Egomarkarios seems convinced that the relationship between regeneration and faith in Scripture is faith first, regeneration second, and he doesn't like the Reformed ordu salutis. This is a fairly common argument from Arminians and others. In the past, Steve and I have discussed the relationship between them from 1 John, for example 1 John 5 and the causal relationship spelled out in 1 John 3:9. I've also noted grammatical parallels with texts like John 8:43.
However, I've not spent much time on John 3. The comments section in the above thread, however, has led me to make some observations upon which I would like to expand a bit.
Egomarkarios asked:
"But how could an unregenerate man believe if regeneration is an act of God that gives you faith?"Yes, Ego, this is quite the quandry isn't it? But it is no quandry for Reformed theology, because we give the same answer as Jesus gave. You're asking the right question, similar to the one Nicodemus asked. It's only a quandry if you underwrite it with the assumption that since Nicodemus is being "blamed" for his lack of faith, he is therefore to blame for his unregenerate state.
In other words, you are tacitly assuming, without benefit of argument that ability limits responsibility.
But what exactly is Nicodemus "blamed for" in this text? The most explicit statement of "blame" is not clearly his lack of faith, but it is very clear the fact that he was a teacher of Israel yet did not understand that a man must "be born of water and the Sprit?" To take your own argument, if the OT never stated that a man must be born of water baptism (to pick up on your connection to Acts 2:28) to enter the kingdom of God, then how could Jesus "blame" him for not understanding such a thing? It seems to me that your own argument refutes itself when you really look at the text.
So, you need to ask yourself some questions here:
1. Your own question: How could an unregenerate man believe if regeneration is required for faith? That's a good question. Also, from whence does man lack of faith stem? God's refusal to regenerate or man's own love of his own evil? If (a) why? Is God obligated to regenerate sinners? If (b) then is God really to blame?
2. Why does man require regeneration in order to believe? Does man have the power to believe from the natural state? If so, where is the supporting argument?
3. How could Jesus hold Nicodemus responsible for not understand something the OT Scriptures did not actually teach? The Jews had no doctrine of water baptism for the new birth. Seems to me you need to figure out how "born of water and the Spirit" connects to the OT.
Exactly my point...and Jesus' point. Nicodemus' lack of faith had nothing to do with his unregenerateness. His unregenerateness had to do with his lack of faith.
No, that is exactly the opposite of what this text teaches and what Reformed theology teaches. Faith is not required in order to be regenerated. Rather faith is the evidence of regeneration. That's the point of the "mystery" language and its placement with the language about "signs" not only in Nicodemus' first words in this passage, but the accounts immediately before - turning water to wine and the sign Jesus prophesies about His resurrection.
We know the wind moves by the signs. What signs? Well Jesus turned water into wine - a sign he was from God. The resurrection proves Jesus is the Lord of Life. When the wind hits your face or the leaves rustle, you know the wind is moving. (Saving)Faith is the sign in man that evidences the working of the Holy Spirit.
However, if we follow your logic, all of this is inverted.:
Wine is turned into water in order for God to work.
1. Jesus must rise from the dead in order to be Lord (Jesus said in John 10 that He already had the authority to do this.)
2. The rustling of the leaves causes the wind to blow. - This is one is particularly absurd, isn't it. Do you really believe this?
3. Faith (or for sacramentalists baptism) is required in order to be regenerated. Based on 1 and 2, this is obviously fallacious.
Ego, you have mistaken the effect, or rather the evidence (faith) for the cause (the Spirit's regenerating work).
Here's a question: Why does one man believe and not the other?
Let me say here that this is a question all Arminians, indeed anybody that objects to the Reformed ordu salutis must eventually ask. Here, however, I'd like to expand on why, in brief, the Reformed view makes the best sense of this question.
