New Birth

[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.

[mfblume]

After the people gladly received Peter's word in Acts 2 and obeyed it, counting themselves among those whom Jesus prayed for in John 17:20 as people who'd believe on Him through the apostles' word, we read the following:

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

They continued in the apostles’ doctrine. Oh that this were the popular trend today! These people followed the doctrine of the apostles as Paul and John urged people to do. They were safe! They did what they had to do.

How many scriptures did we read about our need to continue in the apostles’ doctrine and nothing less?

Why did Luke phrase it in the way he did? Why did he distinguish those who continued in the apostles’ doctrine as, “They that gladly received his word”? It was because not everyone who heard Peter obeyed his word that day. Yes, three thousand did. But, still, not everyone did. And it’s the same today. People will hear this and not gladly receive it enough to obey it.

Peter said, “…every one of you,” when he referred them to baptism in Jesus’ name. He didn’t merely command it, but doubly stressed it by insisting each and every individual be baptized.

This was precisely how we believe on Jesus by the apostles’ words.

After Jesus prayed about everyone believing on Him through the word of the Apostles, we read of nothing preached exclusively by them until Acts Chapter 2. The very day the Spirit was poured out was the first time the Apostles preached after Jesus commanded them to teach people about repentance and remission of sins in His name.

Jesus instructed the Apostles to wait for the promise of the Father before they would proceed to minister that message. The narrative of Acts Chapter 2 has Peter no sooner having finished preaching that message, than the narrative noted the three thousand who responded continued stedfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine.

This informs us the Apostle’s doctrine was established and considered so after merely one message preached in Acts Chapter 2. That message was given in answer to people who wanted to know what they must do upon hearing of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. It’s the message Jesus specifically told them to preach after having received the Spirit.

[Chateau d'If]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

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.



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.



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.



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.



...FOR LATER REFERENCE.



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

Pure fiction. Go back and read the text without trying to make it fit your preconceived ideas.

Jesus never pointed Nicodemus to a future event. The conversation was between two men and recorded by John the Beloved many years later, after the events of Acts had occurred.

Your position invalidates the entire ministry of Jesus. Any person so unlucky as to hear Jesus preach but die prior to Pentecost would never have heard your version of truth.

Jesus is salvation.

Read Romans 3, written by Paul after Pentecost.

25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, 26 for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

All who believe in Messiah, before or after Pentecost, are justified by faith. That is New Birth.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

Pure fiction. Go back and read the text without trying to make it fit your preconceived ideas.

It is tremendous false doctrine to say new birth occurs without the cross. I cannot describe the degree of error there. Here you go, folks. Chateau presents to you Christianity without the cross.

[mfblume]

Chateau.... no one in respected christendom believes new birth was possible without and before the cross, let alone apostolics. Seriously, you're on your own on this one.