17 Jul 08
5 edits
John 3:1-7
Now 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 have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 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."
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?" 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. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'"
From what I can tell, sin is a product of the flesh and the Spirit is without sin. So if you are born of the flesh, you sin. If you are born of the Spirit, you cannot sin.
I get the impression that there are many who believe that they are "born again", yet continue to sin. Isn't that contrary to "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."? It seems pretty clear that you can't be born of both at the same time. What's more "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Seems evident that those who continue to sin have not been "born of the Spirit". Those who continue to sin "cannot see the kingdom of God"
Luke 9:23-24
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."
Seems evident that losing your life so that you can be born again is a choice.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
17 Jul 08
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
This is the bottom line and this passage is very clear about this being the bottom line. This isn't a passage about sin and flesh vs. spirit in regards to sin. This is about baptism being necessary to enter the Kingdom of God - and not just a dip in some water, but the symbolism of what immersion in water (which is tangible; temporal) means to the spirit (which is intangible; spiritual).
In connecting this the way you are to sin, you're making a long reach that I wouldn't be making.
17 Jul 08
4 edits
Originally posted by BadwaterAre you saying you believe that the Spirit can sin?
[b]"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
This is the bottom line and this passage is very clear about this being the bottom line. This isn't a passage about sin and flesh vs. spirit in regards to sin. This is about baptism being necessary to enter the Kingdom of God - and not ...[text shortened]... nnecting this the way you are to sin, you're making a long reach that I wouldn't be making.[/b]
At what point do you believe that you are "born of the Spirit"?
Or is this the "bottom line"?
John 3:19-21
19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."
17 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneGotta love those verses. Shines light a mega size spotlight. 🙂
[b]John 3:19-21
19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Li s to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."
[/b]
You make some interesting points.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
1 John 2:1-3
(1) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
(2) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
(3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
Thank God for his Word!
17 Jul 08
3 edits
Originally posted by SmoothCowboyMy little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous
Gotta love those verses. Shines light a mega size spotlight. 🙂
You make some interesting points.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
1 John 2:1-3
(1) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteou ...[text shortened]... ) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
Thank God for his Word!
This is a great passage! Thanks, SmoothCowboy.
ToO, this is what you overlook: all of the admonitions against sin aren't meant to insinuate that those born of God cannot sin.
If those born of God cannot sin, then what would be the need for admonition?
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLook ToO , the basic problem here is that you hold a catagorical , all or nothing position and that's where it falls down. It only takes one fly in the ointment to call into question the entire position. One exception to the rule and the bubble bursts.
[b]John 3:1-7
Now 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 have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he ...[text shortened]... vident that losing your life so that you can be born again is a choice.
If a scientist says "all humans have 5 fingers " then the appearance of a six fingered man should cause him to reconsider his position. It's basic logic.
So all I would point out here is that Simon Peter was baptised but clearly was still afflicted (tarnished?) with sin. He was such an impatient pillock sometimes that Jesus even had to say to him "get behind me Satan!". He had such an inflated opinion of himself that he was devastated when Jesus told him he would betray him. (betraying jesus is a sin me thinks )
There's absolutely no suggestion that Jesus did not think Peter was on his way to the Kingdom nor that he asked Peter to depart from him. Peter , like many of the disciples , was still struggling with his sin and humanity but Jesus considered them his followers and they were all baptised as I understand it. They were born again.
Peter did infact literally lose his life in the end for the kingdom. He was even given the great commission by Jesus to be the rock of his church.
So Peter must be a big fly in your ointment surely?
You all it takes is one man who Jesus considers to be born again and on his way to the kingdom but who is not yet perfect and still prone to sin ---and your position crumbles. Peter is that man.
Logically this should make you stop and think.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasToO ---- you see another fly in the ointment!
[b]My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous
This is a great passage! Thanks, SmoothCowboy.
ToO, this is what you overlook: all of the admonitions against sin aren't meant to insinuate that those born of God cannot sin.
If those born of God cannot sin, then what would be the need for admonition?[/b]
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblessome say yes. i say the same thing i say to those that say that dalai lama will go to hell or that an atheist child surgeon will burn in hell:
Do babies who die before baptism go to hell?
bullsh|t.
a loving god would not make these insane rules. these rules are made by hypocritical human bastards who would deny salvation to anyone opposing their view on the world.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnea classic example of taking the bible and reaching whatever conclusion you may like.
[b]John 3:1-7
Now 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 have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he ...[text shortened]... vident that losing your life so that you can be born again is a choice.
If you are born of the Spirit, you cannot sin.
really? who is then born of the spirit? jesus yes. who else? anyone can sin, even jesus. otherwise he would not have free will. he chooses not to.
"you must be born again" doesn't mean you must have a ceremony with dudes dressed in white and being dunked in a river. it means you must figuratively "die" from your old life and be born again into a new one, one in which you change your view. no longer living for yourself, you commit to doing good and as few evil as possible. i can be born again by simply an act of will and someone splashing me with a bucket of tap water. it means letting go of your old life where you were searching for a meaning and find a new life living in accordance with god.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziBut some would argue that compared to God we are so incomprehensibly stupid that we don't have a hope of truly understanding the reasoning behind his rules and thus we must simply take his rules as stated in the Bible at face value (after passing them through a secret decoder ring).
some say yes. i say the same thing i say to those that say that dalai lama will go to hell or that an atheist child surgeon will burn in hell:
bullsh|t.
a loving god would not make these insane rules. these rules are made by hypocritical human bastards who would deny salvation to anyone opposing their view on the world.
17 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadyes, but god didn't descend from heaven and told us cloning is bad or that using a condom is a sin. jesus never said "suffer not a woman to teach"
But some would argue that compared to God we are so incomprehensibly stupid that we don't have a hope of truly understanding the reasoning behind his rules and thus we must simply take his rules as stated in the Bible at face value (after passing them through a secret decoder ring).
popes did it. "saints" did it. apostles said it. people have interpreting the bible ever since it came up. what of it is god's word truly given to men by means of holy spirit and what is man fabrication, man interpretation of the word so he could gain an advantage over his peers? who to trust when it comes to the bible? if we treat our wives like paul said, who are we to blame but ourselves if it is wrong?
take the bible and use reason and common sense to discern the bad from the good, the obsolete from the valid. if you cannot think for yourselves seek someone else's opinion but seek different opinions, different perspectives not just what a certain pope says or a rabi or an ayatollah.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneRomans 7:15-25a
[b]John 3:1-7
Now 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 have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he ...[text shortened]... vident that losing your life so that you can be born again is a choice.