth was, something you could not do. When P4T asked about a certain point, I replied that I could back it up, but I didn't take the time to elaborate and provide certain Scriptures in order to keep my post concise. Sorry, but a book just won't do.

It is a moot point. Why are you hung up on the latter part of John 3. There is much truth in there. I would love to spend time on that Scripture also. But that would only make my "book" even longer, thus I spent time on relevant Scripture. John 3:16 is the most well-known verse in the Bible. I love it too. But it wasn't relevant to my explanation of the new birth.

I tied it in with other Scriptures. I used all the Scripture that I am familiar with that speaks directly about the new birth in the NT, not just John chapter 3.

I think you know that is a false statement. As I just said, I used all the Scriptures I know of that refer to the new birth. That being said, there are verses that you consider deal with the new birth, that I do not. No doubt that is because of a Calvinistic bias that you have.

You must be born again. That is a statement Jesus said.
If the words of Jesus are a frontal attack on Calvinism then so be it. You should think about giving up Calvinism if they contradict the words of Jesus, as you say. I have no bias with the words of Jesus. Remember, I am the one that took the passage and expounded it. I don't see you doing any such exercise.

Again, I don't see what Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, has to do with the conversation with Nicodemus, and the truths which follow it. If anything they will knock Calvinism off its heels. The rest of the chapter basically deals with man's free will to come to Christ.

I am truly sorry I couldn't publish a book for you. But I just didn't have the room (or the time). You want more details; I can give you more details. But there is only so much I can fit into this small box.

 

DHK has properly defined the usage of water in John 3:5 but has failed to properly understand the Lord's response to the question posed by Nicodemus.

Nicodemus responded much as would anyone that first heard the words "must be born again." The response of Nicodemus is the natural response to such words.

Christs's response "what is born of flesh is flesh but what is born of Spirit is spirit" demonstrates a contrast that DKH fails to understand or recognize.

There is a contrasting parallelism even in the words "born again" that naturally would invoke the very response given by Nicodemus.

This parallelism is simple and obvious.

1. What is born of flesh is flesh = natural parents, natural human nature, natural world.

2. What is born of Spirit is spirit = spiritual parent (Heavenly Father), spiritual nature, spiritual world (kingdom of God). The "spirit" of man is that aspect of man that is "dead" to the spiritual world and must be regenerated, renewed and cleansed.

The human nature is equipped at birth to both "see" and "enter" into a physcial world and the spiritual nature is equipped at birth to both "see" and "enter" into a spiritual world - the kingdom of God.

The new birth is like the wind - UNSEEN - because it is an internal act of God within man and thus you can see the consequences just as you can see the consequence of the wind blowing but you cannot see the wind blow as it is an INVISIBLE work of God within man and thus no man can do this work or help do this work.

Nicodemus cannot understand how these things can be. Christ's response is that a Master of Israel should know this doctrine as there is no excuse to fail to see this teaching in the scriptures then present. If he cannot understand the things written in the scriptures how in the world could he understand things not revealed to men such as things in heaven. How could he understand the nature of Christ who is presently in heaven while speaking and yet on earth before Him.

Christ then goes on to explain things revealed in the scriptures and begins with the typology of the gospel found in the brazen serpent and then directly applies it to the gospel - the only gospel ever preached from Genesis to Christ words here in John 3:15-16 as Acts 2:31 and Hebrews 4:2 clearly affirm. The Christ of the Old Testament gospel is the Christ of the New Testament gospel as there is only one gospel then and now the same gospel.

Christ begins with the gospel in verse 14 becuase the new birth is a creative work of God the Holy Spirit and not a work of men (Jn. 1:13) or the will of men. It is through the foolishness of the preaching of the Gospel that God is pleased to empower it as His CREATIVE word to produce the new birth within man (1 Thes. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23-25). Jesus identifies the instrumental means for the new birth to be the gospel but then proceeds to demonstrate why men must be born again in verses 18-21. They need to be born again because the nature given them through NATURAL birth is a nature of UNBELIEF and thus they come into the world CONDEMNED ALREADY, a nature that LOVES SIN and a NATURE that will not come to the light because all of its deeds are evil.

Anyone who does the opposite of this nature is proof of God's work or the new birth. The new birth is God giving a NEW heart and a NEW spirit that possesses spiritual perception, eyes and ears (Deut. 29:4) and until God gives this New heart and New Spirit there is no spiritual perception, eyes and ears. That is why Jesus began with the necessity of the New birth first (Jn. 3:1-11) before dealing with responsibility and ability of men to respond to the gospel (Jn. 3:12-17).

The New birth is not only the giving of a NEW heart and NEW spirit but that which is disposed to obeying God's word (Ezek. 36:26-27; Heb. 10:15-18; 2 Cor. 3:3-6). The New birth is a REVELATION of knowledge (Jn. 17:2; 2 Cor. 4:6) that IS eternal life. The New birth is quickening a "dead" spirit. The New birth is a renewing in the image of God and is a creative act of God (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24; Titus. 3:5).

If any on this forum are foolish enough to believe that John 3:1-21 gives a complete description of the new birth then they are foolish enough to believe any other error anyone may impress upon them.

