Except a man be born of WATER and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[Randy Kluth]

That's irrelevant. They only had the spoken word

From: Rhema - Wikipedia
The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek uses the terms rhema and logos as equivalents and uses both for the Hebrew word dabar, as the Word of God.

 

[justbyfaith]

And you base that conclusion on what? Clearly, the context indicates that Jesus loved him because he was keeping all of the commandments of God.

If that were the reason why He loved Him, then God loves us or doesn't love us on the basis of merit. And therefore His love for us is dependent on our ability to please Him.

What he lacked was a commitment to a change in nature, the need to adopt a new nature to go along with his keeping of the commandments.

He would be unable to adopt a new nature by an act of his will (John 1:13, Romans 9:16).

21 Jesus looked at him and loved him.

Notice it doesn't say here, "because he kept the commandments."

God is love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16); so He loves us whether we keep the commandments or not.

Your doctrine creates a basis for pride if you consider that you are loved by the Lord. For most certainly, God must love you because of something good that you did!

 

[justbyfaith]

Unbelievers can be virtuous--no question about it.

See Jeremiah 17:9; which declares the state of every unbelieving heart.

That is not true.

It is true (Philippians 3:9).

The NT is often talking only about faith that leads to Salvation--not faith that enables righteousness without Salvation. But it requires faith, conscious of it or not, to do good.

Paul is only talking about the kind of faith that leads to Salvation. The kind of righteousness that leads to that requires that we accept the new nature that comes from Christ.

There are two types of righteousness....the righteousness which is of the law (filthy menstrual rags righteousness, Isaiah 64:6)...and the righteousness which is of God by faith (fine linen, clean and white, Revelation 19:8 (kjv))...again, see Philippians 3:9.

The first type can indeed appear to be very righteous (in man's sight). But it is as filthy menstrual rags before the Lord.

But there is a genuine righteousness that does not always lead to Salvation. I've given you the example of the Rich Young Ruler.

The rich young ruler had a righteousness which was of the law; and that falls into the first category.

And quite honestly, as far back as Cain God told him he could do good and overcome evil. He did not have to murder his brother. He could choose to do well.

I don't think so. God gave him the option to do well; but this does not necessarily mean that he was able to do well. For he was dead in his trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:14); his heart was deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9).

The commandments of the Law were not just for "the saved," but for all Israel, well before there was even Christian salvation. The laws of God could be kept by *everybody* in Israel--no just some supposed elite group.

For the unsaved, the law would show them that they were sinners (Romans 3:20); for they could not obey the law (John 15:5, Galatians 6:13, Galatians 3:22).

You get that where? The only faith that leads to Salvation is faith that embraces the new nature in Christ. But there is nothing that prohibits men from being righteous apart from Salvation. They may legitimately do righteous works, and still lose their souls.

I get it from Philippians 3:9. Righteousness apart from salvation, therefore, is the righteousness which is by the law (filthy rags righteousness, Isaiah 64:6). But righteousness which comes out of salvation is the righteousness of faith (genuine righteousness, fine linen, clean and white, Revelation 19:8 (kjv)).

The "righteousness that is like filthy rags" is phony righteousness, such as when Israel, under the Law, tried to cover up their sins with religious rituals. It was a *false righteousness."

It was *righteousness* which was as filthy rags before the Lord. Isaiah 64:6.

It is not saying that nobody can do any good or exhibit any virtue.

People can exhibit virtue that comes from obeying the law (filthy rags righteousness, Isaiah 64:6) or they can exhibit virtue that comes from the righteousness of faith/salvation (genuine righteousness, fine linen, clean and white, Revelation 19:8 (kjv)).

This does not mean people, who are born in sin, cannot do good.

They can...but the good that they do is as filthy rags before the Lord. It may appear to be more beautiful in the sight of men (Luke 16:15).

So, what you're saying is not that regenerate faith was necessary to do good, because men were not yet regenerated by Christ.

Can you reiterate this statement please in a non-confusing manner?

Nobody in the OT yet had eternal life because eternal life was given to men only after the cross. Do you then deny this? There are many Scriptures to this effect!

The Old Testament prophets have a reward in heaven (Matthew 5:12).

That isn't biblical.

Gen 4.6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

Cain didn't rule over it; because his heart was deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9)...he was dead in his trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:14).

You are saying there is no righteousness that is genuine apart from *saving faith.*

Correct.

