New Birth

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Believing in the bible did not mean what we think today. It involved more. Jesus stated in John 17:20 that we must believe on him through the apostles' words. And when we read references to the need to believe such as in 1 John, without any clarification, we must go to where they actually preached to people, in Acts. There we find the full deal with how to believe and what it entailed.

We believe on Jesus through the apostles words by reading what the apostles recorded about Him, more specifically the words of Jesus Himself.

You guys think someone can read every word Jesus spoke in the gospels and die lost without Acts. Missing the whole point of what it is to believe in Christ and willingly blind to the fact that even if we take the book of Acts as the handbook of salvation, the only people who spoke in tongues were the apostles, Cornelius' household, 12 Ephesians, and possibly the Samaritans in Acts chapter 8. This ignores the fact there is no indication that the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost spoke in tongues, the 5,000 of Acts 4:4, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, nor anyone else spoke in tongues. And also the plain meaning of 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, to say nothing of trying to force a cryptic tongues message into the new testament over the simple, clear, and oft repeated message that salvation is freely available to all who will repent of their sins and trust in Christ as Savior (no strings attached).

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

We believe on Jesus through the apostles words by reading what the apostles recorded about Him, more specifically the words of Jesus Himself.

You missed the point. Jesus told us to hear the apostles for he said they would explain how to believe on Him. That's Jesus' own words. He easn not talking about theyr writings of His ministry. He only spoke vaguely on many issues.

Joh 16:25 KJV These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

And He showed them via the Holy Ghost revelations they received after they were Spirit filled.

You guys think someone can read every word Jesus spoke in the gospels and die lost without Acts.

They ALMOST would die lost without Acts, because the apostles were said by Jesus to be the ones we must heed in order to believe on Him. Jesus said that, bro. But Luke 24:47-49 essentially is the directive for what Peter said in Acts 2:38.

Missing the whole point of what it is to believe in Christ and willingly blind to the fact that even if we take the book of Acts as the handbook of salvation, the only people who spoke in tongues were the apostles, Cornelius' household, 12 Ephesians, and possibly the Samaritans in Acts chapter 8.

Incorrect. The 120 spoke in tongues in acts 2. And each case where tongues are recored show the main pattern for what peoples, and need not be mentioned in detail each time it happened later. Even non-pentecostals and non-apostolics see that.

This ignores the fact there is no indication that the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost spoke in tongues, the 5,000 of Acts 4:4, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, nor anyone else spoke in tongues.

I disagree. The pattern was established.

And also the plain meaning of 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, to say nothing of trying to force a cryptic tongues message into the new testament over the simple, clear, and oft repeated message that salvation is freely available to all who will repent of their sins and trust in Christ as Savior (no strings attached).

Who said anything about strings? That's a critic's interpretation of the issue.

The Lord spoke saying the apostle's word about Jesus would explain how to believe on Him. And we see NO additional things said by the apostles UNTIL ACTS 2. Peter preached what Jesus told them to preach in Luke 24:47-49. And after Peter preached it, with ONLY THOSE WORDS uttered from the mouths of the apostles after Jesus left the world, we read of the APOSTLES' DOCTRINE.

Act 2:37-42 KJV Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Where else do we find the apostles teaching anything since Christ left the world that we could attribute to as being the apostles doctrine, aside from what we read in Acts 2? We no sooner see Peter preaching exactly what Jesus told them to in Luke 24, AND NOTHING ELSE UTTERED BY THEM, before we read the people all continued in the apostles' doctrine. The apostles' doctrine was clearly the entire sermon, not just Acts 2:38, of Acts 2. But definitely includes Acts 2:8. WHY LEAVE THAT OUT? WHY OMIT THAT? Just because some people never realized the clear point of it and the majority of self-affirmed Christians do not obey it? What kind of handling of Bible is that?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Incorrect. The 120 spoke in tongues in acts 2. And each case where tongues are recored show the main pattern for what peoples, and need not be mentioned in detail each time it happened later. Even non-pentecostals and non-apostolics see that.

I disagree. The pattern was established.

Why do you find the tongues pattern more compelling than the "apostles presence" pattern?

I say the pattern is that in every case someone is mentioned as receiving the Holy Ghost in Acts an apostle was present.
You say the pattern is that in every case someone is menitioned as receiving the Holy Ghost in Acts that tongues were present.

How can you believe in only half of the actual recorded pattern?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Why do you find the tongues pattern more compelling than the "apostles presence" pattern?

I say the pattern is that in every case someone is mentioned as receiving the Holy Ghost in Acts an apostle was present.
You say the pattern is that in every case someone is menitioned as receiving the Holy Ghost in Acts that tongues were present.

How can you believe in only half of the actual recorded pattern?

