Is God the "first cause of everything" (including sin) as the Westminster Confession says?

[Marvin Knox]

Before we discuss that would agree that the idea is an inference? If so then we need to verify whether or not it is a necessary inference.

From your question it seems to me that you're presupposing spiritual life and death. Also, what if anything in the text leads you to the conclusion that this passage is addressing spiritual death. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just pointing out the point I made that we bring presuppositions to the text. We all do it, we just have to be aware of it and not let it interfere with our understanding of the text.

Now, to address your question. No, I don't think the encounter has anything to do with spiritual death. The first thing I see is that Jesus was talking to a Jewish man, a leader of the Jews. Jesus had come to the Jews. Jesus says to Nicodemus, unless he is born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God. So, the issue is entering the kingdom of God.we know that the Jews were God's people and they were the seed of Abraham. God had made certain promises to Abraham. One of those promises was that he would inherit the land as a lasting possession. This promise was made to Abraham and his seed. The Jews were the seed of Abraham by birth and understood that they were the heirs of this promise. We read in Scripture that the Messiah would be the ultimate heir and would rule in his kingdom. So, Nicodemus, being a Jew, understood that he would inherit this kingdom because he was the physical offspring of Abraham. However, Jesus lets Nicodemus know that it isn't his physical birth as the offspring of Abraham that is going to allow him to gain access to the kingdom, he's going to need another birth, this one is going to consist of water and spirit.

Look at the phrase "Born again" this phrase is used in Scripture only of the Jews. The Scriptures don't speak of
gentiles being born again. But why "Born again?" The Jews were born again in the New Covenant through Christ. However, they had a first birth.

22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: (Exod. 4:22 KJV)

Jesus lets Nicodemus know that this first birth isn't sufficient to gain access to the kingdom and that there would be the need of a second birth.

So, I see nothing in this passage about fallen man or spiritual death or the like. I see the statement in context dealing with a misunderstanding that Nicodemus had, that of thinking his physical birth as the seed of Abraham would allow him access to the kingdom.

Lots of good doctrine comes from Holy Spirit led inference. It seems to me that Jesus was chiding Nicodemus for not inferring enough from the scriptures considering his vast amount of learning.

Lots of inference going on there with your interpretation as well IMO.

And you never did say what kind of birth this second birth would be. You just kind of rambled on about it rather vaguely as I read your words.

But I will just a few thing just to be real straight forward.

Thousands (the vast majority) of people have seen this passage as just what most evangelical see it as. It seems to be exactly the kind of understanding that Jesus would chide a Pharisee about. It seems to me and most everyone who has the Holy Spirit to teach them that the usual interpretation is the correct one. Nothing else even comes close in so far as quantity of insights that the Holy Spirit has given over the years to teachers in the church.

The same can be said for your interpretation of the passage in John 1 that we have been discussing. The Holy Spirit and almost all of the teachers He has given the church see it one way - thus all of the many translations that do not agree with you. You and a few old writings from the early church see it another way.

I'm going with the odds on, Holy Spirit taught majority just to be safe. Besides - that's the way I read it myself while trying to remain open.

It seems to me that you are doing exactly what you claim not to do. You are inferring things in both cases that have been shaped by your theology.

Go for it. Just don't let all this stuff that you are prone to do lead you into preaching a works based salvation or anything. That would be something to guard against very strongly now wouldn't it?

Also, when I see interpretations of verses coming from people who preach such a false works gospel - I tend to be very wary of their teachings in all things. Doubly so as soon as I see a pattern in the way they interpret things.

 

[Butch5]

Lots of good doctrine comes from Holy Spirit led inference. It seems to me that Jesus was chiding Nicodemus for not inferring enough from the scriptures considering his vast amount of learning.

Lots of inference going on there with your interpretation as well IMO.

And you never did say what kind of birth this second birth would be. You just kind of rambled on about it rather vaguely as I read your words.

