Distinction Between Regeneration and Justification

[Bob Carabbio]

Actually it is a biblical word and very important one at that.

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of dees which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.
John 3
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing;
1 Peter 1:23-25 for you ave been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.
Eph 2:4-5 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed e the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the the dead.
John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

So like I said before, it's REAL (not Calvinist) definition is: BEING BORN AGAIN / Saved / Becoming a Christian.

 

[EarlyActs]

Is there a distinction between the two?
J.C. Ryle says this in his book on the new birth. (He, rightly so, makes no distinction between regeneration and the new birth).

It ought always to be remembered that there are two distinct things which the Lord Jesus Christ does for every sinner whom He undertakes to save. He washes him from his sins in His own blood, and gives him a free pardon—this is his justification. He puts the Holy Spirit into his heart, and makes him an entire new man—this is his Regeneration.

Ryle, J.C.. The New Birth . Kindle Edition.

Maybe it's Ryle's definition of justification that is confusing me? I have always thought it to be a declaration of pardon, based on the imputed merits of Christ.

They are two different things but may be simultaneous. Justification is ultimately proved by regeneration. But you are right about its definition. People need to realize that Romans 1-5 is somewhat of a legal/courtcase transcript. "But now..." in 3:21 is attached to the historic Gospel event of Christ, but is not in any particular individual's life; it is meant to be the knowledge about God's justice or judicial dealing with the earth.

The Australian Forum speaker Paxton had a line that said 'the gospel of (about) the changed life has taken the place of the Gospel which changes lives.' This helps us see a difference that matters.

One thing we should notice about the new birth is that it is only 3x in the NT. In the best-known, it is directed to a leader in Judaism, not to be a Christian, but to be able to see the kingdom. This is a different question. This is why the adverb is 'from above' or 'from the beginning.' Jesus was trying to show him there was something in Israel's history that could clear up what its identity or destiny was supposed to be, what the kingdom was to be. This is also why Jn 3 does not describe the birth that much; the following paragraph (16+) is about justification.

 

[Hobie]

What is sanctification? What Ryle said or what I said at the end?

When the Holy Spirit begins the work of transformation of the heart and mind, and you begin to show the fruits thereof, it takes some longer then others.

 

[prism]

They are two different things but may be simultaneous. Justification is ultimately proved by regeneration. But you are right about its definition. People need to realize that Romans 1-5 is somewhat of a legal/courtcase transcript. "But now..." in 3:21 is attached to the historic Gospel event of Christ, but is not in any particular individual's life; it is meant to be the knowledge about God's justice or judicial dealing with the earth.

The Australian Forum speaker Paxton had a line that said 'the gospel of (about) the changed life has taken the place of the Gospel which changes lives.' This helps us see a difference that matters.

One thing we should notice about the new birth is that it is only 3x in the NT. In the best-known, it is directed to a leader in Judaism, not to be a Christian, but to be able to see the kingdom. This is a different question. This is why the adverb is 'from above' or 'from the beginning.' Jesus was trying to show him there was something in Israel's history that could clear up what its identity or destiny was supposed to be, what the kingdom was to be. This is also why Jn 3 does not describe the birth that much; the following paragraph (16+) is about justification.

So are you saying being regenerated is not necessary for becoming a new creation?

 

[prism]

When the Holy Spirit begins the work of transformation of the heart and mind, and you begin to show the fruits thereof, it takes some longer then others.

Again I ask, "What is sanctification? What Ryle said or what I said at the end?"
Or are you attempting to dismiss the concept of regeneration by clumping it under the category of 'sanctification'?

 

[Arial]

So like I said before, it's REAL (not Calvinist) definition is: BEING BORN AGAIN / Saved / Becoming a Christian.

If it is real and it is what Calvinists believe what is the problem? Calvinism does not make up its doctrines, it obtains them from the Bible. So is your beef with the word regeneration? If so, how is regeneration different from being born again? And a follow up question pertaining to the actual OP what is the distinction between regeneration and justification?