You miss the point. All sorts of groups of people are covered int eh basic pattern. Jews in Acts 2. Gentiles in Acts 10 disciples of former leaders of God in Acts 19, namely those following John the Baptist. Why do you resist that pattern? It's a two-way street.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You miss the point. All sorts of groups of people are covered int eh basic pattern. Jews in Acts 2. Gentiles in Acts 10 disciples of former leaders of God in Acts 19, namely those following John the Baptist. Why do you resist that pattern? It's a two-way street.

I don't think any of it is a pattern. You do but only follow half the pattern actually shown is scripture.

Receiving the Holy Ghost examples all have 2 things in common.
1 speaking in tongues
2. Apostle being present

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I don't think any of it is a pattern. You do but only follow half the pattern actually shown is scripture.

Receiving the Holy Ghost examples all have 2 things in common.
1 speaking in tongues
2. Apostle being present

It's not so much a pattern as an established precedent.

[Chateau d'If]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

We believe on Jesus through the apostles words by reading what the apostles recorded about Him, more specifically the words of Jesus Himself.

You guys think someone can read every word Jesus spoke in the gospels and die lost without Acts. Missing the whole point of what it is to believe in Christ and willingly blind to the fact that even if we take the book of Acts as the handbook of salvation, the only people who spoke in tongues were the apostles, Cornelius' household, 12 Ephesians, and possibly the Samaritans in Acts chapter 8. This ignores the fact there is no indication that the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost spoke in tongues, the 5,000 of Acts 4:4, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, nor anyone else spoke in tongues. And also the plain meaning of 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, to say nothing of trying to force a cryptic tongues message into the new testament over the simple, clear, and oft repeated message that salvation is freely available to all who will repent of their sins and trust in Christ as Savior (no strings attached).

This. ^

In the same way the Oneness Pentecostal definition of "New Birth" is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the John 3 exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus.

There are 4 huge holes in their doctrine.

1. In that exchange Jesus did not once mention tongues or baptism yet somehow OP's interpret "water" as baptism and "Spirit" as tongues. He did, however, mention variants of the word "belief" EIGHT TIMES.

2. I struggle to comprehend how Oneness Pentecostals can use the passage to push three-step soteriology when the baptism of Spirit wasn't available to Nicodemus at the time. Why would Jesus require something of Nicodemus that wasn't available?

3. Jesus never asked Nicodemus to be born "again" of water and Spirit. He was already born of water (flesh). Jesus asked him to be born of the Spirit. THAT is the New Birth.

3 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

4 “What do you mean?” exclaimed Nicodemus. “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?”

5 Jesus replied, “I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. 6 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life. 7 So don’t be surprised when I say, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can’t tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can’t explain how people are born of the Spirit.”

4. We are born "again" when we believe. It is the Spirit that gives us life.

9 “How are these things possible?” Nicodemus asked.

10 Jesus replied, “You are a respected Jewish teacher, and yet you don’t understand these things? 11 I assure you, we tell you what we know and have seen, and yet you won’t believe our testimony. 12 But if you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life.

16 “For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.

18 “There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. 19 And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. 20 All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. 21 But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.”

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

This. ^

In the same way the Oneness Pentecostal definition of "New Birth" is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the John 3 exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus.

There are 4 huge holes in their doctrine.

1. In that exchange Jesus did not once mention tongues or baptism yet somehow OP's interpret "water" as baptism and "Spirit" as tongues. He did, however, mention variants of the word "belief" EIGHT TIMES.

But the entirety of the word must be considered. He did not even hardly want to talk to Nicodemus about the issue. Nicodemus kept pushing it. And Jesus did not preach this publicly, but in the night since Nic did not want to be known to dialogue with Jesus. You see this teaching no where in His public ministry.

But the deal is the Lord said the manner to believe would be explained by the apostles. And we would believe on Him through THEIR WORD. Their word was not made known first until Acts.

2. I struggle to comprehend how Oneness Pentecostals can use the passage to push three-step soteriology when the baptism of Spirit wasn't available to Nicodemus at the time. Why would Jesus require something of Nicodemus that wasn't available?

Baptism of the Spirit was distinctly said to not be available after Jesus spoke of coming to Him for living water.

John 7:37-39 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. (38) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (39) (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)]

The same reason He spoke of it and it not yet being available in John 7 is why he did in John 3.

3. Jesus never asked Nicodemus to be born "again" of water and Spirit. He was already born of water (flesh). Jesus asked him to be born of the Spirit. THAT is the New Birth.

I disagree. The ONLY form of reference to water and Spirit in Acts was baptisms. Far too coincidental for Acts to repeatedly mention water and Spirit baptism after Jesus mentions water and Spirit in new birth if they're not the same thing.

4. We are born "again" when we believe. It is the Spirit that gives us life.

Incorrect. Why did Paul ask disciples if they received the Spirit SINCE THEY BELIEVED if belief gave it? Why did the Samaritans believe and get baptized and later have John and Peter come to see them Spirit filled if one gets it upon belief?

[Chateau d'If]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

This. ^

In the same way the Oneness Pentecostal definition of "New Birth" is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the John 3 exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus.

There are 4 huge holes in their doctrine.

