Nicodemus was timidly inquisitive concerning the teachings of Jesus. In John 3 the Holy Spirit does not tell us why Nicodemus approached Jesus but we know what Nicodemus needed to understand, becoming born again. I find a man with great credentials such as Nicodemus who did not understand his own sect's fundamentals ironic. You have to ask yourself, what was he teaching? Fundamental doctrines of the Pharisees were a belief in the human future state, resurrection of the dead, freedom of will and a work of fate. Jesus covered all this in what 17 verses? Was Nicodemus simply preaching these things because his fathers did, or was he explaining them from personal studies of scripture? I will cut Nicodemus some slack. The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed whereas the New Testament is the Old Testament reveled. Therefore, I completely understand his confusion. Jesus had just then revealed this truth to him so he could not have known this prior, or could he.
My criticism is not focused on Nicodemus' ignorance about becoming born again. My criticism lays in the fact that the Pharisees did not understand their own doctrines. I see this many times in all denominations. There is the irony.
I see all the denominational factions and their position on many doctrines. Some I agree with others I do not. I do not mind agreeing to disagree but what chaffs my rear end is an ill-supported claim regarding doctrine. My most recent debate was on the doctrine of sanctification. I hear this word tossed around in the Pentecostal circles.
The claim: Sanctification is a process. Now, a strong deductive argument poses a premise/claim and follows it with great support that either demonstrates or proves the premise true. The total argument looked something like this, "Sanctification is a process because the term 'In Christ' is used X amount of times." According to that logic, perhaps one day I will be sanctified and thereby saved. Moreover, maybe I should earn my salvation if I am not yet saved by faith through grace. At least then, I could boast...I am glad to see a man such as Nicodemus is humble enough to receive sound instruction.
My point is the Pharisees should have studied for themselves rather than accepted some idea passed down.
My criticism is not focused on Nicodemus' ignorance about becoming born again. My criticism lays in the fact that the Pharisees did not understand their own doctrines. I see this many times in all denominations. There is the irony.
I see all the denominational factions and their position on many doctrines. Some I agree with others I do not. I do not mind agreeing to disagree but what chaffs my rear end is an ill-supported claim regarding doctrine. My most recent debate was on the doctrine of sanctification. I hear this word tossed around in the Pentecostal circles.
The claim: Sanctification is a process. Now, a strong deductive argument poses a premise/claim and follows it with great support that either demonstrates or proves the premise true. The total argument looked something like this, "Sanctification is a process because the term 'In Christ' is used X amount of times." According to that logic, perhaps one day I will be sanctified and thereby saved. Moreover, maybe I should earn my salvation if I am not yet saved by faith through grace. At least then, I could boast...I am glad to see a man such as Nicodemus is humble enough to receive sound instruction.
My point is the Pharisees should have studied for themselves rather than accepted some idea passed down.
No comments:
Post a Comment