You are mixing up two concepts. Being born from above by the Spirit has been possible for all men since Adam (and including Adam). It was only by being born from above that men could begin to think spiritually (1 Cor 2). It was by being born from above that those who were true believers on the OT were circumcised in heart and received the Spirit.
Nicodemus was a/the teacher of Israel and he had no clue.
He suggests physical birth when he should have thought of the promises of God.
Being born from above is synonymous with being born again, and according to Christ the Church is built on the confession of Jesus being the Chrißt, the Son of the living God. Peter declared this truth, so why do we not see Peter as being inducted into the Church at that time? Why does Peter immediately after this rebuke Christ when He declares the Gospel (Matthew 16)?
The reason is because Peter is not born again. He is not a new creature in Christ because that was not yet available. Peter was not eternally indwelt, that would not happen until Çhrist returned to Heaven (John 16:7).
As far as OT Saints being circumcised in heart we can see this was a spiritual truth revealed to us. To them what was revealed was the command to be circumcised.
So pre-Pentecost hundreds of thousands were born again and they included Peter, James, John, Andrew etc. Becoming a member (literally) of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12) was clearly only possible once Christ had risen. It was only then that there was a body that we could become a member of.
So these men were born again yet had not received the eternal indwelling, had not believed the Gospel of Christ, had not abided in Christ, but abandoned Him, and did not believe He had risen from the dead?
How is one born again, Valiant? It seems one can be born again failry easy, without having to believe anything specific concerning Christ.
If what you t3ach is true, one need not become a member of the Body of Christ to be born again. One does not need to be eternally indwelt of God to be born again. You create a dichotomy of the saved, those born again, and those in the Body.
you can read them in depth when you get to your computer
Sure, make fun of my plight, lol.
It's l8ke pulling teeth. Tap...tap...tap...
...I am now renaming tablets to taplets.
I like to think I am pretty familiar with the passages relevant to this discussion, though always happy to see new arguments. The fact is that the new birth is an element of New Covenant salvation, and the New Birth was only promised in the Old Testament economies (Ezekiel 36:21-27). God did not begin placing His Spirit within men that they might walk in His statutes and keep His judgments until Pentecost.
You can't possibly see the Israel of Christ's day as having received those promises. Even if you did, you cannot deny Christ's teaching in John 14 and 16 which makes it clear this is something that will begin after He returns to Heaven.
True. Indeed if you read John's Gospel one of John's emphases was on people who misunderstood because they took things too literally (like many Americans today). They were lacking in spiritual understanding.
Whether one takes something too literally is not a National issue, it is an interpretive issue.
Better to err in a literal sense than to spiritualize the meaning out of Scripture as certain Systems (not nations) do.
Of course they were able to abide at the time. If your interpretation of abiding suggests anything else it is your interpretation that is wrong. Abiding in Him meant being continually responsive to His words in a personal way. They had already been abiding in the true vine (Jesus as the representative of Israel) ever since they had been converted.
It's not something we have to interpret...they did not abide. It would be fifty days before they are Baptized with the Spirit and begin fulfilling the Great Çommission.
Peter returned to his former life...fishing for fish, not men.
You say they were converted...explain Luke 22:32.
yes but He wanted them not to be conceited about their faith. He was not doubting that they had it. They did believe that He knew all things, and that He came forth from God. He was not suggesting that they did not. But He was warning them against being too confident in themselves, about being too cocksure. He KNEW that all but Judas would come through the trial.
.
Not one of them believed the Gospel, añd all abandoned Him.
In Peter's shoes I probably would. He loved Jesus and hated the thought of harm coming to Him. He had not cottoned on to why Jesus had to die. That was one of the lessons he had still to learn. All it revealed was his ignorance, and his love for Jesus.
And that's them point... You are not in Peter's shoes, lol.
You csnnot honestly say you would, knowing what you know (which Peter was çlueless to)...that you would try to keep Christ from the Cross.
That would be saying you would keep salvation from being accomplished.
I hope in Peter's shoes I would. For Peter had no conception of the necessity of Jesus suffering and dying. He did what was natural. He had yet to learn that fighting for one's faith was not of God. For all that happens would be used by God for the fulfilment of His purposes. But that does not mean that Peter was not already born from above.
You too.
And you are forced to say he did what was...natural.
That is precisely the point.
You have an understanding which would not hinder the Cross and you hàve that because of the Spirit that indwells you.
Peter yet natural, as were all men.
Only those in the Church are born again, and we are bien again through the Word of God, specifically 5hrough obedience to the Gospel. There are no members of the Body of Christ who a4e not both born again and eternally imdwelt.
God bless.