|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 11, 2008 6:03:12 GMT -5
....morning campers  I've been chatting to a "Jehovah's Witness" friend of mine recently. As most of you probably know, the JW's believe that there is a twin destiny for humankind. 144,000 go to heaven, and the rest are resurrected back here on the earth. Now his specific gripe with regards accepting that anyone prior to Christ's generation could possible go to heaven is the following scripture. John 3:5 - "Jesus said in answer, Truly, I say to you, If a man's birth is not from water and from the Spirit, it is not possible for him to go into the kingdom of God".His reasoning being, the OT faithfuls have not been born from "water and spirit", hence they are not "born again", hence it's not possible for them to get into the Kingdom of God. Now I've pointed out scriptures such as Matt 8:11, which describes those whom the JW's would view as "anointed" (the 144,000) as reclining with the OT faithful in the Kingdom of the Heavens, plus a few other bits and pieces from Hebrews. But the point is, he can't get past the fact that since none of them were "born again", they just CAN'T have a heavenly hope. Thus, it is impossible for him to take certain scriptures at face value. So I'm wondering how you would address/explain the above scripture to him, in light of his specific objection. I've got a few ideas of my own, but am just wondering whether anyone has anything interesting to offer. I suppose the place to start would be to discuss what it actually means to be "born again". What does it mean to be born from water and spirit? Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Oct 11, 2008 18:15:45 GMT -5
Hi Paul!
Just a few random associations from scripture about being born again of water and the spirit. Water represents the word of God, and spirit represents our acting upon that word. If we receive it and live by it, we are born again.
Joh 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Rom 8:13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Col 3:15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, ...
Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, ...
Col 3:17 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.
Rom 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, ...
Heb 8:10 ...I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS...
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Joh 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
Joh 3:8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
Luk 17:20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;
Luk 17:21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."
There are those in the OT who were blameless or righteous before God, such as Noah (Gen 6:9) and Job (Job 1:1). And David, a man after God's own heart.
Numbers 15:39 ...do them [God's commandments] and not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, ...
1 Samuel 13:14 ...The LORD has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you."
That's all for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 11, 2008 18:28:24 GMT -5
Hi Once4all, Thanks a lot for your thoughts. Water represents the word of God, and spirit represents our acting upon that word. What scriptures would you use to support "water" representing the word of God? Cheers bud. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Oct 11, 2008 19:30:09 GMT -5
Hi Paul, I believe Eph. 5:26 would be a good verse showing the act of washing with water through the word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 11, 2008 19:53:59 GMT -5
Hi Paul, I believe Eph. 5:26 would be a good verse showing the act of washing with water through the word. Hi Allyn, Thanks for the scripture. I was wondering, have you listened to Steve Gregg's take on what the "water" refers to? (from the link you posted a few days ago). He makes the argument that John 3:6 explains John 3:5. So in v.5 it talks about being "born of water" and of "spirit", and in v.6 it talks about being "born of flesh" and of "spirit". So he concludes that being "born of water" relates to actual physical birth (a notion which Robertson suggests as a possibility too), what with waters breaking....birth taking place......and what not. I'm not totally on board with this idea...yet (if at all).....but it does make a modicum of sense....certainly more sense than the "water" relating to baptism, which I think is my friends preferred explanation. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Oct 11, 2008 20:29:04 GMT -5
No Paul, I haven't listened to that. I'm not sure, are you saying you are totally on board with Gregg's interpretation? Just asking.
I'll read over those passages again. At this time I think that Jesus, speaking of salvation, would be more apt to speak of it in terms of how we get there rather than how we get here.
See ya
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 11, 2008 20:53:27 GMT -5
Hi Allyn,
No, I'm not saying that I'm totally on board with Gregg's interpretation. I'm just trying to understand it, because when I first heard it, it seemed weird to my ears. But now I've listened to both his tapes on the subject, I have a better grasp of what it is he's trying to say, and it makes a little more sense to me. The phrase "born of flesh" could conceivably be synonymous with "born of water".
Why his talk was of interest to me personally, is because at one time (many moons ago) I entertained the idea that being "born again" related to the type of body we would be given in the resurrection. Since flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom, I imagined that:
First birth = Fleshy body = Earthly life
Second birth, or being born again = Spirit body = Heavenly life.
Hence his talk tweaked my interest a little.
Anyway, I digress........back to the main point. Would you say that Abraham was "born again"?
