Born again - Before, or After, the Call?

[St. SteVen]

Do you mean the human being named Jesus; or do you mean the Word who became, though incarnation, the human being named Jesus?

Here's an excerpt from the topic link I provided.

I want to discuss the Logos as what it means before the Logos became flesh. (and dwelt among us)
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. (John 1:1)

This tells three things about the Logos.
1) The Logos was from the beginning.
2) The Logos was with God.
3) The Logos was God.

Our knee-jerk thought is to jump to the meaning that Christ was the Logos. Which is true by extension.
But what was the Logos BEFORE the Logos became flesh?

Strong's Greek 3056 3056. logos Strong's Concordance logos: a word (as embodying an idea)

I want to focus on this "as embodying an idea" definition.
The Logos as embodying an idea, the logic, the reason, the meaning.

[

 

[JBO]

Here's an excerpt from the topic link I provided.

I want to discuss the Logos as what it means before the Logos became flesh. (and dwelt among us)
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. (John 1:1)

This tells three things about the Logos.
1) The Logos was from the beginning.
2) The Logos was with God.
3) The Logos was God.

Our knee-jerk thought is to jump to the meaning that Christ was the Logos. Which is true by extension.
But what was the Logos BEFORE the Logos became flesh?

Strong's Greek 3056 3056. logos Strong's Concordance logos: a word (as embodying an idea)

I want to focus on this "as embodying an idea" definition.
The Logos as embodying an idea, the logic, the reason, the meaning.

[

From Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

Was the Word - Greek, “was the λόγος Logos.” This name is given to him who afterward became “flesh,” or was incarnate (Joh_1:14 - that is, to the Messiah. Whatever is meant by it, therefore, is applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ. There have been many opinions about the reason why this name was given to the Son of God. It is unnecessary to repeat those opinions. The opinion which seems most plausible may be expressed as follows:
1. A “word” is that by which we communicate our will; by which we convey our thoughts; or by which we issue commands the medium of communication with others.
2. The Son of God may be called “the Word,” because he is the medium by which God promulgates His will and issues His commandments. See Heb_1:1-3.
3. This term was in use before the time of John.
(a) It was used in the Aramaic translation of the Old Testament, as, “e. g.,” Isa_45:12; “I have made the earth, and created man upon it.” In the Aramaic it is, “I, ‘by my word,’ have made,” etc. Isa_48:13; “mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth.” In the Aramaic, “‘By my word’ I have founded the earth.” And so in many other places.
(b) This term was used by the Jews as applicable to the Messiah. In their writings he was commonly known by the term “Mimra” - that is, “Word;” and no small part of the interpositions of God in defense of the Jewish nation were declared to be by “the Word of God.” Thus, in their Targum on Deu_26:17-18, it is said, “Ye have appointed the word of God a king over you this day, that he may be your God.”
(c) The term was used by the Jews who were scattered among the Gentiles, and especially those who were conversant with the Greek philosophy.
(d) The term was used by the followers of Plato among the Greeks, to denote the Second Person of the Trinity. The Greek term νοῦς nous or “mind,” was commonly given to this second person, but it was said that this nous was “the word” or “reason” of the First Person of the Trinity. The term was therefore extensively in use among the Jews and Gentiles before John wrote his Gospel, and it was certain that it would be applied to the Second Person of the Trinity by Christians. whether converted from Judaism or Paganism. It was important, therefore, that the meaning of the term should be settled by an inspired man, and accordingly John, in the commencement of his Gospel, is at much pains to state clearly what is the true doctrine respecting the λόγος Logos, or Word. It is possible, also, that the doctrines of the Gnostics had begun to spread in the time of John. They were an Oriental sect, and held that the λόγος Logos or “Word” was one of the “Aeones” that had been created, and that this one had been united to the man Jesus. If that doctrine had begun then to prevail, it was of the more importance for John to settle the truth in regard to the rank of the Logos or Word. This he has done in such a way that there need be no doubt about its meaning.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So your view is that we inherit a sin nature from our father? I don't think you can get that from Scripture or from biology. Actually, I don't think you can even find a reference to a sin nature in Scripture.

Are you sure His divinity came from God the Father and not God the Holy Spirit? Actually, I think His divinity came from His being the "Word", the second being of the Trinity.