One thing that our synergistic friend has not considered here is the way this text fits into John's Gospel as a whole. We must never interpret a passage in isolation from another. John's Gospel employs what a pastor friend of mine once called a "stair step" or "shingle" structure in which one section builds upon another. John writes such that an idea expressed later is often epexegetical to the text immediately preceding. At the "micro" level, we see this in passages like John 6:44, 45, where 45 is epexegetical to 44. This is why, for example, if all people without exception are drawn (as is the common objection arising from the use of John 12:32 by Arminians), then universalism is the result. Likewise, in John, one pericope builds upon another in a similar fashion.
We can divide John's Gospel into two sections or "books."
1. The Book of Signs (1:1 - 12:50)
2. The Book of Acts of Salvation or The Book of Glory (13:1 ff).
John 3 is, obviously in the Book of Signs. Let us briefly consider what has gone before in relation to "signs."
First, we have John the Baptist's testimony. His testimony was, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me haas a higher rank than I, for He existed before me." John's testimony was a sign that "the kingdom of God was at hand."
John's baptism was a sign. Of what? Repentance.
The vision of the Holy Spirit (mentioned in Matt. 3 as well) was a sign that Jesus is the Lamb of God and confirmed John's testimony.
While the first of Jesus public signs is the turning of water into wine (John 2), John records another sign before this. In the calling of Nathaniel, Jesus' words to Nathaniel serve as a sign - a private one directed at Nathaniel.
The cleansing of the Temple was a sign, fulfilling Psalm 69:9. Jesus then gave a prophetic sign when He prophesied His crucifixion and resurrection. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
What do all of these have in common? They all point to the identity of Jesus - and this is the overall theme of John's Gospel in both the introduction and in the conclusion.
Thus, when we get to Nicodemus, what underwrites Jesus' reply is the simple fact that saving faith, eg. "understanding," is a sign that the Holy Spirit has come and done His work, eg. saving faith is a sign of the new birth. Ergo, regeneration precedes faith.
Also, to continue the discussion of signs, there are more. Jesus talks about Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness. This too was a sign to the people of Israel in his day. It was a sign of God's mercy to those who would look upon it and judgment to those who refused. Likewise, what is often lost in the exegesis of John 3:16 by the Arminian insistence on quantifying "world" is that the point is not to serve to talk about the scope of the atonement. Rather, the cross (the prophetic sign to which John is alluding) is a sign of God's love for the whole created order. How is it a sign, well, God loved the world so that the all the ones believing might have eternal life. It is a sign not of general atonement, but of particular atonement. It is given so that the believing ones might have eternal life - this is the nature of the sign to "the world." The world is witness to it - and that is the point of the public signs to testify.
Also, I'd like to point out something else. We have to remember that this gospel was also a letter. As such it is intended to draw the reader into it. It is supposed to get him to ask questions, like "What does this sign mean?" Ergo, there is some inherent ambiguity in the text that is explained the further we get into John's Gospel. For example, here in John 3, the work of the Spirit is described as a "mystery." However, by John 6, Jesus speaks more plainly, and by the time we get to the end of John's Gospel, what was ambiguous in the first chapters are clarified.
Here, Nicodemus is not clearly held out as one who does not believe. On the contrary, he is presented here as the exception to the rule. He is the only one of the Pharisaic party who actually comes to Jesus. Look at verse 2. This statement is exactly the OPPOSITE of the majority of the other Pharisees. He is depicted as coming a representative of the pious ones who did believe or were on the verge of believing, not those who utterly rejected Jesus. It is unclear when Nicodemus exercised saving faith in his life. It may well be that this is his conversion story. Jesus says what He says because Jesus recognizes the moving of the Holy Spirit in Nicodemus. The explanation of Jesus is (a) an editorializing from John to explain to the reader about regeneration and (b) "in plot" it is also Jesus Himself explaining what the Spirit is doing even as He speaks these words.
One of the questions Jesus answers with clarity in John 6:37 - 65 is "why does one man believe and not another." In the Capernaum synagogue Jesus gives his answer to explain why they do not believe. In John 6:66 - 71, the narrative concludes with Peter's confession. Why did he believe? The answer is in the previous pericope. That is how, for example, John's Gospel, as I wrote above is structured.