EDIT: Just to summarize Gregg's three views (for anyone vaguely interested, who can't be bothered to trawl through hours of audio), he gives three possible explanations.
Option one: The "water" refers to baptism, and the "spirit" to God's Spirit. He dismisses this view on the grounds that the thief on the cross was not baptized, yet seemingly was due a heavenly reward.
Option 2:The "water" refers to physical birth. The terms "born of water" and "born of flesh" are synonymous. Verse 6 explains verse 5. The "spirit" again refers to God's Spirit. This, I think, is his favored view.
Option 3: Again, this is a view that is new to me, but not impossible. He ties in John 3:3-5 in with Eze 36:26,26.
Eze 36:25,26 - "And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 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 a heart of flesh
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by john14and9 on Oct 11, 2008 21:36:36 GMT -5
Hi Allyn, No, I'm not saying that I'm totally on board with Gregg's interpretation. I'm just trying to understand it, because when I first heard it, it seemed weird to my ears. But now I've listened to both his tapes on the subject, I have a better grasp of what it is he's trying to say, and it makes a little more sense to me. The phrase "born of flesh" could conceivably be synonymous with "born of water". Why his talk was of interest to me personally, is because at one time (many moons ago) I entertained the idea that being "born again" related to the type of body we would be given in the resurrection. Since flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom, I imagined that: First birth = Fleshy body = Earthly life Second birth, or being born again = Spirit body = Heavenly life. Hence his talk tweaked my interest a little. Anyway, I digress........back to the main point. Would you say that Abraham was "born again"? EDIT: Just to summarize Gregg's three views (for anyone vaguely interested, who can't be bothered to trawl through hours of audio), he gives three possible explanations. Option one: The "water" refers to baptism, and the "spirit" to God's Spirit. He dismisses this view on the grounds that the thief on the cross was not baptized, yet seemingly was due a heavenly reward. Option 2:The "water" refers to physical birth. The terms "born of water" and "born of flesh" are synonymous. Verse 6 explains verse 5. The "spirit" again refers to God's Spirit. This, I think, is his favored view. Option 3: Again, this is a view that is new to me, but not impossible. He ties in John 3:3-5 in with Eze 36:26,26. Eze 36:25,26 - "And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 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 a heart of fleshPaul In John 3..Jesus tells Nicodemus that He must become Born Again.. I read where Jesus tells him this but I do not read where Jesus shows him HOW TO.. John 17:20- Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their wordIt is interesting Jesus left this task up to His Disciples..  |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 11, 2008 21:41:52 GMT -5
There are 2 births we must go thru before we can enter the kingdom. If you have ever witnessed childbirth, a baby is born when the mother's water breaks. Being born in blood is a picture of passing thru death. The testimony of Jesus is that His two manifestations in the earth were as a mortal man thru natural birth and then again as an immortal man thru death.
(1 John 5:6-8) This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. {7} For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. {8} And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
These 3 witnesses: the incarnation of Jesus, His resurrection and the sending of the Holy Spirit is our witness and the foundation of our faith in Christ. These are the evidences we have been given - the signs which prove Jesus as the Son of Man and the Son of God - is the Messiah, who was to fulfill the promise of the new covenant by sending the Holy Spirit.
When Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again from above, He expected that he would know this was the promise given to Abraham. For unless we have been quickened in spirit we are not reconciled to God. This is what the JW doesn't understand about God's covenant with Abraham and the hope that it contained. Yet all the OT saints would remain dead until the time that Messiah arrived to secure the promise and fulfill all the requirements of His justice according to His word. This is now different for the NT saint who has received the Spirit and has been given eternal life under the new covenant. We do not rest in death nor even as disembodied spirits, but pass thru death to eternal life and receive new spiritual bodies made without hands.
I do think there was a short time that those who were dead in Christ had to wait because prophecy was still being fulfilled. And perhaps they waited as disembodied spirits much like Christ did before He returned to His body. But I don't see why that would be the case anymore now that all these things pertaining to when the resurrection would come were fulfilled. Once the dead were raised up, our transformation would be instantaneous upon death - which is what Paul says. And Jesus said that the living who believe in Him would never die unto the age. Which was right before He raised Lazarus from the dead - so he could have a part in that promise - though his physical body would die again.
