Are Believers Necessarily Born Again?

I see, do as you command or I am a liar.

Can you give me an example in the OT of one being said to have been born again?

God Bless!

 

When did Adam become born again? When did Abraham become born again? How about David, when did he become born again?

What part, if any, does the receiver of born again have in this rebirth? What must one have done to be born again in the OT? Believe in God?

God Bless!

 

I am going to be gentle with you here and hope you understand something. Tell me, at how many places does the Bible declare that one must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and they will be saved? Magically and mystically it does not occur in the Old Testament does it? Does that mean the gospel is not present in the OT and men were not saved by faith in the gospel? Of course not but the gospel was prophetic and not fully revealed as we know it historically in is full revelation.

The introduction of the term "born again" by Jesus to Nicodemus may be to you something that was introduced then because it was, itself, new but Jesus makes it clear to Nicodemus that Nicodemus, a master (teacher) of the law, should have already known this:

John 3 Jesus speaking to Nicodemus

3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

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

Nicodemus responds:

9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

Jesus responds:

10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?


Nicodemus was an OT teacher of the law, one that practiced Judaism. Jesus makes it clear that as a teacher of the law, the OT law which includes the prophetic gospel of Christ, he should already KNOW THIS.

This establishes the reality that being born again was not a new phenomenon for believers but one already accepted as fact and expected to have been communicated by the teachers of Israel to the Jews. It is clear that the problem with Nicodemus that he himself was not born again but merely an academic man of the Scriptures and not one who possessed faith in the gospel of the OT.

Now you ask where does it say Adam was born again, it doesn't but it doesn't have to because the record of Adam is so minimal if you placed that standard on Adam then it is clear he never had a bowel movement because the Bible fails to declare it so.

Your problem is your doctrinal training and understanding of the nature of man's fall in Genesis and his spiritual death and the nature of being born again. When Adam died in the garden (God said the day he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil he would surely die) obviously his life didn't end though it did enter a terminal cycle, yet the Bible declares he died. As well it said on that day he would know good and evil and it was that day he knew good and evil, not some eventual time in the future, it was immediate as was his death and again it wasn't his physical life as we see, he kept living for a number of hundreds of years. His soul didn't cease to exists because we know both saved and unsaved men have souls that live as did Adam's and will be judged and either be welcomed into eternal life with God or sentenced to eternal condemnation.

Adam died spiritually. His fellowship with God was via his spirit. The necessity of the resurrection of the human spirit began with Adam's spiritual death and continues today as the qualifying means to spiritual life.

I don't necessarily expect you to grasp what I am saying because it requires more than someone finding a verse but understanding several whole doctrines and forming doctrinal conclusions, something that will require an adjustment in your elementary doctrines for an appropriate foundation for such constructs.

 

Hebrews 6:12
Hebrews 6:15

And if I stretch, there's the account of what happened with Nebuchadnezzar after the 3 boys were saved from the fire (Daniel 3:28), and the way Nebuchadnezzar starts his account of his dream in Daniel 4, especially 4:34.

 

"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.......And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise."

through faith in what?

God Bless!

 

This is one speculation that could be derived from the rebuke. Another, and I believe more likely interpretation is that Nicodemus should have known from the OT that God was going to do a "new thing" when Messiah came and that would be regeneration.

Neither do I you.....:smilewinkgrin:

God Bless!

 

In John 3 Christ complains to Nicodemus that he should already know from scripture that unless one is born again they can not enter the kingdom of heaven.

in the case of Saul we see the prediction that "a new heart" would be given to him.

In the case of the list of saints in Heb 11 -- instead of seeing the total depravity that Romans 3 predicts for all fallen humans - we see the born-again condition of faith - where we have the Romans 2 Spirit effect of circumcision of the heart.

To "imagine a gospel" that does not call for What these - precross examples clearly show - is to "imagine another gospel".

in Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed for it is clear that both the New Covenant AND the requirement for a "heart after God's own heart" is a requirement in the OT among OT saints that "walked with God" - "the gentle spirit and contrite heart" of the born again believer has always been the Gospel effect on the people of God -- in all ages.

Your post above is a great example "of highlighting the details " in the text that are often deemed "inconvenient" by others.

Rather than glossing over these important details of scripture - you have emphasized them.

Nice going.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
ONE Gospel in ALL ages - not two.

Good to have someone else on board with this Gal 1:6-11 statement of Paul regarding the "ONE Gospel" of all time -- the SAMe one "preached to Abraham" according to Gal 3 -- the same one "preached to US just as it was to THEM also" according to Heb 4:1-2.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I think Mr. M explained this issue very well.

What he explained outstandingly is the aspect of Being Born Again as the quickening of the spirit.

My way of the explaining the works by the Holy Spirit is that HS was ABOVE ( or ON) the believers in the OT times, HS worked WITH the believers at the time of Jesus, dwells in the hearts of the Believers since the Pentecost.