So, let's consider Nicodemus. As noted, it isn't altogether clear that Nicodemus does not believe. Rather, this could equally be an explanation of his belief. That's an ambiguity in the text.
Nicodemus confesses that he believes Jesus is from God because of His signs. He even comes to Jesus to do this.
In John 3, we are transitioning from the overall introduction to the Book of Signs into specific discourses.
John, with Jesus as his cipher, is also telling his readers that the religious leaders should have understood much more than the need to repent of their sins. They should have known all about what Jesus is discussing here. It's in the Scriptures (Ezekiel). "You being a teacher of Israel do not know these things?" This theme reappears, for example, in John 8.
This narrative ends with a statement that those who practice the truth come to the Light. These signs go hand in hand. Jesus signs evidenced God's work and His identity. These signs manifest God's work in the hearts of man - and that's the point of the narrative about the Spirit moving mysteriously like the wind. So, it serves not only to highlight the need for the new birth for men to believe but the reason that men like Nicodemus would, in fact, come to the Light. Nicodemus did that very thing, and John's Gospel later shows it.
To say that regeneration is evident after saving faith is therefore correct. To say that faith is required before regeneration can occur - or is the cause of it - is incorrect. The same is true of baptism. John is not teaching baptismal regeneration. Rather, baptism is a sign of repentance. Repentance and faith are necessary to see the kingdom of God. "Water" is a metaphor drawn from texts like Ezekiel, referring to the cleansing of the Spirit, and the movement of the Spirit is described as a mystery. He goes where He will - not where man wills (John 3:5 - 8, linked to 1:12 - 13). Why does one man repent and not another? Because the Spirit has worked in him. Why does one man believe and not another? Because the Spirit has worked in him. The synergist reading of this text would effectively confuse cause and effect throughout the Book of Signs if applied consistently.
Why does one man believe and not another?
ReplyDeleteThis is the one that trips me up from the Arminian point of view.
If faith/belief is man's choice, then doesn't the man who believes have reason to boast? If I believe but my neighbor doesn't, doesn't that make me smarter/more humble/(more something) than them?
"To take your own argument, if the OT never stated that a man must be born of water baptism (to pick up on your connection to Acts 2:28) to enter the kingdom of God, then how could Jesus 'blame' him for not understanding such a thing?"
ReplyDeleteAs I pointed out in my original blog entry, the Inquisitors that the Pharisees sent to John B. in cap 1 rejected his authority to baptize. Then at the end of cap 2, some Pharisees beleive on Jesus, but Jesus doesn't commit himself to them. Cap 3 begins with Nicodemus coming clearly on their behalf saying "WE beleive you are a teacher come from God" Cap 3 is about a group of Pharisees who beleive in Jesus but have rejected John B's baptism. Since the chapter begins that way, we must view Nicodemus attempt at subterfuge "can a man enter his mother's womb again?" for exactly what it is. He knows that Jesus is talking about baptism, and Jesus makes it clear with the word "water and of the Spirit." John B himself makes it clear later on in the chapter when he says "he that is of the earth speaks earthly things" referring to himself, whereas Jesus previously had told Nicodemus "If I have told you earthly things and you do not beleive" by which we learn that Jesus in this instance was repeating John B's "earthly things" to Nicodemus, yet Nicodemus wouldn't beleive. Jesus was using the phrase "earthly things" to indicate "John B's teachings."
"If faith/belief is man's choice, then doesn't the man who believes have reason to boast? If I believe but my neighbor doesn't, doesn't that make me smarter/more humble/(more something) than them?"
ReplyDeleteSo what if it does give you reason to boast against other men? You still couldn't boast before God. In other words, faith doesn't earn salvation. Even if faith proved you better than someone else on some level, it doesn't prove you worthy of salvation. Salvation is still by grace, that is, still unmerited. The fact that faith is an action of man does not negate grace, since faith doesn't make us worthy of salvation, and salvation remains unmerited. Faith is merely a condition of receiving God's grace, and hence salvation is still of grace.