The whole point which the JW misses is that we have been given the life of Christ in the new birth so that we can pass thru death as He did. Because Jesus and the Father were one, death could not hold Him. This is what Adam lost that had to be replaced - his connection to the life which only God has.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Oct 11, 2008 23:06:30 GMT -5
... EDIT: Just to summarize Gregg's three views (for anyone vaguely interested, who can't be bothered to trawl through hours of audio), he gives three possible explanations. Option one: The "water" refers to baptism, and the "spirit" to God's Spirit. He dismisses this view on the grounds that the thief on the cross was not baptized, yet seemingly was due a heavenly reward. Option 2:The "water" refers to physical birth. The terms "born of water" and "born of flesh" are synonymous. Verse 6 explains verse 5. The "spirit" again refers to God's Spirit. This, I think, is his favored view. Option 3: Again, this is a view that is new to me, but not impossible. He ties in John 3:3-5 in with Eze 36:26,26. Eze 36:25,26 - "And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 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 a heart of fleshPaul Well, as much as I hate to say it because we usually agree on most things, I have always found the "water refers to physical birth" to be rather ludicrous. The thief on the cross not being baptized is an empty argument. For one thing, how do they know that he wasn't baptized? The argument is based on assumption. But, secondly, during his ministry, Jesus saved others. The thief was the last of those Jesus saved while He was alive in the flesh. Instead of saying "your faith has healed you" or, in one case, "your faith has saved you," this man on the cross was about to die right there, that very day, alongside Jesus. So Jesus said something to him that was more immediate to the circumstances, "today you will be with me in paradise." Here's an explanation of John 3:3-7 that I wrote years ago: 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."(Jesus stated plainly that to enter the kindom of God one must be born again.) 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"(Notice that Nicodemus understood that Jesus is explaining a second birth. He knows he was born the first time; he is asking how a man can be born a second time when he is OLD. And notice that he asked TWO QUESTIONS.) 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.(Jesus now explained how one is born again, a second time, when a man is old: of water and the Spirit. He has answered Nicodemus' FIRST question.) 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.(And now Jesus answered Nicodemus' SECOND question. No, you cannot enter a second time into your mother's womb because to be born of the flesh again would still result in flesh. But one must be born of the Spirit.) 7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'The water and Spirit aspects of the new birth are repeated in Titus 3:5 - Titus 3 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, And Allyn brought in Ephesians 5:26 - Eph 5:26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, I confess that I've always been of the opinion that the "water" in John 3:5 referred to water baptism and it was only in reviewing it today in response to your OP that I'm looking at it differently, as referring to the word of God. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 12, 2008 5:11:50 GMT -5
Morning Once4all, Well, as much as I hate to say it because we usually agree on most things, I have always found the "water refers to physical birth" to be rather ludicrous. Well, as I said to Allyn, I'm not totally sold on the idea yet, so don't feel bad about disagreeing....lol. It's an explanation that's only come to light these past few days (for me), so I'm just giving it the test drive. I'm not sure it's the strongest solution. But equally, I'm not sure that the water being God's word is a strong solution either. I think baptism is the most logical answer, but it seems to fall apart on analysis. So the search goes on. Plus, I'm not so sure that being "born of water" couldn't be synonymous with being "born of flesh". Is it really such a stretch? Water's certainly involved. Robertson seems to think it's at least a possibility, and I have to say, I agree with him. If you fancy listening to some of Gregg's reasonings, try this link. www.thenarrowpath.com/life_of_christ.htmlIt's volume 2, tape 4....last 15 minutes of side A and the beginning of side B (if memory serves me correct). The thief on the cross not being baptized is an empty argument. For one thing, how do they know that he wasn't baptized? The argument is based on assumption. Well, saying that he was baptised is also based on assumption, and I would say is by far the weaker of the two arguments. Scripture describes the thief as an "evildoer". He freely admits that death is a just reward for his deeds. This doesn't sound to me like the words or behaviour of a converted, baptised man. 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, And Allyn brought in Ephesians 5:26 - Eph 5:26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, I confess that I've always been of the opinion that the "water" in John 3:5 referred to water baptism and it was only in reviewing it today in response to your OP that I'm looking at it differently, as referring to the word of God. Hmmm...it's certainly a possibility. I'll give it some serious thought over the next few days. There's something about it that I'm not keen on and I can't place it at the moment. Perhaps I just need to bed the idea in somewhat. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts...plenty to think on. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 12, 2008 5:19:39 GMT -5
Hi Robin,
Thanks for your contribution. You have more or less outlined how I used to look at this passage, and filled in some of the details that I wasn't aware of. I think this explanation is certainly a contender.