But Paul isn't saying that. He is only describing *saving faith,* and not discounting that faith exists outside of Salvation.

I suppose that a man can have faith for healing and not be saved. Your point?

Nor is he denying that genuine righteousness exists outside of Salvation.

Actually, if you rightly divide the word, you will come to the conclusion that the only genuine righteousness is the righteousness of faith...so, I will concede that righteousness can exist outside of salvation; just not apart from faith in Jesus...which most often brings salvation.

On the contrary, Paul's heart goes out for his unsaved Jewish brethren because he does see their zeal for righteousness as real, and only insufficient with respect to the need for a new saved nature.

Paul's heart goes out to his Jewish brethren because they are his brethren and of the same race of people. Paul knows that their righteousness isn't real; but that in seeking to establish their own righteousness they did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God (Romans 10:3).

Does Paul here say that their righteousness was worthless? No, it was only worthless

You just contradicted yourself. Was their righteousness worthless or not worthless? I will accept your latter statement as being the most valid.

Paul was not saying that the righteousness of the unsaved flesh was without virtue, but only without any value *as far as Salvation.* It did not bring the knowledge of fellowship with Christ! And that is what Salvation is! It is more than righteousness--it is knowing Christ who is the source of a righteous nature.

There is no righteousness in unsaved flesh. There is no righteousness in saved flesh, for that matter (Romans 7:18).

Just like Jesus loved the rich young ruler for his lawfulness under the Law,

Again, Jesus loved the rich young ruler not because of any merit of his own...but because Jesus is God/love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16).

Paul loved Israel for their zeal for God's Law.

Paul loved Israel because they were his brethren.

There were many Jews who believed in God and obeyed His word, producing genuine righteousness.

Nope. They had the righteousness which was by the law (filthy rags righteousness, Isaiah 64:6). The only genuine righteousness is the righteousness which is of God by faith (Philippians 3:9).

 

[Getitright]

From: Rhema - Wikipedia
The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek uses the terms rhema and logos as equivalents and uses both for the Hebrew word dabar, as the Word of God.

What does this prove?

As I said, these early churches had the spoken word. They didn't have New Testaments.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What does this prove?

As I said, these early churches had the spoken word. They didn't have New Testaments.

What do you think you're proving by that statement?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I don't think so. God gave him the option to do well; but this does not necessarily mean that he was able to do well. For he was dead in his trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:14); his heart was deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9).
[/QUOTE]

If God gave someone an option to do well then it does mean he was able to do well. Your assertions mean nothing. God's word means everything. What use is it proving things to you from the Scriptures when you just dismiss what they say and replace them with your own assertions?

The Old Testament prophets have a reward in heaven (Matthew 5:12).

Cain didn't rule over it; because his heart was deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9)...he was dead in his trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:14).

You ignore God's word. That isn't an argument.

Actually, if you rightly divide the word, you will come to the conclusion that the only genuine righteousness is the righteousness of faith...so, I will concede that righteousness can exist outside of salvation; just not apart from faith in Jesus...which most often brings salvation.

No, I rightly divide the word, and do not conclude that the only genuine righteousness is the righteousness of faith *for Salvation.* You see, you don't recognize shorthand in Paul's writing. He is often speaking of a certain kind of faith--the faith for Salvation. There are other kinds of faith, such as what pagans have in choosing to believe in God and in responding to their conscience. This also is "genuine faith." But Paul is only speaking of *saving faith.* Authentic saving faith is one thing, and authentic belief in God by pagans is another thing. You are mixing the two together.

Paul's heart goes out to his Jewish brethren because they are his brethren and of the same race of people. Paul knows that their righteousness isn't real; but that in seeking to establish their own righteousness they did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God (Romans 10:3).

Paul stated that the Jews observed the Law for real. Their observance did produce genuine righteousness--it just didn't save. And it often was used as a cover for ulterior motives on the inside. That is what we call "filthy rags"--not authentic, but unenlightened observance of the Law.

Paul saw his own observance of the Law as authentic righteousness. He just would cast aside his righteousness for the saving faith that resulted in a new nature and in eternal life, the means of eternal fellowship with Christ. Righteousness is not enough. We need a new nature!

You just contradicted yourself. Was their righteousness worthless or not worthless? I will accept your latter statement as being the most valid.