 

[EarlyActs]

So are you saying being regenerated is not necessary for becoming a new creation?

Justification is not an experience. There was a historic experience--Christ's--that accomplished it (some transl of Is 53 even have 'by his experience') but that's not one of us. Both the new creation (individually) and regeneration are individual.

Because the justifying work of Christ was historic it is also collective; we may as well put that he accomplished justifications. But it is not any of our lives' experiences. Of course, our heads might explode when we realize what it is. This happened to a S Cal pastor Milton, who was a decade into his work when he heard Rom 4 being taught on the radio. The expression 'if it is by grace then it is no longer by work...by wages earned' and he was shocked at what he was like and how he treated people. He was driving the freeway and had to pull over to absorb it.

But it is a knowledge. I would sit down with Rom 1-5 about 10x and see what you have as a definition. Now, once it is grasped, you go to ch 6 and it is suddenly more practical because, if all the preceding is true, you are dead to sin. It is now actually more powerful to think of yourself dead to sin, he says, because why would you live for that which was so expensive?

Remember that the new creation should be thought of at times as collective (all the Christians), not individual. This may be in 2 Cor 5, where it lines up nicely with the new covenant which is also with all who believe. Gal 5 is a bit more individual.

By ch 8 of Romans you start to see how we don't 'get past' justification either. When we have nothing else as Christians, when it is the darkest day, we still have justification by Christ and that's undeniable.

 

[Arial]

I guess I'm reading it in such a way that if regeneration doesn't have an order, it can happen at any time...before or after justification. I would believe also it happens prior to justification or at least simultaneously.

One cannot be justified without being regenerated. Justification is a legal standing before God and is only obtained through faith in the person and work of Christ. His work on the cross as our substitute, satisfied God's justice against our sin. Therefore we are declared just by virtue of Christ's righteousness.

And one cannot see or enter the kingdom of God unless they are born again (John 3)---regenerated. Regeneration results in the work of Christ being applied to the person---justification.

 

[Arial]

Maybe I am misunderstanding it but…
We are not placed in Christ through faith but placed in Christ because he has fulfilled the covenant. Therefore we are placed in Christ, because we are his (federal headship) while we were yet dead. Then from being in Christ (regenerated) we receive the gift of faith, and once we confess this belief we are declared just (justification)

That is what Christ did but we are placed in Him, His work applied to us, by grace through faith in Him and this work. The Holy Spirit applies this work to a person in regeneration. Without that no one can even see the kingdom of God. Therefore certainly can't choose it. It all happens together but are distinct.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

If it is real and it is what Calvinists believe what is the problem?

Calvinists have said OVER AND OVER AGAIN right here, that "Regeneration" IS NOT Salvation. I disagree with them.

Calvinism does not make up its doctrines, it obtains them from the Bible.

Just like every other Christian denominational system on earth.

So is your beef with the word regeneration? If so, how is regeneration different from being born again?

TO ME, there's NO DIFFERENCE, ask a "Calvinist" they seem to have plenty of "Adjustments" to the term.

And a follow up question pertaining to the actual OP what is the distinction between regeneration and justification?

None. They're all part of the same package.

 

[Eleanor]

Justification is a legal declaration that comes with being placed in Christ via regeneration.

If I may be a little (not much) more specific here, Sis.
I know you know this.

Justification (declaration of not guilty, sentence of acquittal) is the result of faith, which is the result of regeneration.

Regeneration ---> faith ---> justification (Ro 3:28),

We are declared by the Just Judge as justified before Him. In other words, reconciled to Him through the substitution of Christ on the cross. The regeneration that occurs is God giving us a heart disposed towards Him rather than at enmity with Him, so that when we hear the gospel we are able to believe it (it is no longer foolishness to us) and do believe it.

 

[Arial]

Calvinists have said OVER AND OVER AGAIN right here, that "Regeneration" IS NOT Salvation. I disagree with them.

It isn't salvation but salvation will not occur without it.

Just like every other Christian denominational system on earth.

So you admit yours are made up?