However,

 

The only "concise point" that I can find in your post is that the new birth is an internal washing by the word of God - period! In contrast, I admitted that your concise point is but ONE ASPECT of the new birth and I went on to spell out the various aspects of the new birth as a complete doctrine. I pointed out that the new birth is God giving a sinner a NEW SPIRITUAL NATURE, a NEW SPIRITUAL HEART and this is found in the parallel contrast with "born of flesh" vs "born of Spirit". I also pointed out that the new birth is said to be "of God" and elsewhere more fully described as a CREATED act of God (Eph. 2:10; 2 Cor. 5:17) as well as a REVELATION of God (Jn. 17:2; 2 Cor. 4:6). I also pointed out that the new birth is the washing and renewing work of the Holy Spirit whereby the "image" of God is restored through the use of the Creative Word of God.

Now, for you to come back and say that I did not spell out what is the new birth is simply a falsehood. Everything I have described the New birth to be is implicated in the words and contrasts and conclusions in John 3:1-6 and verses 18-21 and in the other scriptures I have included. My definition of the new birth is much much more thorough than yours.

Reception of the gospel (Jn. 1:12) is contingent upon the new birth (Jn. 1:13) and not the will of man, or the will of the flesh or of blood. This is precisely why the subject of the new birth- something that God alone does is first mentioned in John 3:1-11 BEFORE the gospel is mentioned in John 3:15-17. The new birth is causal whereas faith in the gospel is consequential and the order in John 3 demonstrates that truth as well as the clear statements in John 1:12-13 and James 1:18.

In a concise statement the new birth is simply God giving you a NEW heart and NEW spirit so as to produce obedience to His Word and this is the summation of the NEW covenant:

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.


Deut. 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

2 Cor. 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 ¶ Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

This is the Biblical import of the words in John 3:3-6 "born OF GOD"

Because the latter part of John 3 is Christ's explanation TO NICODEMUS for the NEED of the new birth or WHY the new birth is necessary. It is the futher explanation of the words "born of flesh is flesh" and without understanding what that means you cannot properly understand what the new birth is in contrast because it is that contrast that defines the new birth.

What arrogant distortion of my words! I did not say that the words of Jesus was a frontal attack upon Calvinism but that YOUR WORDS and YOUR EXPLANATIONS were a frontal attack upon Calvinism.

Plain evidence you do not understand the new birth nor the context as you cannot even see why John 3:12-21 is vital to the subject of the new birth. For one thing, it is the gospel that becomes the CREATIVE WORD under the power of the Holy Spirit in the CREATION of the new nature making a person a NEW creature and giving him a NEW heart and NEW spirit. Where there is no gospel preached there is no empowerment by the Spirit of God. In regard to God's elect (1 Thes. 1:4) the gospel comes NOT IN WORD ONLY but in POWER (1 Thes. 1:5) as election to salvation is THROUGH the setting apart by the Holy Spirit and belief of the truth of the gospel whereby it is through the gospel that the Holy Spirit calls out His elect (2 Thes. 2:13-14; 1 Cor. 1:26-31).

Second, John 3:18-20 explains why the New birth is Necessary and this necessity is a further description of "born of the flesh." Those "born of the flesh" are born in UNBELIEF and thus born UNDER CONDEMNATION (vv. 18-19) because what is "born of the flesh" LOVES SIN and HATES THE LIGHT and NEITHER INDEED COMES TO THE LIGHT because their deeds are EVIL (vv. 19-20). This is the reason provided by Christ for the need of new birth.

Anyone that does not fit the description of John 3:18-20 is one in whom God has done his New birth work and the deeds of that man make this work evident (Jn. 3:21).

I have given you the contextual truth but you will not receive it because you don't understand but refuse to accept the simple truth of the context of John 3:1-21 and its developmental relationship.

You have not even come close to defining the new birth as you have only limited your explanation to the Holy Spirit washing by the Word. Indeed that is the NEGATIVE aspect of the new birth but is far from the complete truth of the New birth. No book needs to be written to express the whole truth of the new birth. I have defined the new birth and I have not written a book:

1. The New birth is God GIVING A NEW HEART
2. The New birht is God GIVING A NEW SPIRIT
3. The New birth is God GIVING A NEW SPIRITUAL LIFE
4. The New birth is God GIVING A NEW SPIRITUAL NATURE
5. The New birth is God RENEWING HIS IMAGE WITHIN MAN
6. The New Birth is God RENEWING HIS IMAGE WITHIN MAN by first washing the contamination of sin.
7. The New Birth is a CREATIVE work of God
8. The New Birth is a DIVINE EFFECTUAL REVELATION that produces inward Knowledge of God through Jesus Christ - 2 Cor. 4:6; Jn. 17:2
9. The New Birth is not a product of the will of man, will of the flesh or of blood but the will of God (Jn. 1:12-13; James 1:18).

I have not written a book!! I have just been honest with God's Word, something you are incapable of doing on this point.

 

You are exactly right. However, the new birth is new to any man at any time whom God has not revealed this truth unto regardless of how old it is and regardless of how thorough it is taught in the scriptures.

This very forum demonstrates there are modern day Nicodemus' who are just as ignorant of the new birth as in the time of Christ and in the time of Abraham and there will be in the days ahead of us regardless of how well it is revealed in the scriptures.

 

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!!

 

From reading the posts it seems to me all are like B Clinton meaning you do not know what the meaning of is, is.

That which is born of the ----is.

You is either one or you is the other, you ain't both.

1 Cor. 15 is about being born again.