You don't know how to argue on forums. You provide quips without context, forcing another to look up the context for each statement. I've learned to provide context within my answers, so that you can respond. But I'm done with that. You're having too much fun giving quick answers, and not taking the time to provide context.

There is no righteousness in unsaved flesh. There is no righteousness in saved flesh, for that matter (Romans 7:18).

I've shown you there is. Cain wasn't saved, and yet God said he could be righteous. You just ignore and discard God's word, and insert your own assertions. Bad argument.

Again, Jesus loved the rich young ruler not because of any merit of his own...but because Jesus is God/love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16).

You completely ignore the context. It did not say Jesus loved the man because God is love. He said he loved him because he kept all the commandments.

Paul loved Israel because they were his brethren.

You ignore the context. Paul loved Israel because they embraced the things of God, and stood for God's righteousness. He did not say he loved them out of family loyalty or partiality.

Nope. They had the righteousness which was by the law (filthy rags righteousness, Isaiah 64:6). The only genuine righteousness is the righteousness which is of God by faith (Philippians 3:9).

Your whole argument is predicated on a false concept, namely that the Law is evil. That is a heresy promulgated by Marcion in ancient times. The God of the Law is evil, he said. Obviously, that is not true. For example, David sang the praises of the righteousness of the Law in the longest Psalm in the Bible, Psalm 119. You can't answer that without diverting or ignoring.

 

[Marymog]

John 3
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Since this is the prerequisite to enter into the Kingdom of God, I think it is very important to have a full understanding of it. While being born of the Spirit is pretty self explanatory, being born of "water" is less clear; that's why I put that word in all caps in the title: WATER. I say that it's less clear because I've heard many commentaries on it's meaning. Here are two.

1. When were are born of a natural birth via our Mother's wombs, then we are born of WATER when her water breaks. However, that does not make any sense in the context that Jesus spoke. It's as strange as Nicodemus' response, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"

2. When we are baptized in water, then we are born of WATER. However, that would not be in proper context as water baptism is merely symbolic of what has already happened. The born-again experience. Your old man has been buried and a new man has come forth. So, water baptism could not be what Jesus was referring to.

Therefore, we must dig deeper into the Scriptures to have a full understanding of what Jesus meant. I'll let the Scriptures speak.

Ephesians 5
[24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
[25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
[26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of WATER by the WORD,
[27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

How is the Church washed in WATER? By the Word of God. The Word of God is the WATER.

1 Peter 1
[22] Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
[23] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Being born again by what? By the Word of God.

Therefore, as supported by Scripture, Jesus is saying that "Except a man be born of WATER [the Word of God] and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I do not symbolically do what Christ told us to do. It is not symbolic to obey Him: Matthew 28:19

 

[justbyfaith]

If God gave someone an option to do well then it does mean he was able to do well. Your assertions mean nothing. God's word means everything. What use is it proving things to you from the Scriptures when you just dismiss what they say and replace them with your own assertions?

My assertions are based on God's word (Ephesians 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:14, Jeremiah 17:9).

You ignore God's word. That isn't an argument.

I believe that you are the one who is guilty of disregarding the word of God. I gave scriptures to support my view. What scriptures did you give to support yours?

No, I rightly divide the word, and do not conclude that the only genuine righteousness is the righteousness of faith *for Salvation.* You see, you don't recognize shorthand in Paul's writing. He is often speaking of a certain kind of faith--the faith for Salvation. There are other kinds of faith, such as what pagans have in choosing to believe in God and in responding to their conscience. This also is "genuine faith." But Paul is only speaking of *saving faith.* Authentic saving faith is one thing, and authentic belief in God by pagans is another thing. You are mixing the two together.

Whether the righteousness of faith produces salvation or not, I contend that the only genuine righteousness is the righteousness which is of God by faith.

Paul stated that the Jews observed the Law for real. Their observance did produce genuine righteousness--it just didn't save.

The reason why it didn't save was because the *righteousness* that is produced by the law--genuine or not--is as filthy menstrual rags.

Paul saw his own observance of the Law as authentic righteousness.

In Isaiah 64:6, "authentic" righteousness is being spoken of--it is still as filthy rags.

I've shown you there is. Cain wasn't saved, and yet God said he could be righteous. You just ignore and discard God's word, and insert your own assertions. Bad argument.