Along the same lines, one could argue that election gives men reason to boast. After all, many men who beleive they are elect are quite prideful of it. The same cheap argument used against the non-Calvinist view of faith can be used against the Calvinist view of election, that is, that both can be said to generate boasting against other men. The non-Calvinist view of faith, however, can never be said to generate boasting against God. The Calvinist view of election, however, might be said to possibly generate boasting against God since I have heard many Calvinists say that God owes them salvation on the basis of election, and go so far as to say that if God doesn't admit them into heaven they can sue him since they know that Jesus died for them. I've never heard a non-Calvinist say that God owes them salvation. I'm saying non-Calvinist rather than Arminian to be inclusive of those who don't beleive in personal election of individuals but rather beleive in corporate election, i.e. that Jesus is the sole elect and whoever enters him becomes elect by virtue of that union.
ReplyDeleteCap 3 is about a group of Pharisees who beleive in Jesus but have rejected John B's baptism.
ReplyDeleteThis assumes what it needs to prove. Nicodemus says he represents a group of Jews who believe that Jesus is from God because of the signs He performs. Nowhere does it indicate that they had rejected John's baptism. You've drawn a connection between the ones in chapter 1 and the ones Nicodemus represents that does not obtain from the text. Rather, you've superimposed this onto the text.
Since the chapter begins that way, we must view Nicodemus attempt at subterfuge "can a man enter his mother's womb again?" for exactly what it is.
Where does the text indicate this is "an attempt at subterfuge?" Again, you've imposed this on the text.
Notice how you divorce this text from the rest of John. This is both dishonest and inept. Nicodemus is not committing an act of subterfuge. Why impute to him such motives? Rather, he has real questions, and, unlike anybody else, he goes directly to Jesus. That's not "subterfuge."
He is alluding to Job, the only place in the Bible that talks about a man being born again from the womb. What's happening here is his overliteralizing of something Jesus said. Ironically, this is precisely your own problem.
He knows that Jesus is talking about baptism, and Jesus makes it clear with the word "water and of the Spirit."
We've already been over this with you, why are you ignoring what was stated?
How do you get from "water and the Spirit" to "baptism?" Like a good Campbellite, you just read Acts 2:28 back into the text.
But "water" here if it refers to "baptism" refers to that which baptism signifies. Once again for you:
A variation on this view [that John 3:5 alludes to baptism] is that ‘water’ refers not to Christian baptism but to John’s baptism (Godet, 2. 49-52; Westcott, 1. 108-109, and others). In that case, Jesus is either saying that the baptism of repentance, as important as it is, must not be thought sufficient: there must be Spirit-birth as well; or, if Nicodemus refused to be baptized by the Baptist, Jesus is rebuking him and saying that he must pass through repentance-baptism (‘water’) and new birth (‘Spirit’)….The argument presupposes that John the Baptist was so influential at the time that a mere mention of water would conjure up pictures of his ministry. If so, however, the response of Nicodemus is inappropriate. If the allusion to the Baptist were clear, why should Nicodemus respond with such incredulity, ignorance and unbelief (3:4, 9-10, 12), rather than mere distaste or hardened arrogance? Even if John’s baptism is mentioned in near contexts, the burden of these contexts is to stress the relative unimportance of his rite (1: 23, 26; 3:23, 30). If John’s baptism lies behind ‘water’ in John 3:5, would not this suggest that Jesus was making the Baptist’s rite a requirement for entrance into the kingdom, even though that rite was shortly to be superseded by Christian baptism?
Carson, D. A., The Gospel According to John, PNTC, Eerdmans, 1991
What say you to Carson?
It also refers to a specific text in Ezekiel.
It also refers forward to "living water" in the next pericope.
To literalize "baptism" from "water" is to commit the fallacy of semantic anachronism. It thereby overlooks the theme of the Book of Signs, which asks the question, "What do these things signify?"