The only query I have with what you said is your inclusion of 1John5:6-8. Are you suggesting that the water and blood part is in are reference to Christ's physical birth...and not, as is the common view, his baptism and death? Do you have any further info on this?
With the other stuff, I'm on board. First birth fleshy, second birth spiritual. Yep. No problems there. And we are talking about entering the kingdom of the heavens too, so a change from the physical to the spiritual does make sense.
Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Oct 12, 2008 9:23:35 GMT -5
Good morning, Paul. I only have a few minutes in which to finish my cereal, chug down my coffee, and start getting ready for church. In fact, I'm already 10 minutes late with it! I agree with you that the assumption that the thief was not baptized is stronger than an assumption that he was. My point, though, really, is that the status of the thief in regard to baptism is not really relevant to the topic regarding the meaning of water and being born again. The meaning and purpose of baptism changed after Jesus died and rose from the dead. OK, I'll use my mind racing to hurry as an excuse for what I'm about to write.  2Pe 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 2Pe 3:6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 2Pe 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. I can't remember the terminology, but you know the Jewish practice of writing things in pairs, two different ways. By the word of God the heavens existed... the earth was formed out of water and BY WATER. (2 Pet 3:5) How was the earth created "by water"? I always thought that was unusual wording. Gotta run! Have a wonderful day, brother. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 12, 2008 12:44:28 GMT -5
The only query I have with what you said is your inclusion of 1John5:6-8. Are you suggesting that the water and blood part is in are reference to Christ's physical birth...and not, as is the common view, his baptism and death? Do you have any further info on this? Hi Paul, It comes more from a recent word study on "appearance" and "coming" and "manifest". But also for our baptism to be a spiritual antitype of Jesus' death and resurrection, it must be founded upon what Jesus actually did to create the type. His own baptism was to show His being chosen by God as Israel's Messiah in fulfillment of prophecy. Whereas our baptism is signifying our being chosen in Him. Both would seem to be antitypes. But Jesus did not come into the world thru His baptism, rather it was the miracle of His incarnation as a man. He was thus manifested to us in this world by His birth and His resurrection. Two concrete visible things which can then provide the type. The descending of the dove/Spirit accompanied by a voice from heaven is also a witness. So even if the 3rd witness being the Spirit descending is His baptism (rather than the sending of the Holy Spirit to us - I change my mind a lot!); these are 3 specific witnesses that tell us Jesus is the One whom God sent. In any case, I don't think the water would be signifying His baptism and that would leave His miraculous birth as what it symbolizes. Which testimony is covered at great length in the gospels too because it fulfills the prophecy about Him. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 12, 2008 13:14:25 GMT -5
Hi Once4all, I agree with you that the assumption that the thief was not baptized is stronger than an assumption that he was. My point, though, really, is that the status of the thief in regard to baptism is not really relevant to the topic regarding the meaning of water and being born again. Yeah, it's not relevant to me either. I was simply outlining Gregg's three theories on what it means to be "born again" (for the sake of anyone who might be interested). I was asking Allyn if he'd listened to Gregg's sermon on the subject, and decided to stick a precis at the bottom of my post, for people to follow along if they wanted. As I've stated elsewhere, I think the "baptism" theory ostensibly looks the stronger of Gregg's offered options. But it falls apart on closer examination. However, and this seems to be the crux of the matter, it doesn't fall apart if you're a JW. In my mind Gregg's baptism = water theory crumbles because the thief wasn't baptised, nor were the OT faithful. Yet scripture clearly has this later group reclining in the kingdom of the heavens, and the former "hanging" with Jesus in paradise. So if baptism is a part of the "born again" process, then these guys don't qualify......YET scripture clearly pens them in as having a future heavenly existence. So on this front alone it fails, as far as I can see. But from a Jehovah's Witness point of view, this objection fails because (a) they don't see the thief as going to heaven anyway and (b) they don't see the OT faithful as going to heaven either. So what I need is, either a way of proving the JW view (of being "born again") to be erroneous. Or I need to present a more compelling explanation. To do both would be a bonus. 2Pe 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 2Pe 3:6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 2Pe 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. I can't remember the terminology, but you know the Jewish practice of writing things in pairs, two different ways. By the word of God the heavens existed... the earth was formed out of water and BY WATER. (2 Pet 3:5) How was the earth created "by water"? I always thought that was unusual wording. I'm not sure this translation is the best one. "The earth standing out of the water and in the water" (KJV), seems to make more sense to me. I had a quick look at the Greek, and this translation seems reasonably on the mark. Irrespective of that, I'm not really sure what the point is you're trying to make. When you get a few minutes could you elucidate for me? You know how thick I can be.....lol. Gotta run! Have a wonderful day, brother. You too....hope you weren't too late for church, and thanks again for your comments. They're much appreciated  Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 12, 2008 13:34:54 GMT -5
Hello Robin,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Do you think the process of being "born again" relates to BOTH being "born of water" (or being physically born from your mothers womb) and "being born of spirit"? Or just the latter? The reason I ask is that it seems odd that a requirement for being "born again" would be that you're physically born. That's not really something anyone has any control over. Plus, everyone alive has already fulfilled this requirement. So it seems a little redundant to me. And I'm assuming (please correct me if I'm wrong), that you see John 3:3-5 as being more of a statement of fact, as opposed to a requirement to be attained. Yes?