But I will just a few thing just to be real straight forward.

Thousands (the vast majority) of people have seen this passage as just what most evangelical see it as. It seems to be exactly the kind of understanding that Jesus would chide a Pharisee about. It seems to me and most everyone who has the Holy Spirit to teach them that the usual interpretation is the correct one. Nothing else even comes close in so far as quantity of insights that the Holy Spirit has given over the years to teachers in the church.

The same can be said for your interpretation of the passage in John 1 that we have been discussing. The Holy Spirit and almost all of the teachers He has given the church see it one way - thus all of the many translations that do not agree with you. You and a few old writings from the early church see it another way.

I'm going with the odds on, Holy Spirit taught majority just to be safe. Besides - that's the way I read it myself while trying to remain open.

It seems to me that you are doing exactly what you claim not to do. You are inferring things in both cases that have been shaped by your theology.

Go for it. Just don't let all this stuff that you are prone to do lead you into preaching a works based salvation or anything. That would be something to guard against very strongly now wouldn't it?

Also, when I see interpretations of verses coming from people who preach such a false works gospel - I tend to be very wary of their teachings in all things. Doubly so as soon as I see a pattern in the way they interpret things.

You see Marvin, You've just proven my point. You just brushed off what I said without engaging it. Instead you prefer an idea that is just inferred and based on doctrines that cannot be proven from Scripture. You see, if you're going to say that the passage is speaking of the spiritually dead, then you first have to prove that man can be spiritually dead. However, that can't be proven from Scripture because man isn't a spirit.

So, you've an interpretation of a passage Scripture based on a doctrine that doesn't exist in Scripture, tell me, how is nearer the truth than others?

You spoke of the Holy Spirit teaching the majority. The problem is lots of people claim to be taught by the Holy Spirit and yet their doctrines contradict Scripture.

You see, I gave you a breakdown of the passage that actually follows the context of the passage without adding foreign doctrines to it. The context was a Jewish leader being told that his physical birth wasn't sufficient for him to enter into the kingdom of God. Neither Jesus nor Nicodemus said anything about, fallen man or spiritual death. I'm not sure how you or anyone else can draw that from the passage. I would submit that it isn't drawn from the passage, but rather imposed on it.

It's interesting that earlier you indicated that you believed my theology was driving my view of John 1:13. Yet here in this passage in John 3 It seems you've done just that. There is nothing in the passage that suggests the conclusions that you've drawn. There's nothing about spiritual death, nor anything about fallen man.

Also, the works based salvation, is this a reason to reject one's argument? Whatever the Scriptures teach I'm going to be believe, end of story. I'm not worried that this doctrine or that doctrine may fall by the way side. I submit that the many misunderstand Paul's teaching on the works issue. Sadly it is to their detriment. I think a lot of the faith alone crowd is going to be shocked on Judgment day.

So, you see, this usually the way it goes. It's usually one of two ways, either I get Ad Hominems or they fade away.

These are the three passages that use the phrase "Born again"

KJV Jn. 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Jn. 3:7 KJV 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
KJV 1 Pet. 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

These are the three passages that use the term Born again. Twice by Jesus who was talking to a Jewish man, Nicodemus. Once by Peter who was addressing the elect sojourners of the dispersion, who were Jews.

I'll leave the inferences behind and stick with what is written. Like I said before we have all kinds of error in the church from people building doctrines on inferences.

Keep in mind that an appeal to the majority is a fallacy. My argument either stands or falls on it's own merits not what the majority believe.

And regarding John 1:13. It's not about what the majority believe. It's simply a matter of two variant readings. There are manuscripts with with both readings. Obviously one of them is wrong. One has to weigh the evidence for each. To me the evidence for the singular outweighs that of the plural.