John B himself makes it clear later on in the chapter when he says "he that is of the earth speaks earthly things" referring to himself, whereas Jesus previously had told Nicodemus "If I have told you earthly things and you do not beleive" by which we learn that Jesus in this instance was repeating John B's "earthly things" to Nicodemus, yet Nicodemus wouldn't beleive
Yes, there is a parallel between John saying "He who comes from above is above all; he who is from the earth and speaks from the earth." However, it is a loose parallel, for John here is talking about his fading ministry. It is from the earth, it is not everlasting. It is like that of the other OT prophets. John is not from above; Christ is. John is subordinate; Jesus is His superior. John is weak; Christ is strong. The emphasis here is qualitative - the nature of John's teaching and ministry and of John himself - not the content of the teaching itself.
Is Jesus talking about John the Baptist's teaching? No, for his answers in 3:11 - 12 follow on not from talking about baptism with water but the mysterious movement of the Spirit. The accent is not on baptism, but "wind." Why? Because Jesus is using phenomena drawn from nature to explain these things to Nicodemus, and Nicodemus says "How can these things be?" to the explanation of the Spirit working like the wind. Nicodemus has referred to physical birth from Job and Jesus answers with an analogy of water and Spirit, the accent of which is on the latter, not the former, and which he illustrates with "wind" (a word play in John too since the same Greek word for "Spirit" is also "wind") - both things understood via "natural theology." However, they are also spoken of, not only in Job, but also in Ezekiel 36:25 - 27. So, Jesus gets him away from Job (physical birth) to Ezekiel (spiritual birth), and Nicodemus is still confused - or if not him those whom he represents, since "you" will be pluralized when Jesus speaks to him.
Why make these moves? Nicodemus is a teacher of Israel and does not understand - receive - this. Yet it was in the Scriptures that the Pharisees poured over incessantly. Since the OT did not teach water baptism for salvation and this was unknown to the Jews - but the working of the Spirit was taught using water language, that is what Jesus is laying to his account. He is saying, "You don't understand the illustration so you won't understand what lies behind the illustration, and you should do so, because this is in Scripture. If you won't understand the illustration how will you understand if I tell you explicitly?" If you don't understand the sign, how will you understand what it signifies?"
Jesus refers to what "we" have seen and heard, which contrasts with Nicodemus own statement in 3:2. Jesus is referring to the "we" of the Father and Son; Nicodemus is referring to the Sanhedrin. Jesus sees the spiritual realities necessary to see the kingdom of God. The Sanhedrin sees only physical realities - like the temple being torn down. However, he then gives a prophetic sign - the cross by giving an illustration not from nature but Scripture. So, He moves from the implicit to the explicit by calling on the typology between Numbers 21 and His own coming crucifixion. At this point, Nicodemus disappears, but the next time we see him, he's a believer. He is also one who objected to the trial of Jesus. So, either here in this narrative he believes or sometime between here and the trial. Why did he believe and not the others, Ego?
This is also John's own question to his readers? How does anybody understand and believe any of this? By the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit - by being born again, and if you think that faith or baptism is necessary in order to be born again, you Ego, have mistaken the signs for what they signify yourself. You are Nicodemus.
By literalizing water baptism from this text, you've squarely placed yourself in the camp of the Sanhedrin here. Jesus reference to "water," if a reference to baptism is not a reference to John's baptism but what baptism signfies - repentance. Jesus is not saying, "You must be baptized to be saved." Rather He is speaking of that which baptism signifies - you must be born of repentance and regeneration. How does this work? The former is a sign of the latter, for the Spirit moves wherever He will - like wind - and in 6 and 8, nothing is said about water, but of Spirit.
The Spirit goes where He wills. The new birth, in John 1 is explicitly said to not be of the will of man. According to you, however, the Spirit goes where man wills, for man must baptize a man in order for man to be regenerated or a man must believe in order to be regenerated - so we're right back and your inability to discern cause from effect. The Roman Catholic as do the Lutheran have a better argument for baptismal regeneration from you here, for at least they place faith after it - but you object to this, for you place it before baptism. By the way 1 John 5:1 unequivocally states that the new birth precedes faith.