Also, what specifically do you see the being "born of spirit" part as relating to? Is it relating to a change in actual body, from flesh to spirit, in order to enter the kingdom of the heavens (presumably at death...as you gave the example of Jesus). Or do you see being "born of the spirit" as something that happens to us whilst we're alive? Being "born again", according to 1Pet 1:3, is something present tense, and not future tense. So how would you reconcile this with your view?
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead".
Thanks again.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 12, 2008 17:40:18 GMT -5
In John 3..Jesus tells Nicodemus that He must become Born Again.. I read where Jesus tells him this but I do not read where Jesus shows him HOW TO.. John 17:20- Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their wordIt is interesting Jesus left this task up to His Disciples.. Thanks for your comments. Perhaps it's not possible to be shown how to be "born again". Perhaps it's a process that happens naturally, and is something beyond the control of man. For example, if, as Robin suggests, being "born of water" relates to physical birth, this is not really something that can be taught. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Oct 12, 2008 18:25:17 GMT -5
... I'm not sure this translation is the best one. "The earth standing out of the water and in the water" (KJV), seems to make more sense to me. I had a quick look at the Greek, and this translation seems reasonably on the mark. Irrespective of that, I'm not really sure what the point is you're trying to make. When you get a few minutes could you elucidate for me? You know how thick I can be.....lol. 2Pe 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, -- By the word of God (1) ---- the heavens existed (i.e., created) (2) ---- the earth was formed (i.e., created) (2) -- By water. (1) It's kind of a tiny symmetric parallel or chiasm. Or rather, IF it is, it would show that water can refer to the word of God. As an example, Genesis 2:4 is a small chiasm: Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. -- The heavens (1) ---- and the earth (2) ------ were created, (3) ------ God made (3) ---- earth (2) -- and heaven. (1) OK, yes, I'm probably stretching...  P.S.... I added the following a short time later to the post: 1Pe 1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 13, 2008 5:44:34 GMT -5
Morning bud,
Okay, so using 1Pet 1:23 as a basis for proving that being "born again" somehow relates to (a) the word of God (water), and (b) how taking it to heart causes our spirit to act in a favourable way, would you say that Abraham (for example) was born again? When we say the "word of God", I'm assuming that in some instances we're talking about his actual spoken word, and not in all instances his written word (since Abraham had no written word to consult). Yes?