 

[Marvin Knox]

You see, I gave you a breakdown of the passage that actually follows the context of the passage without adding foreign doctrines to it. The context was a Jewish leader being told that his physical birth wasn't sufficient for him to enter into the kingdom of God. Neither Jesus nor Nicodemus said anything about, fallen man or spiritual death. I'm not sure how you or anyone else can draw that from the passage. I would submit that it isn't drawn from the passage, but rather imposed on it.

It's interesting that earlier you indicated that you believed my theology was driving my view of John 1:13. Yet here in this passage in John 3 It seems you've done just that. There is nothing in the passage that suggests the conclusions that you've drawn. There's nothing about spiritual death, nor anything about fallen man.

Also, the works based salvation, is this a reason to reject one's argument? Whatever the Scriptures teach I'm going to be believe, end of story. I'm not worried that this doctrine or that doctrine may fall by the way side. I submit that the many misunderstand Paul's teaching on the works issue. Sadly it is to their detriment. I think a lot of the faith alone crowd is going to be shocked on Judgment day....................................................

These are the three passages that use the term Born again. Twice by Jesus who was talking to a Jewish man, Nicodemus. Once by Peter who was addressing the elect sojourners of the dispersion, who were Jews.

In what way was Nicodemus to be born again?

Is it only Jews who need to be born again since the passages are all to do with them and how so - like Nicodemus???

Please explain your doctrine concerning being born again.

 

[tulipbee]

Lets let the arminians remove God, since they have the power, and see what end result they get. The result is non existent

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"I'm waiting for someone who can actually cite a verse that says that God exists withIN all things. I have NOT denied God's omnipresence. None of the various sources of definitions includes existing withIN things as being omnipresent.

What I will continue to deny is the view that God exists withIN all things, until such time as a verse is presented that says that He does.

To exist everywhere (omnipresence) does NOT mean to exist withIN all things."

OK, so that we all may understand you I'll give a synopsis your profile here as you deny God and his characteristics as pertain to his omnipresence.

First, my view is clear. Second, address my points. It's already clear that there is disagreement. Prove me wrong, iow.

Which when denied by proxy denies all else of God's eternal infinite attributes. When source of all is in your mind not present in that which it creates it is not God.

Nonsense.

Omnipresent=everywhere present.
But everywhere does not include within anything. Therefore God is not sovereign, God, which is a spirit, does not permeate his creation because all that exists is born from his spirit that, once created, is devoid of, is not infused with, the spirit of the creator God because God is limited, God is not universal, God is not infinite.

Please show me a vese that supports this claim.

That makes it easier to understand your writing, withIN. Thank you and have a blessed day.

So, where is the proof of your theory?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"So, you have found God's attributes withIN bugs, dirt, birds, trees, etc??


Well, that would be insane. And what verse says or suggests that God's DNA is withIN all things? There aren't any.

He created all things by speaking."

When you say that part there, do you see a man moving his mouth and creating all that is?

Apparently nothing of what I said was even read. I suggest going back and actually reading it, and then addressing whatever is wrong.

Or, is one uncomfortable admitting that God exists withIN bugs, dirt, birds, trees, etc?

When you breathe out of your mouth against the back of your hand is your DNA there on your hand? Left by the expiration of your breath against that flesh?
Yes.

Uh, no. There is no DNA in one's breath. Even those with bad breath. lol DNA exists in the flesh.

[QUTOE]When you lay your hands on your keyboard that transfers what is called, touch DNA. That is the blueprint, the stairway to Heaven because of the double helix of the atomic structure and DNA, that makes you one of a kind. Is that DNA devoid of your parents DNA? Are they not in you? Even though you are you?[/QUOTE]
None of this even comes close to proving the theory that God exists withIN all things, or even some things. When will the proof be provided?

Then how is it that you, that lesser creation than what is God almighty, imbued with the source of yourself as a human created by two humans coming together to create one child, then superior in that way to all that God creates.

Please reconstruct this sentence so that it makes at least some sense. It began as a question, but ended differently. So, how is it that I WHAT?