As I pointed out in the other thread, your own argument refutes itself, for underwriting your argument is the tacit assumption that it is wrong for Jesus to hold Nicodemus accountable for something that he cannot do - but if that argument is valid it applies to your own argument, for Jesus hold Nicodemus accountable for not understanding that water baptism is necessary for salvation in your view. Where is that in the OT? It's not there, yet Jesus says to Nicodemus that he's a teacher of Israel that is supposed to know this. So, let's grant your argument for a moment. A) Care to find water baptism for salvation in the OT? Campbellites are notorious for avoiding this question. B) How can Jesus hold Nicodemus accountable for not understanding something not in the Bible of his day?
So what if it does give you reason to boast against other men? You still couldn't boast before God. In other words, faith doesn't earn salvation. Even if faith proved you better than someone else on some level, it doesn't prove you worthy of salvation. Salvation is still by grace, that is, still unmerited. The fact that faith is an action of man does not negate grace, since faith doesn't make us worthy of salvation, and salvation remains unmerited. Faith is merely a condition of receiving God's grace, and hence salvation is still of grace.
ReplyDeleteSo, according to you, you can boast that you were more spiritual than Joe Unbeliever.
Is faith a "condition" of receiving God's grace? This assumes that grace is quantitative and not qualitative. A little faith, a lot of grace, makes synergism okay.
According to 1 John 3, believing is a command - and if that's so, you believe in salvation by merit. You've turned faith into a work. Men believe for different reasons. Why does one believe and not the other?
Along the same lines, one could argue that election gives men reason to boast. After all, many men who beleive they are elect are quite prideful of it. The same cheap argument used against the non-Calvinist view of faith can be used against the Calvinist view of election, that is, that both can be said to generate boasting against other men.
Actually, it's your view of election that does that. If God bases election on a condition that men fulfill from themselves, then men are elected because they are more spiritual, intelligent, etc.
You're trying to pin the old "favoritism" argument on us, but that's obviously fallacious, since the ground of election is not in man but in God and God alone. God does not choose man because of anything He sees in them. However, you're in the same boat as "Henry" awhile back who explicitly said that God sees something in one and not another (faith) and elects them accordingly.
Arminianism puts election and regeneration after conversion itself and thus outside the work of grace. Neither the work of the Father (election), nor the work of the Spirit (regeneration) is a link in a golden chain which results in a state of grace. Election and regeneration fall outside the grace of God, for they do not create or contribute to a state of grace. On this view, the grace of God is limited to the work of Christ. And it is up to man in a state of nature to respond to the Gospel of Christ.
Mercy and justice are separate categories in ethics. To be merciful something must be undeserved. To be “just” either a standard of justice must be satisfied or something must be deserved. Mercy can satisfy justice if somebody else takes the penalty for a wrong act so that the Judge can extend mercy to somebody else. The Arminian, by grounding election in foreseen faith ultimately makes God unjust, because all people believe for different reasons. In fact, it is the same kind of favoritism that James condemns, because this faith arises as an intrinsic foreseen characteristic in those persons. This is not true equality. Calvinists believe the ground, or anchor, the reason for electing (choosing) (by the way, “elect” is another Bible word, thus election is a doctrine taught in Scripture) some and allowing others to continue in sin is found only in God and is not done with respect to either foreseen faith or foreseen wickedness. (Eph. 1, Romans 9). This is truly "just" because people are all in the hands of a God who alone is perfectly just and loving and does nothing arbitrarily and will always do the right thing.
The non-Calvinist view of faith, however, can never be said to generate boasting against God.
Except of course that (a) Scripture does not differentiate between boasting the way you do and (b) men believe for different reasons, see above.
he Calvinist view of election, however, might be said to possibly generate boasting against God since I have heard many Calvinists say that God owes them salvation on the basis of election, and go so far as to say that if God doesn't admit them into heaven they can sue him since they know that Jesus died for them
And of course, they that because God does "owe them salvation" on the basis of election, for His decrees are immutable. If He was to fail in doing that, He would not be God. The Persons of the Trinity have an agreement and if the Spirit, for example, fails to apply the benefits of redemption to those for whom Christ died, then He is proven unjust - to Christ and the Father who sent Him, because the application of redemption's benefits to the elect, like the awarding of a Kingdom to the Son by the Father and the handing over of it to the Father by the Son, are all part of a covenantal bond between them. So, we can say that God "owes us" salvation on the basis of election and the atonement not because of anything we have done, but because of the obligations set up within the Trinity.