Ephesians 2

King James Version

​

2 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Rom. 5:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

we are children of Adam. Adam fell and sin nature entered man. We inherit this from Adam and has been passed on since Adam.

I cannot argue who infuse the person of jesus with His divinity. Hewas God before He became man so it could be said He just took His divinity with Him when He entered the embryo.

 

[JBO]

Ephesians 2​

​

King James Version​

​

​

2 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Dead in OUR trespasses and sins, not in any "sinful nature".

Rom. 5:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

we are children of Adam. Adam fell and sin nature entered man. We inherit this from Adam and has been passed on since Adam.

You mentioned sin nature again. Could you please point out the scripture reference for that sin nature that you are talking about.

I cannot argue who infuse the person of jesus with His divinity. Hewas God before He became man so it could be said He just took His divinity with Him when He entered the embryo.

I think the preincarnate Spirit who came to earth in the form of a human baby from Mary was divine for eternity past. I believe it was that Spirit who took on the flesh and blood of mankind. It is the unique character of the human being to have a spirit and a body of flesh and blood. I believe in Jesus' case, the spirit was in fact the Spirit, the second person of the trinity. What John referred to as the Word In John 1.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Dead in OUR trespasses and sins, not in any "sinful nature".

So sad you failed to read verse three.

 

[JBO]

So sad you failed to read verse three.

So sad that you fail to understand verse three. The average adult male is by nature a bigamist. That doesn't mean he is one.

 

[JohnDB]

I haven't claimed that you are not a Christian. I would not ordinarily do such a thing.

I have no reason to believe that at all.

And neither are you.

Given your assertions of superiority, I am not sure you should be trying to take anyone to task for pride; this last reply doesn't display much humility. But I suppose that is all relative.

No superiority here....

Just you seem to be completely blind to anything anyone says that is different from "church answers" which go beyond the most basic sermons delivered from a pulpit.

I have given detailed information regarding what was said and the exact context it was said in going even into original language and yet you claim that I've given no evidence to support what I've stated.

So now you have maligned me with more false accusations of me claiming superiority over you? Where it might be true....I have not claimed that. It didn't come to mind nor was I the one who brought it up.

So is it your habit to completely dismiss anything someone else has said and then falsely accuse them or am I to feel special?

 

[JBO]

No superiority here....

Just you seem to be completely blind to anything anyone says that is different from "church answers" which go beyond the most basic sermons delivered from a pulpit.

I have given detailed information regarding what was said and the exact context it was said in going even into original language and yet you claim that I've given no evidence to support what I've stated.

So now you have maligned me with more false accusations of me claiming superiority over you? Where it might be true....I have not claimed that. It didn't come to mind nor was I the one who brought it up.

So is it your habit to completely dismiss anything someone else has said and then falsely accuse them or am I to feel special?

I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply reacted to what you claimed.

 

[JohnDB]

I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply reacted to what you claimed.

Not to be repetitive...
You have yet to address anything of substance I have said about "born again".

 

[JBO]

Not to be repetitive...
You have yet to address anything of substance I have said about "born again".

OK. Let's start this again from the beginning. I think your first entry into this discussion was reply #65 suggesting we needed some other term. The again in reply #67 saying something about "born from above" being one used to classify certain heroes of Israel's history.

So far as I can see, that was nothing more than blanket statement from you. Whether true or not doesn't negate the usual interpretation given to it's use in John 3. You certainly haven't presented any evidence that it does.

 

[JohnDB]

OK. Let's start this again from the beginning. I think your first entry into this discussion was reply #65 suggesting we needed some other term. The again in reply #67 saying something about "born from above" being one used to classify certain heroes of Israel's history.

So far as I can see, that was nothing more than blanket statement from you. Whether true or not doesn't negate the usual interpretation given to it's use in John 3. You certainly haven't presented any evidence that it does.

Yes I have....

In EVERY modern Bible there exists a footnote declaring that "born again" in John 3 truly is born from above.
1st Peter is more born anew because Goodrich kolenberger dictionary is better than Strongs.
Paul also talks about being a new creature....but it's not an experience.

 

[JohnDB]

And this is the difference between an originalist view of scripture versus a populist view of scripture. I'm in the originalist camp.
The populist camp says that scripture means what they wish it to mean today. (Born again crowd) Such is the lgbtq crowd. Not even ever going to go there.