When your entire being is comprised of and due to the content of your parental DNA forming your self.

Maybe one has forgotten that all of our parents had to join together to create us. God just SPOKE all things into existence. Except man. There, he used some dirt, and then breathed into his nostrils his soul.

So none of this talk of DNA has any relevance at all to God's omnipresence.

As you argue God himself, unlike you, isn't present in the same way as the parent, source, Father, of all that exists.

One more time, this sentence needs some help. I'm not following whatever point is being attempted.

 

[rnmomof7]

My guess is they want to live forever.

Are they just smarter than the ones that don't care if they live forever?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Are they just smarter than the ones that don't care if they live forever?

Good consideration?

 

[Butch5]

In what way was Nicodemus to be born again?

Is it only Jews who need to be born again since the passages are all to do with them and how so - like Nicodemus???

Please explain your doctrine concerning being born again.

Well, that's getting away from the issue. My point is doctrines that are built on inferences. My explanation of John 3 fits the context of the passage, it fits the historical setting, and creates no tension in the Scriptures. Therefore we have another viable way to understand the passage as opposed to the idea of fallen man and spiritual death.

Inferences can be correct or incorrect. However, any inference must be verified. As I said, the idea of spiritual death, as it would apply to humans, isn't taught in the Scriptures. So, there's not really any way to verify the doctrine.

You spoke of going with the majority a few times. Sometimes that's not the best step. Imagine if Luther had gone with the the majority. The Reformation wouldn't have happened and you'd have no Reformed teachings. Likewise at one time the "majority" believed that the world was flat, they were wrong.

Look at the Septuagint. Scholars know that it is the Bible that Jesus, the apostles, and the early church, used for their Old Testament, yet they choose to put the Masoretic text as the OT in most English tranlations. So, by going with the "majority" we miss out on some important bits of information that are in the Septuagint that aren't in the Masoretic text.

Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it's correct. An argument needs to be judged on it's own merits not what others believe.

 

[Butch5]

Are they just smarter than the ones that don't care if they live forever?

Why they choose is not relevant. The issue is that they can.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Well, that's getting away from the issue. My point is doctrines that are built on inferences. My explanation of John 3 fits the context of the passage, it fits the historical setting, and creates no tension in the Scriptures. Therefore we have another viable way to understand the passage as opposed to the idea of fallen man and spiritual death.

I don't think it's getting away from the issue at all.

You're interpretation didn't spell out the important questions and answers for us at all. It just seemed to be some rather vague stuff about how everyone was a Jew. Duuuh!

You told me that the common interpretation of Jesus' words to Nicodemus were wrong because people were reading into it things that aren't there.

I'd like to know exactly what you see is there.

You've told me that it was addressed to a Jew as was the reference to being born again in Peter's epistle.

I'm asking you what exact doctrine Nicodemus should have know about that Jesus chided him for not knowing. I'm asking you what born again means according to you from the Nicodemus situation as well as from the Peter epistle.

I want to see exactly what you are getting about the definition of being born again as direct and irrefutable and non-inferred doctrine.

You reject the idea of spiritual deadness from the fall onward as the thing that Nic should have known about. You reject the idea that regeneration is being referred to with the secret working of the wind. You reject the idea that accepting the gospel and being born again by the Word of God is a result of that secret working as taught in the example from the world that Jesus used.

These are the common and acceptable ideas that evangelicals see in the scripture. Me also.

I'm asking you just exactly what do you see directly taught that is so much better than letting scripture interpret scripture through searching through various concepts in the Word of God for inferences.

I'm looking to see why your supposedly non-inferred and direct method would get you an at-a-boy instead of a "you're a teacher and you don't know these things?" response like Nic got.

It's not enough to tell everyone they are wrong. I want to know why yours is so much better than the one the Holy Spirit has given to teachers in the church for centuries.