And you accuse me of ignoring God's word. You make God's word to contradict yourself if you even think that it substantiates your pov. Romans 7:18 shows us clearly that not even *saved* flesh has righteousness in it.

You completely ignore the context. It did not say Jesus loved the man because God is love. He said he loved him because he kept all the commandments.

I am not ignoring the topical context. God loves people period because He is love, and not because of personal merit.

If God loves you because of personal merit, well, good for you....aren't you special. You did something good to make God love you...you must be very righteous indeed and you are to be commended for that...you made God love you because of your righteous deeds. It was not because of any love in God but because of your goodness, that God loved you.

But somehow, I think that it is possible that this is what you actually believe; and cannot see the pride in such a proposition.

You ignore the context. Paul loved Israel because they embraced the things of God, and stood for God's righteousness. He did not say he loved them out of family loyalty or partiality.

Paul did love Israel because they were his kindred according to the flesh (Romans 9:3).

Your whole argument is predicated on a false concept, namely that the Law is evil. That is a heresy promulgated by Marcion in ancient times. The God of the Law is evil, he said. Obviously, that is not true. For example, David sang the praises of the righteousness of the Law in the longest Psalm in the Bible, Psalm 119. You can't answer that without diverting or ignoring.

No, you have produced a straw man argument here. I do not subscribe to Marcion's teaching....I do not believe that the law is evil. What I am saying is that in seeking to obey the righteousness of the law, the Jewish people were seeking to establish their own righteousness and were not submitting themselves unto the righteousness of the Lord (Romans 10:3).

I am saying that the law cannot impart life (Galatians 3:21); and that neither can it produce any kind of genuine righteousness on the inside...it can only produce a righteousness that is on the outside.

Of this righteousness, Jesus spoke clearly:

Mat 23:25, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Mat 23:26, Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Mat 23:27, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:28, Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

On the outside, the scribes and the Pharisees were the most impeccably righteous; but inwardly their righteousness was as filthy rags.

So, if the best of the bunch, who seek to be righteous by the law, have filthy rags righteousness, how can anyone else have righteousness that is of any value through attempting to keep the law?

Jesus said,

Mat 5:20, For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And Paul wrote,

Gal 2:21, I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

The only righteousness therefore that is genuine is the righteousness which is of God by faith (see Philippians 3:9).

Because the righteousness of law-keeping cannot save anyone and it is highly impeccable.

I personally believe that if anyone has genuine righteousness, it is because they are saved...they have the righteousness of faith, and they are saved by grace through faith. The gift of God to them is the righteousness of God (Romans 5:17). It is an inward righteousness and not an outward impeccability. It is a heart regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. It is a cleansing on the inside that the law cannot ever bring about.

'nuff said!

 

[Randy Kluth]

My assertions are based on God's word (Ephesians 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:14, Jeremiah 17:9).

Again, you are only making assertions, and proving that you can quote Scriptures that do not prove what you claim they prove.

Whether the righteousness of faith produces salvation or not, I contend that the only genuine righteousness is the righteousness which is of God by faith.

Yes, you've put yourself in the absurd position of claiming that all good things that unbelievers do are not authentic righteousness. And yet I showed you how God viewed Cornelius, as a just man--a man of genuine good works. He needed Salvation, but he had indeed been a man of genuine good works. Naaman was in the same category--needing to know the true God, and yet a man of virtue and integrity.

The reason why it didn't save was because the *righteousness* that is produced by the law--genuine or not--is as filthy menstrual rags.

As I told you, that is a false interpretation of what was said. It was speaking of hypocritical external observances of the Law, which were indeed filthy and inadequate covering. There are many places in Scriptures where the righteousness of the Law is viewed as wonderful and genuine. I gave you Psalm 119, Jesus' respect for observance of the Law, Paul's respect for the purpose of the Law, etc.

Romans 7:18 shows us clearly that not even *saved* flesh has righteousness in it.

You do, in fact, ignore God's word. God told Cain he could overcome his temptation to murder his brother, and that is God's word. You nullify what is said to assert your own belief that contradicts this. You claim that despite what God said Cain could do, he actually couldn't do!

Rom 7.18 does not say that "saved flesh has no righteousness in it."

Rom 7.18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.

It is saying that good does not dwell in the sinful nature. It isn't saying that good does not dwell in the person, in whom the sinful nature dwells. Not the same thing. People, who have the sin nature, can still do good. Even Christians still have the sin nature, but can do good!