1. In that exchange Jesus did not once mention tongues or baptism yet somehow OP's interpret "water" as baptism and "Spirit" as tongues. He did, however, mention variants of the word "belief" EIGHT TIMES.

2. I struggle to comprehend how Oneness Pentecostals can use the passage to push three-step soteriology when the baptism of Spirit wasn't available to Nicodemus at the time. Why would Jesus require something of Nicodemus that wasn't available?

3. Jesus never asked Nicodemus to be born "again" of water and Spirit. He was already born of water (flesh). Jesus asked him to be born of the Spirit. THAT is the New Birth.



4. We are born "again" when we believe. It is the Spirit that gives us life.

Originally Posted by mfblume

But the entirety of the word must be considered. He did not even hardly want to talk to Nicodemus about the issue. Nicodemus kept pushing it. And Jesus did not preach this publicly, but in the night since Nic did not want to be known to dialogue with Jesus. You see this teaching no where in His public ministry.

But the deal is the Lord said the manner to believe would be explained by the apostles. And we would believe on Him through THEIR WORD. Their word was not made known first until Acts.

Baptism of the Spirit was distinctly said to not be available after Jesus spoke of coming to Him for living water.

John 7:37-39 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. (38) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (39) (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)]

The same reason He spoke of it and it not yet being available in John 7 is why he did in John 3.



I disagree. The ONLY form of reference to water and Spirit in Acts was baptisms. Far too coincidental for Acts to repeatedly mention water and Spirit baptism after Jesus mentions water and Spirit in new birth if they're not the same thing.

Incorrect. Why did Paul ask disciples if they received the Spirit SINCE THEY BELIEVED if belief gave it? Why did the Samaritans believe and get baptized and later have John and Peter come to see them Spirit filled if one gets it upon belief?

Nicodemus asked Jesus a specific question to which Jesus gave a very specific answer. He did not hedge. He did not tell Nicodemus to stay tuned for further instructions.

You use John 3 as proof text for Water/Spirit doctrine yet Jesus never, ever, told Nicodemus to fulfill all three steps. He never told him to be baptized and speak in tongues. The latter was an impossibility since the baptism of the HG was not yet given.

Nicodemus did not, and could not, have access to what would occur in Acts. He wasn't privy to those conversations and experiences. Jesus clearly related to Nicodemus that the New Birth was an immediate possibility, not something to arrive in the future.

It is hard to imagine Jesus ministering for 3 and a half years without clearly stating the means to salvation. In fact, He clearly asks for trusting faith repeatedly, and ties it directly to salvation. This was evident in his conversation with Nicodemus.

If your position is that Nicodemus could not have spoken in tongues at the moment of the conversation you must also believe that speaking in tongues is not what it takes to be born again.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

Nicodemus asked Jesus a specific question to which Jesus gave a very specific answer. He did not hedge. He did not tell Nicodemus to stay tuned for further instructions.

Jesus stopped at redirecting the conversation to the fact that people must be born again. Only after Nic asked how that could be did Jesus say water and Spirit and those born of the Spirit are like what happens with wind. AND He STOPPED AGAIN.

Nic then showed his unbelief and Jesus finished by having dealt with getting to first base by trusting all the Son says.

You use John 3 as proof text for Water/Spirit doctrine yet Jesus never, ever, told Nicodemus to fulfill all three steps.

I do not use that as a proof text. Acts 2 is the proof text. Acts 2 is what Jesus told them to preach in Luke 24:47-49 BEGINNING ONLY AFTER they received the Spirit.

He never told him to be baptized and speak in tongues. The latter was an impossibility since the baptism of the HG was not yet given.

Agreed. But he told the disciples to BEGIN preaching what later is shown as the Acts 2:38 message. And BEGIN implies it had not been preached previously.

Nicodemus did not, and could not, have access to what would occur in Acts. He wasn't privy to those conversations and experiences. Jesus clearly related to Nicodemus that the New Birth was an immediate possibility, not something to arrive in the future.

That is absolutely impossible because Atonement had not even been made yet by His resurrection and ascension into heaven. You are saying new birth is possible without the cross, and that is impossible. New birth is directly related to Christ's resurrection which is the newness of life we all identity with in new birth.

That thinking leads to a crossless new birth. I don't think you want to go down that road.

It is hard to imagine Jesus ministering for 3 and a half years without clearly stating the means to salvation.

Sorry, but that's precisely the way it was. And I cannot stress enough for the need for you to study Luke 24:47-49 showing a message NO ONE PREACHED BEFORE, that would not be preached til after He left them and filled them with the Spirit.

In fact, He clearly asks for trusting faith repeatedly, and ties it directly to salvation. This was evident in his conversation with Nicodemus.

...FOR LATER REFERENCE.

If your position is that Nicodemus could not have spoken in tongues at the moment of the conversation you must also believe that speaking in tongues is not what it takes to be born again.

Wrong. No one could be born again before the atonement after the resurrection. Please think about what you are saying.