To be right up front with you - I'm thinking that you are rejecting the normal evangelical interpretation because it smacks of grace, regeneration before faith, and doesn't leave much room for your works based theology.

I could be misjudging you. Here's a chance to explain why I'm wrong if you're up for it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus said, "A person is born physically of human parents, but is born spiritually by the Spirit" (John 3:6 GNT). This is also further spelled out for us in Titus 3:5 and Ezekiel 36:26-27.

 

[rnmomof7]

Why they choose is not relevant. The issue is that they can.

But it is.. why does one man hearing the gospel , repent and believe ? And another walk away ?

 

[rnmomof7]

The context was a Jewish leader being told that his physical birth wasn't sufficient for him to enter into the kingdom of God. Neither Jesus nor Nicodemus said anything about, fallen man or spiritual death. I'm not sure how you or anyone else can draw that from the passage. I would submit that it isn't drawn from the passage, but rather imposed on it..

Ummmmm Full Pelagian???

Col 2:13

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;


Eph 2:1

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;


Eph 2:5

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

Eph 5:14

Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Butch5 said: ↑
Why they choose is not relevant. The issue is that they can.

But it is.. why does one man hearing the gospel , repent and believe ? And another walk away ?

I'm always amazed how many Calvinists choke on this question; the question of why? The only 2 possibilities are that God programmed some to believe (He chose who would believe) and some to reject the gospel, or that man freely makes his own choice based on all the things that make each person unique in regards to like and dislikes, environment, etc.

But remember, Acts 17:26,27 deals with the environment and not the way Calvinists prefer. Paul said that God determines the WHEN and WHERE He places people SO THAT they may seek Him. Hm. Not very Calvinistic, huh.

We know from Rom 2:14,15 that God created everyone (even Gentiles) with a conscience to know right from wrong. So that means He gave everyone the ability to discern right from wrong, and we see the proof of this from every culture throughout the generations of mankind. Every culture has a set of rules; do's and don'ts. Where did that come from? God.

What God did was create mankind with an intellect with which to realize that He exists and to be thankful to Him (Rom 1:19-20). That is why Paul continued in Rom 1 and said that no one has any excuse for not doing so. That alone refutes the notion of total depravity meaning that man is unable to believe until God regenerates him. Totally.

 

[nobdysfool]

And still they try to wedge man into the center of the picture...

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'm always amazed how many Calvinists choke on this question; the question of why? The only 2 possibilities are that God programmed some to believe (He chose who would believe) and some to reject the gospel, or that man freely makes his own choice based on all the things that make each person unique in regards to like and dislikes, environment, etc.

The first of the possibilities you list is not a possibility since God did not program some to believe and some to reject the gospel. He didn't characterize what He did that way and you don't get to - unless it is written that way and you can provide a verse.

It seems that you are putting words into the mouths of Calvinists and then asking them to take those words back. But they are your words not theirs.

The second half of the statement is true, I suppose - in that God does make some men new creations thereby giving them a new nature with new likes and dislike - as you put it.

 

[Butch5]

But it is.. why does one man hearing the gospel , repent and believe ? And another walk away ?

I'm sure there are different reasons. But as I said, that's not relevant.

 

[Butch5]

Ummmmm Full Pelagian???

Col 2:13

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;


Eph 2:1

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;


Eph 2:5

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

Eph 5:14

Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

I'm not sure what these have to do with Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus. However, none of these passages speak of spiritual death either. That idea is simply imposed on the text.

 

[Butch5]

To be right up front with you - I'm thinking that you are rejecting the normal evangelical interpretation because it smacks of grace, regeneration before faith, and doesn't leave much room for your works based theology.

I could be misjudging you. Here's a chance to explain why I'm wrong if you're up for it.

Scripture drives my interpretation not the other way around. I see quite a few who interpret Scripture through the lens of their theology. Actually, that probably a majority. I would submit that that is exactly where the "spiritual death" doctrine came from.