I am not ignoring the topical context. God loves people period because He is love, and not because of personal merit.

If God loves you because of personal merit, well, good for you....aren't you special.

On the contrary, God loves those who keep His commandments.

John 16.27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.

This is how special *we all are,* when we love Jesus and believe in him and keep his words.

But somehow, I think that it is possible that this is what you actually believe; and cannot see the pride in such a proposition.

Paul did love Israel because they were his kindred according to the flesh (Romans 9:3).

But he did not love them out of partiality, and out of racial pride, or national pride. He loved them as a common spiritual family, who shared the same spiritual values.

No, you have produced a straw man argument here. I do not subscribe to Marcion's teaching....I do not believe that the law is evil. What I am saying is that in seeking to obey the righteousness of the law, the Jewish people were seeking to establish their own righteousness and were not submitting themselves unto the righteousness of the Lord (Romans 10:3).

You've said a lot more than that, brother! You said that nobody under the Law could produce righteousness. You referred to it as the "righteousness of the Law," without qualifying this as far as I can see? That is a pretty all-encompassing statement, unless you wish to add some qualification to it?

I am saying that the law cannot impart life (Galatians 3:21); and that neither can it produce any kind of genuine righteousness on the inside...it can only produce a righteousness that is on the outside.

There you go. You're saying the Law is basically worthless, and that its adherence can only produce evil. It is tantamount to what Marcion taught, that the Law was the product of an evil motive. It only produced evil in men!

Of this righteousness, Jesus spoke clearly:

Mat 23:25, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

On the outside, the scribes and the Pharisees were the most impeccably righteous; but inwardly their righteousness was as filthy rags.

This was true in Jesus' time, but it wasn't always that way. There were times when Israel was more righteous and obedient, and other times when they strayed. Jesus lived in a time of great apostasy in Israel--one in which they internalized their sin while expressing feigned righteousness on the outside. The fact it happened generally in Jesus' day did not mean it was always that way! That is the errant assumption you're making, and not what the Scriptures taught.

In fact, the Scriptures taught quite the opposite, that the Law was good and provided righteous standards that the people could indeed keep. The fact they could not obtain eternal life from it in no way prevented them from being obedient and from thereby keeping their relationship with God intact.

Mat 5:20, For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

That is a most absurd passage to quote, since in it Jesus is declaring that observance of the whole Law is what God expected and respected the most!

And Paul wrote,

Gal 2:21, I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Again, you have to understand Paul's shorthand way of describing "righteousness." In context he is referring to the righteousness that leads to eternal life. Most certainly righteousness came through obedience to the Law. To say otherwise is to basically discard the entire NT Law, much as the heretic Marcion did!

The only righteousness therefore that is genuine is the righteousness which is of God by faith (see Philippians 3:9).

This again is Paul's shorthand for "faith," referring to faith that leads to eternal life through Jesus. The righteousness that leads to eternal life comes by faith in Jesus. It is *not* saying that there is no righteousness under the Law or in non-Christians. And it is *not* saying there is no faith in God among pagans or among Christian cultists. It is only saying that faith in Christ alone produces the righteousness that merits eternal life. And it is because this righteousness is in partnership with the righteousness of Christ himself, who has given his Spirit to us.

Because the righteousness of law-keeping cannot save anyone and it is highly impeccable.

The Law had high standards, but there was mercy all through the Law! Sacrifices of mercy were offered under the Law to cover and to forgive sin, to keep God's covenant with Israel alive. It was highly useful, and did produce genuine righteousness. You fail to acknowledge this. You even quote a passage from Jesus in Matthew 5 that affirms that in the strongest possible way. Anybody who had been under the Law, who depreciated the Law in any way, would be considered less in the Kingdom of God!

I personally believe that if anyone has genuine righteousness, it is because they are saved...they have the righteousness of faith, and they are saved by grace through faith. The gift of God to them is the righteousness of God (Romans 5:17). It is an inward righteousness and not an outward impeccability. It is a heart regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. It is a cleansing on the inside that the law cannot ever bring about.

We can be righteous without being a Christian, and Israel could be righteous under the Law. I've proven this, and it is clear from personal experience. What God wanted was for us to live in a constant relationship with Him and with His righteousness. We do that by allowing God to change not just our behavior, but our whole nature, so that we want to practice His righteousness all the time. We have to want Him to change our ungodly heart.