You would do well to actually acquaint yourself with the opposing position.
I'm saying non-Calvinist rather than Arminian to be inclusive of those who don't beleive in personal election of individuals but rather beleive in corporate election, i.e. that Jesus is the sole elect and whoever enters him becomes elect by virtue of that union.
A. That happens to be one of the Arminian views. By the way, it falls prey to the regressive fallacy, since they are still elected into the group by way of foreseen faith.
B. This has been refuted. See Thomas Schriener. http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200606/ai_n17176281
Where does the text indicate this is "an attempt at subterfuge?"
ReplyDeleteJesus does not say "Nicodemus, I'm sorry you MISUNDERSTAND regeneration." He says "If I tell you earthly things and YOU DO NOT BELIEVE" by which Jesus is telling us that Nicodemus understands very well, but doesn't beleive.
To literalize "baptism" from "water" is to commit the fallacy of semantic anachronism.
In a context that has been about baptism and continues to be? What did Jesus do right after this discussion with Nicodemus? Go and baptize more people than John B ever did. What did Nicodemus' Pharisees buddies do right before this chapter? Reject John B's authority to baptize. The fact is that NOT seeing water here as referring to baptism "is to commit the fallacy of semantic anachronism."
Is Jesus talking about John the Baptist's teaching? No, for his answers in 3:11 - 12 follow on not from talking about baptism with water but the mysterious movement of the Spirit.
Verse 8 says "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
He refers not to the method of rebirth, but to how the person will be once reborn. Notice, he doesn't say "this is how one if born of the Spirit" but rather "this is how everyone who is born of the Spirit is." He is referring to the character of the one who had been reborn, not of how they were reborn. in other words, just as we don't comprehend the wind, the world does not comprehend Christians.
Nicodemus is a teacher of Israel and does not understand - receive - this. Yet it was in the Scriptures that the Pharisees poured over incessantly. Since the OT did not teach water baptism for salvation and this was unknown to the Jews -...
Somehow the Pharisees in John 1 knew that baptism was a Messianic ordinance, and associated it with Elijah, Christ, and That Prophet. So, however they determined all that, in the same way Nicodemus could have realized that the rebirth was necessary, especially since John the baptist was then preaching it.
As I pointed out in the other thread, your own argument refutes itself, for underwriting your argument is the tacit assumption that it is wrong for Jesus to hold Nicodemus accountable for something that he cannot do - but if that argument is valid it applies to your own argument, for Jesus hold Nicodemus accountable for not understanding that water baptism is necessary for salvation in your view.
He could have understood that baptism was necessary for salvation since John was preaching it. So, Jesus was right in blaming him for his rejection of John as a prophet. in your view, however, Jesus would be chastising a robot for following his programming.
Egomakarios said:
ReplyDelete"The fact is that NOT seeing water here as referring to baptism 'is to commit the fallacy of semantic anachronism.'"
How is it "anachronistic" to interpret John 3 in light of Ezekiel 36, which was written hundreds of years before Nicodemus was born? The same gospel uses water imagery to refer to the Holy Spirit (John 7:38-39). We know that Jesus used that sort of language when discussing subjects other than baptism. You keep appealing to references to baptism outside of Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus, but the discussion itself has more to do with the Old Testament scriptures than it has to do with the baptism of John. Just as Ezekiel 36 refers to water, followed by a reference to wind in Ezekiel 37, Jesus refers to water, then wind (John 3:5, 3:8). And He mentions faith three times without mentioning baptism (John 3:15-18).
You write:
"He could have understood that baptism was necessary for salvation since John was preaching it."