You see, your claim of spiritual death is an unagrued philosophical bias. There hasn't been a shred of evidence in support of the idea.

I don't think it's getting away from the issue at all.

You're interpretation didn't spell out the important questions and answers for us at all. It just seemed to be some rather vague stuff about how everyone was a Jew. Duuuh!

You told me that the common interpretation of Jesus' words to Nicodemus were wrong because people were reading into it things that aren't there.

I'd like to know exactly what you see is there.

You've told me that it was addressed to a Jew as was the reference to being born again in Peter's epistle.

Yes, I don't know what you think I left out. The phrase born again was used by Jesus in his discussion with Nicodemus. As I posted before the Israel was God's son. The Israelites, as a people, were born of God in the covenant He made with Abraham. Nicodemus, being an Israelite understood that as the seed of Abraham he would receive the promises God promised to Abraham and his seed. Jesus tells Nicodemus that his physical birth as the seed of Abraham was not sufficient for him to gain access to the kingdom. He tells him that he needs to be "Born Again". He needed to be born of water and the Spirit.

I'm asking you what exact doctrine Nicodemus should have know about that Jesus chided him for not knowing. I'm asking you what born again means according to you from the Nicodemus situation as well as from the Peter epistle.

He should have known how it was that he would gain access to the kingdom. It's all through the OT

For Nicodemus to be born again he'd have to enter into a new covenant. The Israelites were born of God the first time through God's covenant with Abraham. So, Nicodemus would have to enter a new covenant. Consider Paul's words.

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (Col. 1:12-14 KJV)

I want to see exactly what you are getting about the definition of being born again as direct and irrefutable and non-inferred doctrine.

The word "again" means to repeat something. So, it's referring to another birth like the first one. The only people who had been born of God in Jesus' day were the Israelites, so they are the only ones who could be born again of God. Gentile believers are born of God via the New Covenant, however, for them it is the first birth, not the second. In order to be born again there has to have been a first birth prior. Only the Israelites had the first birth.

You reject the idea of spiritual deadness from the fall onward as the thing that Nic should have known about. You reject the idea that regeneration is being referred to with the secret working of the wind. You reject the idea that accepting the gospel and being born again by the Word of God is a result of that secret working as taught in the example from the world that Jesus used.


These are the common and acceptable ideas that evangelicals see in the scripture. Me also.

It seems you've made some assumptions here. Regeneration hasn't been discussed. Actually, you'll need to be define that term as I'm pretty sure we have different definitions. What I've rejected is that Jesus was referring to fallen man and spiritual death in the discussion with Nicodemus.

I'm asking you justexactly what do you see directly taught that is so much better than letting scripture interpret scripture through searching through various concepts in the Word of God for inferences.

The idea that Scripture interprets Scripture is the fallacy of reification. Scripture doesn't interpret, people do. What that statement really means is, one uses their understanding of one passage of Scripture to understand another. So, there's no real authority there. It may sound authoritative as if Scripture which cannot be wrong has somehow told us what another passage means. But it's not, it's a fallacy.

I'm looking to see why your supposedly non-inferred and direct method would get you an at-a-boy instead of a "you're a teacher and you don't know these things?" response like Nic got.

There are not at-a-boys. It's just proper hermenuetics. It's Gramatical, Historical, understanding. It's the absolute Authority of Scripture, It's Historical Precedent, and Sound Logic. It's a progressive understanding of the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation.

It's not enough to tell everyone they are wrong. I want to know why yours is so much better than the one the Holy Spirit has given to teachers in the church for centuries.

Here again, you have an unargued bias. You have no way to know who has or has not been given understanding from the Holy Spirit. You said,

"I want to know why yours is so much better than the one the Holy Spirit has given to teachers in the church for centuries"

I would argue that the Holy Spirit hasn't given that understanding to anyone as it's not Biblical.

I've answered your questions, now if you could establish this doctrine of "spiritual death" from the Scriptures that would be great.