Which is why I do NOT like Strongs....there are way too many serious scholars of ancient languages that have serious issues with Strongs. They have issues with GK as well....but the issues are fewer in number.


Then there's the Themes of John's Gospel. NOT to mention people read into what Jesus says to Nicodemus "you need to become" instead of what is actually said.

So....
Since we are not losing jobs, houses, and families for believing in Jesus today....the whole "born anew" into a new family with a new identity, heritage, and legacy is lost on us today.

 

[JBO]

And this is the difference between an originalist view of scripture versus a populist view of scripture. I'm in the originalist camp.
The populist camp says that scripture means what they wish it to mean today. (Born again crowd) Such is the lgbtq crowd. Not even ever going to go there.

Which is why I do NOT like Strongs....there are way too many serious scholars of ancient languages that have serious issues with Strongs. They have issues with GK as well....but the issues are fewer in number.


Then there's the Themes of John's Gospel. NOT to mention people read into what Jesus says to Nicodemus "you need to become" instead of what is actually said.

So....
Since we are not losing jobs, houses, and families for believing in Jesus today....the whole "born anew" into a new family with a new identity, heritage, and legacy is lost on us today.

Yes I have....

In EVERY modern Bible there exists a footnote declaring that "born again" in John 3 truly is born from above.
1st Peter is more born anew because Goodrich kolenberger dictionary is better than Strongs.
Paul also talks about being a new creature....but it's not an experience.

I have no problem with the born from above translation/interpretation. I do perhaps have a problem with what you think that means. But since you have not given any real description or scriptural support for that, I will just leave it there.

 

[JohnDB]

I have no problem with the born from above translation/interpretation. I do perhaps have a problem with what you think that means. But since you have not given any real description or scriptural support for that, I will just leave it there.

And exactly WHAT are you assuming that you believe I think it means?

And it is an assumption on your part because I've stated only that the theme is coordinated with the rest of John's Gospel starting in the first chapter and is continued throughout to the last story of Peter fishing.

 

[JBO]

And exactly WHAT are you assuming that you believe I think it means?

That it means something different than what Jesus taught. You said, if I understand correctly, that Jesus' statement concerning born from above means something altogether different from Peter's statement concerning born again. I think they are one and the same thing, namely, the making alive of the sinner once dead in his trespasses and sins. that is not a physical thing; but rather it is a spiritual thing which Jesus pointed out by is stating, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6).

 

[JohnDB]

That it means something different than what Jesus taught. You said, if I understand correctly, that Jesus' statement concerning born from above means something altogether different from Peter's statement concerning born again. I think they are one and the same thing, namely, the making alive of the sinner once dead in his trespasses and sins. that is not a physical thing; but rather it is a spiritual thing which Jesus pointed out by is stating, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6).

Because they aren't the same thing.

Critical analysis of exactly what was said instead of reading extra concepts into what was said by Jesus is necessary.

Just because the majority of Americans read "you need to be" due to a massive marketing campaign into John 3 doesn't make it so.

You have been duped by the world. Sure they might have had good intentions....but the results are disastrous.

When Erasmus translated this section into English for the Book of Prayers or Evangelion out of Latin the world was just coming our of the "Dark Ages". Much had been lost and he, as well as Tyndale, were following the pattern set by Martin Luther. And where Luther was doing very well....he was not perfect.
This error, as well as many others, have been discovered in the centuries to come as information about Anthropology, Topography, and other writings have become known.

Jesus had good reasons for saying what he did but it is completely different from the concept that Peter is discussing.

John's Gospel is one that focuses on theologies and concepts using narratives to demonstrate truth vx errors which are still being used today.

"Born Again" is an insidious error that removes the truth of God's omniscience. God does NOT react as events unfold....God has already planned and already acted upon them as they do unfold.

There is no "magic moment" in people's lives where they feel a rush of emotions and corresponding physical effects due to them. (They might but it's not common)

God is more interested in FRUITS than emotions.
Just because a peach seed is planted and sprouts doesn't mean I'm going to get any peaches eventually. I might but not necessarily. Jesus was saying that Nicodemus had a role already laid out for him for God and all of Israel. And Jesus was correct. Nicodemus did have a role and it's recorded.