I've made the many mistakes you're making in your theology. But I've spent years trying to iron them out so I can better communicate with the pagan world. If we don't say things right, we will drive them away. We have to acknowledge there is some good in them. Otherwise, God would never have saved them to start with!

It was God Himself who put some good in all men. We can draw upon that to draw them further to a constant relationship with God, in which there is eternal salvation.

 

[justbyfaith]

I came across Proverbs 14:7 today and I believe that the Holy Spirit spoke to me and let me know that I am to obey it concerning you.

So you have the last word; except that my last word concerning this is that I do not perceive in you the words of knowledge; and that this is the reason why I am bowing out of this conversation.

Concerning your argument about Naaman and Cornelius, I would only refer you to 2 Corinthians 10:7a (kjv).

2Co 10:7, Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.

I pray that the Lord will rebuke you over your humanistic philosophy.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

Act 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

 

[Tong2020]

Therefore, we must dig deeper into the Scriptures to have a full understanding of what Jesus meant. I'll let the Scriptures speak.

I agree. So, let's dig deeper then.

John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Jesus, on the onset of their conversation, was telling Nicodemus this truth (v.3), that unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. All of what Jesus said thereafter, until at least verse 8, concerns that truth. We must not make the mistake of thinking that Jesus was talking about two births in verse 3. Jesus is talking only of one birth when He said "unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." So, when He said "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." in verse 5, in reply to Nicodemus' question in verse 4, Jesus was not talking about two births, but of one and the same birth that which He told Nicodemus in verse 3.

Now, what is clear there is that Jesus was talking about a rebirth of the man, the matter of being born anew. What this birth is, we can understand from the passage, is not in a manner like when we were born into existence in this earthly world. Jesus, in verse 6, contrasted this birth with that birth that Nicodemus refer to in verse 4 which involves our mothers, saying "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." In verse 8, we get to understand that this birth is that of the spirit, that is, not of the flesh.

Now, Jesus said that, that which is born of the flesh is flesh. So we could not expect the flesh to give birth to spirit. We must not make the mistake therefore that man, who is flesh, has anything to do with being born of the spirit.

Jesus said that, that which is born of the spirit is spirit. What spirit gives birth to whose spirit? As to whose spirit is given birth, there can be no mistake that it refers to that of the man that is being born again. Now, what or whose spirit is it that Jesus refers to that shall give birth to the spirit of the man being born again? There is no one in scriptures other than God, who is spoken as having the power to give life. Yes, only God is Him, who is Spirit, who makes possible that a person be born again, him whom God saves and delivers from the power of darkness and conveys into the kingdom of the Son of His love, who is, Jesus Christ. So that, those born again are called by scriptures as those born of God, as such, children of God and sons of the Kingdom of God.

Now, there is one spoken in scriptures, the Word, who was with God, and was God, who became flesh and dwelt among mankind, the only begotten of the Father, the Son, Jesus Christ. He is not only spoken of and is declared by scriptures, but Himself confessed and claimed, to be the way to the Father, to be the truth, and to be the life, and is Him who gave up His life for His sheep, and resurrected and became a life-giving spirit. So that, he who has the Son has life, and he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. And them who has the Son, are them who has life, and obviously then are them who are born again, born of the spirit, born of God, are them who believes in the name of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. They are the ones who shall be given a new body, a glorious and spiritual body, at the resurrection, and will be together with the Lord, in the Kingdom of heaven.

Tong
R0674

 

[Enoch111]

...

It would appear that you are suggesting that verse 38 applies to being "born of water". But actually it is in verse 37 that this man was born of the Spirit, since no man can say "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" without the Spirit the subsequent New Birth.

THE MAN IS BORN AGAIN
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

THE BELIEVER BAPTIZED
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

 

[brian100]

Imagine it like being born again like Baptism... you wake up in water in heaven all young again. Like someone jumping into a pool to save you! The pool replaces the womb.

 

[marksman]

If you care to look at the subject in depth which includes extra-biblical evidence as well as biblical evidence which I have been doing for a few months now, it has become very clear that the new believers were baptized in water after acknowledging that Jesus was the MESSIAH. Once acknowledged, they were baptised by immersion and they joined the body of believers in their activities.

The scripture itself shows very clearly that the new believers were baptised in water after their acceptance of Jesus the messiah.