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Oct 13, 2008 12:05:05 GMT -5
Morning bud, Okay, so using 1Pet 1:23 as a basis for proving that being "born again" somehow relates to (a) the word of God (water), and (b) how taking it to heart causes our spirit to act in a favourable way, would you say that Abraham (for example) was born again? When we say the "word of God", I'm assuming that in some instances we're talking about his actual spoken word, and not in all instances his written word (since Abraham had no written word to consult). Yes? Paul Ack. I know this is getting back to your original question and the JW, but I'm not thinking straight this morning. However, I did make another water-word connection from scripture this morning: Psa 1:1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! Psa 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night. Psa 1:3 He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season And its leaf does not wither; But getting back to being born again. There might be more than one way to look at it? For example, 1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Certainly no one can have been born again in that way before the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of Christ is our living hope. Sorry for the disjointed thoughts. I'm in a rush. Another thing I just noticed in John 3 is that verse 5 refers to being born of water and the Spirit and verse 8 says only "born of the Spirit." This is a good case (though a small one) for born of water relating to flesh. I'll quit adding more confusion now. Talk to you later! Bev |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 13, 2008 16:16:55 GMT -5
Hiya Bev, Couple of interesting things here. Firstly, 1Peter 1:3 talks about this "new birth" as present tense. So this seems to rule out what I was talking about earlier, that the being "born from spirit" somehow relates to a change from flesh, through death, to spirit. And I'm not keen on the idea of there being various ways to be "born again". Personally speaking, if I an explanation doesn't fit across the board, then I tend to think that the explanation is in error somewhere and needs reworking. Not in all cases...but I think probably in this one. I'm not too keen on inconsistency. And yes, I agree that the emphasis does seem to be on the being "born of spirit", as opposed to the being "born of water". I do like the idea of the being "born of water" relating to physical birth...my reasons being, firstly, it's wholly possible that the purpose of verse 6 is to explain verse 5. That makes sense to me. Secondly, In verse 4 Nicodemus is actually speaking of physical birth. So again, a contextual connection is made. That still leaves us with the problem of what being "born of the spirit" is exactly. I had in mind last night a little of that book, "The Unitarian Advocate". Can you remember what chapter is was that discussed the meaning of Christ/God being in you? I'd like to ponder that section again. I think it might give some clues. Thanks  Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Oct 13, 2008 23:08:17 GMT -5
Paul, I can't find the link to that document! Could you send it back to me?  I have it bookmarked on my computer at work, but I haven't been at work since 2 October and won't be back until 20 October. I'm on holiday and it has been lovely.  I've been reading a book on Hebrews in the evenings, aloud to my hubby. We finished it this evening. Tonight's reading included Hebrews 11 and it contained some things that I think may pertain to this discussion. Heb 11:39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, Heb 11:40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect. So we know these OT saints are saved. Their faith, as our faith, is in the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Since in 1 Peter 1:3, it says that we are "born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," (that "living hope" is our faith in what God has "prepared for those who love Him"-1 Cor 2:9), why couldn't the hope in the future promises (their faith) also be what the OT saints had that would make them also "born again." Horrible sentence, that. Hope you get my meaning. Another way to see it is that the OT saints were saved by their faith in God's promises (the big one was to bring a future Messiah). For us, now that Messiah has come, the object of our faith is in what his coming has accomplished... our future hope of resurrection. Jesus is still the object of faith because it was he who is the author of it, the firstborn from the dead. Might want to read the verses in 1 Cor 2 that follow 2:9, since they talk about having the Spirit of God. Also Galatians 3 about those having the faith of Abraham being sons of Abraham, and the concluding verses that say we are all one in Christ Jesus, and if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants and heirs according to the promise. I don't see any room there for "special saints" who get to live in eternity with God, and all other believers who get a lesser reward of living on earth. I think there's enough there to contemplate for now. Bev |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 14, 2008 10:16:32 GMT -5
Hi Bev,
I don't think I have the link any more myself, but I did download the book in .pdf format, so I'll email that to you in a few minutes.
Some interesting comments. Do you think then that being "born again" relates to resurrection.....as Christ was "born again" through his resurrection from the dead , thus opening the way for us to be similarly "born again", because of the sacrifice he made?
And like you say, the OT guys put their faith in something that wasn't yet a reality. Their hope was yet to be confirmed and realised. I wonder if that's why 1Pet 1:3 talks about "being "born again" in the future tense. Speaking of things yet to occur as if they'd already happened. Because Christ died and rose again, then our hope in a resurrection is as certain as if it were already accomplished.
Am emailing you now.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 14, 2008 21:15:18 GMT -5
Let me try.
Faith and the promise go together whether OC or NC. Abraham was declared righteous by God because of his faith in the promise. That places him among the just as far as the future resurrection was concerned. Problem was that under the OC if a righteous man returned to wickedness, his previous righteous state was lost to him - See Ezek 18. Hence the need to repeat the sacrifices over and over. Sacrifices were never effective if one had not also repented - and the same rule applies under the NC. Also one must still continue to walk with God until the end if he is to be saved.
What changed under the NC - what the OT saints were waiting for, was what would bring in their resurrection. As well as a new power to live the godly life which Christ wrought for the living. Man had to be reconciled to God to become as Adam was when he walked in the Garden with God. Under the OC this relationship to God was precarious & fearsome, because of sin - which the law enforced its penalty. Under the NC we are not entirely like Adam yet, but our relationship to God has been restored because our sin has been forgiven. Therefore we can come before the throne of God with boldness and confidence that He will hear our prayers and answer them.