Where does John the Baptist teach baptismal justification? He doesn't. To the contrary, Josephus tells us that John's baptism occurred after moral cleansing had taken place (Antiquities Of The Jews, 18:5:2). And if Jesus was teaching baptismal justification in John 3, then why did He go on to repeatedly forgive people without baptism and describe such a justification without baptism as if it was normative (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, 18:10-14, 19:1-10, etc.)?
So, according to you, you can boast that you were more spiritual than Joe Unbeliever.
ReplyDeleteNo. I said that even if one felt they had cause to boast against other men, they still couldn't boast before God. Paul acknowledges that men might boast against other men due to their having faith and others not having faith, but he warns against it, in the olive tree analogy, saying not to boast against the natural branches because they were cut off due to unbelief since God will cut you off also if you cease to believe. Rom 11.
Where does John the Baptist teach baptismal justification? He doesn't. To the contrary, Josephus tells us that John's baptism occurred after moral cleansing had taken place (Antiquities Of The Jews, 18:5:2).
ReplyDeleteJosephus, being a Jew, would naturally not want to accept John's teaching for what it was. The Bible is very clear, however, that John's baptism was for the remission of sins. Not only that, but John's own words indicate a rebirth takes place in his baptism. When the Pharisees came to mock his baptism, he tells them to not say that they have Abraham as their father since God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones. He was telling them right there that they needed to be born again, and that their Abrahamic descent physically did not preclude them from the need of rebirth in baptism.
Egomakarios said:
ReplyDelete"Josephus, being a Jew, would naturally not want to accept John's teaching for what it was."
Why would his Jewishness involve a desire to reject baptismal justification? And if Josephus objected to the concept, why didn't he just not mention what John the Baptist believed about that issue? Or why didn't he just express disagreement with John the Baptist on that subject while expressing agreement with him on other matters? Josephus was capable of partially agreeing with people while partially disagreeing with them. He doesn't say much about John the Baptist. Why should we think that he was so concerned about agreeing with John the Baptist as to be willing to misrepresent him on the issue in question?
You write:
"The Bible is very clear, however, that John's baptism was for the remission of sins. Not only that, but John's own words indicate a rebirth takes place in his baptism. When the Pharisees came to mock his baptism, he tells them to not say that they have Abraham as their father since God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones. He was telling them right there that they needed to be born again, and that their Abrahamic descent physically did not preclude them from the need of rebirth in baptism."
You tell us that the Bible is "very clear" in support of your position, yet what you go on to describe, without citing any passages, is far from "very clear" in supporting your view. The fact that the Pharisees needed to be born again doesn't prove that the rebirth would occur at the time of baptism.
You aren't citing anything that makes your view "very clear" in scripture. You've repeatedly ignored what I've said about Jesus' forgiving people apart from baptism. And when Josephus contradicts your dubious view of John the Baptist, you dismiss Josephus because he was a Jew, even though his Jewishness doesn't prove that he would be motivated to misrepresent John's baptism.
"Along the same lines, one could argue that election gives men reason to boast. After all, many men who beleive they are elect are quite prideful of it. The same cheap argument used against the non-Calvinist view of faith can be used against the Calvinist view of election, that is, that both can be said to generate boasting against other men. The non-Calvinist view of faith, however, can never be said to generate boasting against God. The Calvinist view of election, however, might be said to possibly generate boasting against God since I have heard many Calvinists say that God owes them salvation on the basis of election, and go so far as to say that if God doesn't admit them into heaven they can sue him since they know that Jesus died for them. I've never heard a non-Calvinist say that God owes them salvation. I'm saying non-Calvinist rather than Arminian to be inclusive of those who don't beleive in personal election of individuals but rather beleive in corporate election, i.e. that Jesus is the sole elect and whoever enters him becomes elect by virtue of that union."
ReplyDeleteThis is supremely incompetent. Not to mention dishonest. Please provide documentation for your claims that "many Calvinists" said these things. Or are the Calvinists you are referring to personal correspondents of yours? Your invidiousness is noted.