But the word " believe" must be defined as the one approved by God.

In many cases, the people may believe in Jesus, in the eyes of the human being, but not in the eyes of God.

John 8:30 - many believed on Him
But Jesus said " you are trying to kill me" ( v 37)
and He continued to say " your father is devil" 8:44
Eventually they tried to stone Jesus ( 8:59)
Are they born again believers?

Gal 2:4 Paul mentioned " False brethren entered the church unawares."

1 John 2:19 - they went out from us, because they were not of us.

So, there are huge number of fake believers without being born again. They insist that they believe in Jesus and they were born again, though they were not actually in the eyes of God.
Many people succeed in cheating people, but will not be able to cheat the Almighty God as He knows the hearts of the people transparently.

As for the Being Born Again, we may say that even the OT people were born again after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, though they were all saved while they lived on the earth, as if they hade been saved on credit. Every promise in the OT was accomplished at the Cross and His resurrection.

Let's read 1 Pet 1:3

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


What Peter is talking about by ( Anagennao) is the same as John 3:3-7 ( gennao -anothen), and he linked it with the death and resurrection of Jesus.

 

What do you think? Please forgive me, but that seems like a rather silly question.

 

I want to extend my appology to Mr.T for this response. I was convicted almost immediately after I sent it and it bothered me all day. God reminded me of 1Pt 3:9. I do my best to not be drawn into these types of comments with anyone especially with brothers in Christ but occasionally I do fail. Please forgive my sin and may God Bless!

 

Amen brother! The key in your correct analysis is "after" Jesus' Death Burial and Ressurrection.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Faith in God's Word and God?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

If you meant me, Mr.M, allow me to assure you steaver that I was not offended in the least. My ears aren't so tender and my constitution so weak that I can't handle clever quips and well placed jabs in the midst of debate.

 

Why should Nicodemus have known about the "new birth"?

If you take the time to read Ezekiel chapters 33-39 you will see clearly the prophecy of the coming of "regeneration" of the spirit and heart by God. Nicodemus should have known about "born-again" even though those exact words were not used in the prophecy. Other places throughout the OT scriptures the prophetic Word of God creating a new heart within the believer was foretold. The Psalmist cried out for it to come (Ps 51:10).

Nicodemus could have known exactly what Jesus was speaking of seeing he was a "master" of the OT. Born-again is not something that had always been done, but rather it was a prophecy of things to come along with the death, burial and ressurrection of the Messiah, which btw, no master of Israel knew was coming either even though it was plainly written in Isaiah. No master taught of a slain Messiah, yet it was written in their books. It is the same for the rebirth, it was not taught even though it was written in the Book!

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Sorry, your handle made me think of Mr.T :laugh: . I meant no disrespect.

I needed to appologize for my own conscience. Even if you are not offended by the jab it still was not right in the eyes of our Lord for me to do so.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

I wonder how the people who claim the Baptismal Regeneration can explain this issue.

For your clarification, I would point out the problems with Baptismal Regeneration here.

Baptismal Regeneration means that one can be born again when he or she is baptized in the water. Such belief was presented on this board many times by a Lutheran, Church of Christ, and RCC, and so on.
I think even John Calvin claimed it as well.

Now, from that point of view, when a baby is baptised, he or she is born again and saved.
Then, how would they explain about the believing? Would they necessarily believe in Jesus if they are baptised since they were born again by Water Baptism?

To me, the Baptismal Regeneration is a ridiculous theory bringing millions of unbelievers into the Christendom.

I believe only the Believers' Baptism by the total immersion is demonstrated and taught in the Bible.

Truly Believing is the same as Being born again by Water and Holy Spirit.

Without the revival of the spirit, no one can believe in Jesus Christ in the spiritual depth desired by God, which means that one must be born again so that he or she may believe in God in the spirit and in the truth.( Jn 4:23)

Water in the sentence of John 3:5 is the Word of God which has the power of Cleansing, and it is the expression style of John as we read in 1 John 5:8. However, the people claiming Baptismal Regeneration do not accept such interpretation but claim that it means the water baptism.

 

All those who believed were not saved. John 12:42-43 makes that crystal clear: Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Others don't read carefully John 1:12-13 (ESV), "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

What did he do for believers? He gave them the right to BECOME children of God. They are not automatically children when they only believe, but believers have the right to become children. Those in John 12:42 never followed through.

As for Nicodemus, what were Jesus instructions for? To enter the Kingdom (John 3:5). What did he need to do in order to enter the Kingdom? Be born of the water and the spirit.

Jesus prayed, "Thy kingdom come" (Lk 11:2). Some would not taste death till they saw the kingdom come (Mark 9:1). Nicodemus could not be added to something that had not yet come. The preaching of John the baptizer was "The kingdom of Heaven is at hand" (Matt 3:2). Jesus and his apostle preached the kingdom was at hand (Matt 4:17; 10:7).