The difference between the two ministrations is that one was to bring the man into death and the other to bring him into life. The only way man will be fully restored to his relationship with God is after his body of flesh - which sin has defiled, dies. This is why the present millennial reign is not over a fully restored kingdom - that will only come to us after death. But we can enjoy a new relationship with God and share in His life, so that God is once again leading and guiding man with his cooperation.
Adam would probably have never died had he not sinned, because the Lord sustained him by His word. When Adam listened to another voice though and disobeyed, he fell from the grace of God which was sustaining him, and death would be the result of his separation from God. This is also our present condition - in the sense that we still must die because our flesh is defiled by sin, but now we can hear God and discern which voice we will obey in our new man born of the Spirit.
And because the death & life of Christ has been imputed to us and sin is not, we will pass right thru death into eternal life - like He did. We are not dependent upon maintaining our own righteousness in order to prevent death as was the case under the OC; rather we partake of the righteousness of Christ so that we can live His life and know that life will never end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Oct 16, 2008 10:14:46 GMT -5
MoGrace, I agree with most of what you wrote, but I don't buy in to the Reformed concept of imputed righteousness, which seems to go hand-in-hand with OSAS. Other than that, you made some good points.
Paul, sorry I haven't replied to your last post. Yesterday was a full day away from the computer, and today and Friday are looking about the same unless I grab a few minutes in the morning as I am now.
Hope you all have a great day today. God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 16, 2008 12:49:55 GMT -5
MoGrace, I agree with most of what you wrote, but I don't buy in to the Reformed concept of imputed righteousness, which seems to go hand-in-hand with OSAS. Other than that, you made some good points. Yet we have a positional identity with Christ's death and resurrection. We therefore stand in His righteousness and not our own. This the OT saint could not do, and so the need for sacrifice. It seems to me that if we abide in this standing we have in Christ we have the assurance that we will be saved from death and given life. It is why the Priesthood of Christ is important to the believer and considered to be the anchor of our hope in Him. The ever present now is where we stand fast - whether here or in eternity. But while here we do so by faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 16, 2008 18:12:36 GMT -5
Hi Robin, Thanks again for your time and efforts. Sorry it's taken a while to respond. I've been busy with work these past few days and I'm tired beyond belief. I'm not sure I agree with your last paragraph, but that isn't the subject of this topic, so I'll leave it for now. As for the other stuff, excellent. Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts into words. It's been very helpful for me Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Oct 16, 2008 18:15:47 GMT -5
Hi Bev, No hurry about responding. Take your time. Answering is voluntary not mandatory...lol. I've had a pretty busy few days too, so I know where you're coming from. And I've been putting in central heating today...or at least getting started. My body feels like it's a hundred years old. Not enough hours in the day  Paul |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Nov 22, 2008 11:38:06 GMT -5
I just saw something interesting on this subject this morning looking at Phil 2:7-8 and 3:21.
If you consider that Jesus is a self-existent Spirit being who came into this world thru the incarnation - into a body prepared for Him by the power of the Holy Spirit; then consider how it is like this that we come into the heavenly realm - it gives a good understanding of what being "born again" pictures for our "resurrection".
We must be given the life of God that Jesus possesses to have the same eternal life in our quickened spirits so that we have spirits like His. With an immortal spirit we can then be brought into the heavenly realm upon death and be "birthed" into new bodies made without hands. Which is much like how Jesus was brought into the physical realm as a man, and likewise we will be brought into the spiritual realm in a similar fashion.
Is that cool or what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Nov 22, 2008 12:41:50 GMT -5
I just saw something interesting on this subject this morning looking at Phil 2:7-8 and 3:21. If you consider that Jesus is a self-existent Spirit being who came into this world thru the incarnation - into a body prepared for Him by the power of the Holy Spirit; then consider how it is like this that we come into the heavenly realm - it gives a good understanding of what being "born again" pictures for our "resurrection". We must be given the life of God that Jesus possesses to have the same eternal life in our quickened spirits so that we have spirits like His. With an immortal spirit we can then be brought into the heavenly realm upon death and be "birthed" into new bodies made without hands. Which is much like how Jesus was brought into the physical realm as a man, and likewise we will be brought into the spiritual realm in a similar fashion. Is that cool or what? Very cool |
|