A book I have just read which sets out the background to the NTC shows that in every instance once a person acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah they were baptised in water. If not immediately, very soon after when it was practicable.

I think that the impact of water baptism is clearly explained with the story of the Ethiopean Eunich. Once he understood what he was taught by Phillip he said
"Here is water so I want to be baptised" (paraphrased). That makes it obvious that baptism was included in what he was taught.

Despite what some people claim, baptism in water is central to being born again. It has been explained to me as getting rid of the old (repentance) and putting on the new (baptism) or being clothed with Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:17 So that if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new!

 

[Tong2020]

If you care to look at the subject in depth which includes extra-biblical evidence as well as biblical evidence which I have been doing for a few months now, it has become very clear that the new believers were baptized in water after acknowledging that Jesus was the MESSIAH. Once acknowledged, they were baptised by immersion and they joined the body of believers in their activities.

The scripture itself shows very clearly that the new believers were baptised in water after their acceptance of Jesus the messiah.

A book I have just read which sets out the background to the NTC shows that in every instance once a person acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah they were baptised in water. If not immediately, very soon after when it was practicable.

I think that the impact of water baptism is clearly explained with the story of the Ethiopean Eunich. Once he understood what he was taught by Phillip he said
"Here is water so I want to be baptised" (paraphrased). That makes it obvious that baptism was included in what he was taught.

Despite what some people claim, baptism in water is central to being born again. It has been explained to me as getting rid of the old (repentance) and putting on the new (baptism) or being clothed with Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:17 So that if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new!

The rite of baptism is not really the main subject of the thread, but only an offshoot coming from others who believe that the matter of being born again involves it. Certainly scriptures speaks about baptism with water, but nowhere does scriptures says that baptism with water is how a man is born again or that it is central to being born again.

The subject is with regards the necessary event that should happen to man, individually that is, to be born again, for him to see and enter the kingdom of God. It is clearly a matter of a rebirth or a new birth, and not about something else. So, it is incumbent upon the Christian (who reads and study the scriptures), to see this necessary event that Jesus speaks about, that should happen to one, for him to see and enter the kingdom of God, just as scriptures says what it is, that is a new birth, and not of something else such as the baptism with water. Nor should he make the mistake of translating such event as being about faith, love, hope, getting baptized, doing good works, etc. pertaining to the man. For all those things speaks not about a birth event, that is, of the creation and giving of life, but speaks of the things that the person (old man without life, dead) being born again, is born again to become, that is, into a new man in whom there is life ~ the kind of man God re-create or create anew from out of the kind of Adam.

Unlike the first birth (birth into our existence in this world), which starts off with the creation of a body of flesh and blood and then the giving of the breath of life which makes us a living soul, in the image of the earthly man, that is, fallen Adam, this rebirth starts off with God giving and creating in the man, a new spirit, a new heart, according to His will, purpose, pleasure, and timing, and then, at the resurrection, the giving of a new body that is no longer a body of flesh and blood, but a spiritual body that bears the image of the heavenly man, that is, Jesus Christ.

Those who are born again, these are they who are rightly called the children of God, having been born of God. They are those who, by the work of the Holy Spirit, are being brought to willful and sincere repentance unto God and faith towards Jesus Christ, and moved by love and faith unto obedience to the words and will of God.

Tong
R0675

 

[marksman]

The rite of baptism is not really the main subject of the thread, but only an offshoot coming from others who believe that the matter of being born again involves it. Certainly scriptures speaks about baptism with water, but nowhere does scriptures say that baptism with water is how a man is born again or that it is central to being born again.
Tong R0675

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you on the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This verse is very clear. if you want your sins remitted you have to repent and be baptized.

I will say that again. If you want your sins remitted you need to repent and be baptized.

According to you Peter never said that.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

You can check them up, theological narcissists are people who endlessly argue over their agreements.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Romans 7:18 shows us clearly that not even *saved* flesh has righteousness in it.

AMEN

 

[Tong2020]

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you on the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This verse is very clear. if you want your sins remitted you have to repent and be baptized.

I will say that again. If you want your sins remitted you need to repent and be baptized.

According to you Peter never said that.

According to me? I never said anything to that effect sir. Please point where in my post you got that.

Regarding Acts 2:38, I don't know any issue between us on that. I don't know what that has to do with what I posted in my response to your post #95.

Tong
R0676