Jesus uses the terms church and kingdom interchangablly in Matt 16:18-19. When one understands that the church is the kingdom and the church/kingdom was established in Acts 2, then it all makes sense.

It makes sense how Jesus could say that some of his audience would see the kingdom come with power (Mark 9:1). The apostles were to remain in Jerusalem until they received power (Luke 24:49). The apostles would received power after the Holy Spirit fell on them (Acts 1:8) They received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4).

Those who believed (Acts 2:37) the message had the right to become children. Peter, speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4) told them to repent and be baptized (water) for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Those who received this message were baptized and added to them (Acts 2:41). Added to what? The Church (Acts 2:47).

Back in Matt 16, "Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered him...And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven"

In Acts 2, Peter opens the doors to the Church.

Therefore, those in Acts 2 were born of the water and the Spirit and added to the church/kingdom. Some of Jesus' audience in Mark 9:1 did see the kingdom/church come with power.

Just as it happened in Acts 2, it is described in I Cor 12:13, "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

The body is the church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18), therefore, in one Spirit, we are baptized (water) into one church/kingdom, a fulfillment of Jesus statement to Nicodemus in John 3:5, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Having said all that, Nicodemus could not have been added to the kingdom until it was established. However he could have been baptized under the baptism of John and added to the kingdom when it was established. The baptism of John was in effect until the establishment of the kingdom and after that was void (Acts 19:1-5) and baptism in the name of Jesus became the requirement. There is no evidence that any of those baptized under John baptism prior to the establishment of the church had to be re-baptized after the establishment of the church in order to be added to the church. It is these folks that, in my opinion, that those who repented and were baptized in Acts 2 were "added" to.

To be baptized in the name of Jesus is to be baptized by his authority. In Matt 28:18, Jesus had been given ALL authority and then commissions his apostles to go and preach the gospel to all nations, those who believed and were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be saved, but those who did not believe would be condemned (Parphrase of combined parallel passages (Matt 28:18-20 and Mark 16:16).

This commission was first carried out in Acts 2. Therefore anyone baptized under John's baptism post Acts 2, was not baptized in the name of Jesus and therefore, their baptism was not valid and it would be required for them to be baptized under the proper authority (i.e., in the name of Jesus - Acts 19:1-5).

So, I think that Jesus did give Nicodemus valid instructions which still apply to us today. Whether Nicodemus was baptized under John's baptism which is probably the case, or in the name of Jesus on or past Pentecost, the bible does not say. What is clear is that he MUST be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom, the same for us today.

 

I have known many members of the Church of Christ and NOT ONE OF THE BELIEVES IN BAPTISMAL REGENERATION as you describe it. Not one.

Let me make this clear. Biblical baptism is not being buried in water for any and all reasons. If that were the case, then everyone who went swimming would have their sins washed away. Do you think the Eunuch had never been underwater??? Do you think those 3000 in Acts 2 had never been underwater???

Biblical baptism has prerequisites. One must believe (Mark 16:16). One must repent (Acts 2:28). One must be willing to confess that belief in Jesus as the Son of God (Acts 8:36-38). If you don't do these, you are just going under water, you are not being baptized for the remission of sins and in Acts 2. However to deny that baptism has any part in the regeneration process is absurd. Clear passages such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Col 2:12, I Cor 12:13, Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27, and I Pet 3:21 clearly show that baptism has part in being saved, having the remission of sins, having our sins washed away, becoming a part of the church, getting INTO Christ, and being saved.

For anyone who thinks the power is in the water and not in God is mistaken.

So you believe that a believer must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)?
So you believe that a believer must be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16)?
So you believe that baptism is the point when our sins are washed away (Acts 22:16).
So you believe that preaching Jesus includes instructions for water baptism (Acts 8:5,12, 35-36)?
So you believe that baptism is for all nations (Matt 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16)?
So you believe that baptism puts one INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27).
So you believe that baptism now saves us (I Pet 3:21)?
So you believe that baptism is a burial in which God works (Col 2:12)?
So you believe that there is but one baptism (Eph 4:5)?

I guess we believe the same thing.

What??? Talk about circular reasoning. You cannot believe like you should until you are born again, then you can truly believe. So can one be born again without believing?

God's word produces faith (Rom 10:17). How can they believe in whom they have not heard?

Here is the process as described by Paul:

Rom 10:14-17 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

So you hear the message preached next you believe and obey it.

See my other post to see how John 3:5 relates in perfect harmony with Acts 2.

To simply state that Jesus really meant born of the Word and the Spirit when he actually stated born of the water and the Spirit, does not make it so, especially when you have actual examples of people hearing the word spoken though the spirit and being baptized in water at the command of Jesus (Mark 16:15-16, Matt 28:18-20, Acts 2).