Nicodemus was already a believer....he didn't need to become one. He wasn't hiding for the night time visit. Night is socializing time in Israel where the narrow and tiny streets are lit with torches/lamps and full of people. It still is to this day.

 

[JBO]

Because they aren't the same thing.

Critical analysis of exactly what was said instead of reading extra concepts into what was said by Jesus is necessary.

Just because the majority of Americans read "you need to be" due to a massive marketing campaign into John 3 doesn't make it so.

Nor does your reading it differently make it so.

"Born Again" is an insidious error that removes the truth of God's omniscience. God does NOT react as events unfold....God has already planned and already acted upon them as they do unfold.

Of course God reacts as events unfold. The fact that He foreknew and planned for the reaction, doesn't make the occasion for that reaction already past in this realm.

There is no "magic moment" in people's lives where they feel a rush of emotions and corresponding physical effects due to them. (They might but it's not common)

I agree with that. But there is that moment in the life of the saint when he ceases to be a lost sinner and become a justified believer

Nicodemus was already a believer....he didn't need to become one. He wasn't hiding for the night time visit. Night is socializing time in Israel where the narrow and tiny streets are lit with torches/lamps and full of people. It still is to this day.

Becoming born again or born from above is not about becoming a believer. It is about the believing sinner becoming a justified believer.

I would add that everyone comes into this world being born from above. A human being comes into the world through the created procreation process of the union of the father and mother. That produces the body of the baby. That is essentially true for the entire biological kingdom. But what separates the human being from the rest of the biological realm is the spirit formed in that human. That is not from the father or the mother. That is from God. That is the spirit of man literally being born from above. If that were the end of it, then all would "see the kingdom of God. But that isn't the end of it. If the human lives long enough, he will sin; and in doing so he will become dead in his trespasses and sins. It is the spirit formed by God that becomes damaged, depraved or "dead in sin". He needs to be made alive again. He needs to be "born again". He needs to be REborn by God. He needs to be born again from above bring him back to that condition of being alive spiritually again. That which is born of Spirit is spirit. Spirit begets spirit.

Jesus said in John 3 that is accomplished by being born of water and Spirit. And I will leave it at that.

 

[JohnDB]

I would add that everyone comes into this world being born from above

No...
Not even
Never happening even on a good day.
That's a universalism approach and a deadly theology.
King David also disagrees with you. So does Jesus and every other Biblical author. The world is condemned....been that way since Adam and Eve. "Cursed is the Earth because of you"

These issues of theologies stem entirely from not having a good knowledge and understanding of exactly what was said and intended by the author who wrote them.

Critical analysis of exactly, precisely what was said is the start. With Gospel accounts much more knowledge of anthropology, geography, economics, and geopolitics of Ancient Near East societies is necessary to more fully understand why it was said in the manner it was said in.

It is difficult for people today to view women as property or to imagine what life inside of a Caste based legalistic society is like. We are not as racist as politicians love to claim in America. But ALL of these aspects of life must be realized and considered before a complete understanding of scripture is understood. The flat reading of mistranslated words is not going to get you what is right.

Then there's the whole misconception of what God's Sovereignty really means that you have proposed is really scary.

I don't think we are worshipping the same God. Yours may go by the same name....but doesn't have the same Sovereignty mine does.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So sad that you fail to understand verse three. The average adult male is by nature a bigamist. That doesn't mean he is one.

No the adult male is notr by nature a bigamist. He is a sinner by nature and which sins they demonstrate depend on a host of things. All have the potential to commit all sorts of sins, but that doesn't mean we will or even want to commit many of them.

But all are conceived with a sin nature.

But thanks for the red herring.

 

[JBO]

The world is condemned....been that way since Adam and Eve. "Cursed is the Earth because of you"

And just what did that consist of? " thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field" (Gen 3:18).

Then there's the whole misconception of what God's Sovereignty really means that you have proposed is really scary.

Yes, I could imagine that could indeed be really scary for you.

I don't think we are worshipping the same God. Yours may go by the same name....but doesn't have the same Sovereignty mine does.

And I think God for that. Your's is little more than a Master Puppeteer pulling the strings of everything in the universe, even pulling the strings to dump most of the whole of mankind right directly into the fires of hell, seemingly for His own good pleasures.