Post
by _Steve » Sun Aug 21, 2005 12:21 am
Hi 1MansView
On the matter of Nicodemus not "seeing" the kingdom without being regenerated, it is necessary not to misunderstand the idiom of "seeing" as John uses it. You have interpreted the word "see" to mean "understand, comprehend, BELIEVE." This is not the likely sense in which the term is used in this context.
At the end of the same chapter, John says, "He that does not believe shall not SEE life" (John 3:36).
Jesus, later said, "if anyone keeps my word, he will never SEE death" (John 8:51). His adversaries understood the idiom and rephrased it "shall never TASTE death"(v.52).
It is clear that "SEE" is being used in these cases as synonymous with the idea of "experience." Thus the statement that, without rebirth, Nicodemus cannot "see" the kingdom, means exactly the same thing as the statement two verses later which uses the phrase "enter the kingdom." The expressions are interchangeable.
Calvinists and non-Calvinsts alike believe that one must be born again in order to experience the kingdom, but the non-Calvinist asks, "What must one do in order to be born again?" Nicodemus asked the same question, when he said, "How can these things be?"
The answer of Jesus was that which is everywhere affirmed in scripture: "Whosoever believes...shall have everlasting life [that is, “shall be regenerated,” apparently as a consequence of believing]."
Jesus did not say, "Whosoever has everlasting life shall believe." This idea is never found in scripture, and would be a helpful thing for one of the writers to have informed us about, since the concept is otherwise so counterintuitive. It is, perhaps, the absence of any such statement in scripture that kept the church from ever believing such things until Augustine, by mixing Greek philosophy, introduced the strange concept.
You are right in observing that Jesus expressed surprise that Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel did not grasp such things. This astonishment resembles Jesus’ marveling at the lack of faith of the people of Nazareth (Mark 6:6). If people are naturally incapable of perception and faith, what is there to marvel at?
Jesus' astonishment indicates that He would have expected this man (though as yet unregenerated) to be capable of grasping this truth when it was told to him. In this, as in many other points, Jesus did not act as one who holds Calvinistic convictions about the universal dullness of the unregenerate. That a religious leader should be so obtuse is surprising (even to Jesus), but not unprecedented nor without modern parallels.
You wrote:
"Nicodemus...outwardly appeared to be a man of faith.) Yet Jesus says to him that he doesn't get it. That Nicodemus doesn't believe. He tells him he needs to be born again by the Spirit. He doesn't say believe and you will be born again."
Nicodemus may have been a true man of faith, or may only have appeared outwardly to be one, but until he met Jesus, he had not been aware, nor believed, that Jesus was the Messiah. In other words, he had not yet believed the gospel, and, of course, had to do so in order to enter the kingdom by rebirth...and Jesus certainly did tell him so a few verses later.
You wrote:
" In fact he compares those who will be born again with the wind, 'The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.'"
Yes, the spiritual birth, like the wind, is mysterious to man, and there are things about it which only God understands—things that are not fully understood by any man—whether regenerated or not. This does not mean that the things that one must believe in order to enter the kingdom are things incomprehensible to man.
You wrote:
"this reminds me of the story of Paul's conversion. He outwardly hated Christians; yet he was born again by the Spirit not by a fleshly act of belief (Acts 9)."
Saul did not become saved while in a state of hatred for Christ or for Christians. He had a dynamic and convincing revelation of Christ that changed his mind on this subject, and brought him to faith. It would have been difficult to say "no" to Christ, or to remain in unbelief, in the presence of such compelling proofs of the deity of Christ. Difficult, I say, but not impossible! There were many who saw great miracles (including Judas) who apparently managed to remain in unbelief nonetheless. Saul, like everyone else who faces convincing proofs of Christianity, had to make his own decision as to how he would respond to the information. He made the right choice: "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19). For this we can be grateful.
You cited Romans 9:16—"It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." But what is it that is said not to depend on human desire or effort? In the context, it is talking about God's sovereignty in choosing which nation (Jacob's or Esau's? Moses' or Pharaoh's?) He would utilize to carry out His earthly purpose of bringing the Messiah into the world. This choice was made by God without consulting human preferences, which is what Paul affirms.
There is no discussion in Romans 9:10-18 about the subject of the eternal salvation of individuals (as the context and the scriptures quoted by Paul in the passage demonstrate well enough). Nothing is said about Jacob or Esau’s personal salvation—only about which one would be the father of the promised seed in history.
You wrote:
"He goes on to say that the Spirit gives birth to spirit; explaining the new birth. I take this to mean what it says, that its not an act of the flesh (believing) its an act of the Spirit."
This is the second time that you speak of believing as "fleshly." Where did you get the notion that believing falls into this category? If it does, then you should have no problem with the suggestion that a carnal man can believe. If believing is a fleshly action, why would a fleshly man be incapable of doing it?
Paul refers to faith as a spiritual thing, not fleshly. He writes: "This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal.3:2).
This is not the whole passage I want to reference, but I would pause to observe that Paul says (by implication) that a person receives the Spirit (e.g. "is regenerated”) by faith—not the reverse. Paul expands on this dichotomy as he proceeds to the next verse:
Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit [i.e., "the hearing of faith"], are you now being made perfect in the flesh [i.e., "the works of the law"]?"
In contrasting "fleshly" with "spiritual" means of seeking salvation, Paul considers "the works of the law" to be the "fleshly" method, and "faith" as the "spiritual" method. Where did you get the idea that faith (believing) is a fleshly act?
In Jesus,
Steve