TO ME, there's NO DIFFERENCE, ask a "Calvinist" they seem to have plenty of "Adjustments" to the term.

Like what?

None. They're all part of the same package.

If there weren't distinctions, the different things would not be named in the Bible.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

It isn't salvation but salvation will not occur without it.

To the NON-Calvinist, "Regeneration" and "Salvation / being born again of the Spirit" are the same thing.

So you admit yours are made up?

Just like yours.

 

[Eleanor]

Calvinists have said OVER AND OVER AGAIN right here, that "Regeneration" IS NOT Salvation. I disagree with them.

Well, it's not salvation and it's not faith and it's not justification.
But all four come as a package, you don't have one without the other three.

Their causal order would be
regeneration -- > faith --> salvation --> justification (--> sanctification).

Regeneration = new birth from spiritual death to spiritual life (Jn 3:3-8).

Faith = belief in, trust on the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin, reconciliation to God.

Salvation = saved from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) on one's sin.

Justification = declared "not guilty," sentence of acquittal, forensic righteousness, positional right standing with God through faith (Ro 3:28).

Sanctification = obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, 19, 22).

Just like every other Christian denominational system on earth.

TO ME, there's NO DIFFERENCE, ask a "Calvinist" they seem to have plenty of "Adjustments" to the term.

None. They're all part of the same package.

Agreed. . .but they are different operations.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Agreed. . .but they are different operations.

But since they're all Simultaneous, no "Order" is needed. It's nothing but "Man's Theology" after all.

 

[prism]

But since they're all Simultaneous, no "Order" is needed. It's nothing but "Man's Theology" after all.

Is that your own declaration (IOW, your theology) that they are simultaneous or do you have Scriptural proof?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Is that your own declaration (IOW, your theology) that they are simultaneous or do you have Scriptural proof?

Take it, or leave it.

Submit your own sequence of events, along with a time scale if you care to.

 

[Arial]

To the NON-Calvinist, "Regeneration" and "Salvation / being born again of the Spirit" are the same thing.

That is because they do not use consistent correct hermeneutics to arrive at what the believe. Quite often they set it aside altogether.

Just like yours.

I never admitted mine were made up. They aren't. They are the product of consistent hermeneutics (methodology/principles of interpretation) applied throughout the whole of scripture. You do admit yours are made up and I agree not all, but much is, because it abandons the above or never used it in the first place. I could illustrate what I mean in regeneration and justification, but to do so here would be a derailment, and take far to much space.

Suffice it to say: If all of humanity is in a condition of being at enmity with God, therefore has no desire for Him and will not choose Christ, in order for any to do so, He must do what only He can do. Regenerate them from their condition in Adam---also known as being born again, or being born anew by God. John 3:3 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 1:12-13 But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.



If this does not happen first, they will not believe the gospel when/if they hear it, therefore will not put their trust in Christ, therefore will not be justified, therefore will not be saved. Salvation includes all those things, but they are very distinct things. As I believe @Eleanor said, you cannot have one without the others. They are all distinct doctrines within Christianity and must be understood distinctly.

 

[Eleanor]

But since they're all Simultaneous, no "Order" is needed. It's nothing but "Man's Theology" after all.

I didn't say simultaneous, I said part of the same package.

If my Christmas gift to you is a package with an outfit of jacket, tank shirt, sweater vest, and dress shirt,
to wear the outfit you would put them on in an order: tank shirt, dress shirt, sweater vest and jacket.
You wouldn't put them on simultaneously, but they are still all part of the same package called "outfit,"
just as new birth, faith, salvation, and justification are all part of the same package called "salvation"
lending itself to a causal order.

 

[prism]

Take it, or leave it.

Submit your own sequence of events, along with a time scale if you care to.

Ever since post #5 I posed the question of the order or sequence of events, but in post #35 you dogmatically asserted, "they're all Simultaneous". How can I submit my 'own sequence of events' when I am asking? I was hoping you can explain how you can make your dogmatic 'simultaneous' assertion, hopefully using Scripture.