Regeneration and born again are not synonymous

[Dave]

@Josheb

I thought that I was defining the terms, even more than a few times in this thread.

This is born again described within the context of a future promise.


Ezekiel 36: 26-27 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

John 7:38, 39, He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

And this is born again described within the context of that promise realized.

Colossians 2:10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Romans 6:3-10 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

Do you agree that theses passages are speaking of being born again or disagree?

 

[Dave]

No, it is God that initiated the Spirit baptism. It is true the people who received the Spirit baptism believed, or had faith, but it was not their faith that initiated the Spirit baptism, especially not in any causal way. God, the Creator, is not dependent upon on the creature at any time, nor any place, when He saves the sinner from sin. Nor does He make Himself dependent on the creature for even the smallest fraction of a moment.

@Josheb

It is faith that initiates the baptism with the Holy Spirit. This is absolutely undeniable from clear Scripture. Your point is besides the point. Yes, God drew them but the baptism is the result of faith. And being born again is the result of baptism, which is the result of faith, not the cause. Your assumption that God moving to bring that person to faith is the same as being born again is not proven from Scripture. In fact, it is hostel to Scripture that I've already provided. Scripture clearly teaches the we are saved by faith, and it is not of ourselves, a gift, yes, but is not the same as God moving to bring us there. You're putting the cart before the horse, and after it. Scripture proves one, and is against the other.


In laymen's terms, I've proven, from Scripture, that a person is born again as a result of the baptism, which is a result of faith. The fact that God drew them is a separate matter. Being born again is not both the cause, and the result. Scripture proves the latter, but not the former. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb

I thought that I was defining the terms, even more than a few times in this thread.

This is born again described within the context of a future promise.


Ezekiel 36: 26-27 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

John 7:38, 39, He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

And this is born again described within the context of that promise realized.

disagree. Ezekiel is about being given a new heart, not being born anew from above. You have apparently assumed the two are synonymous and made that assumption without explanation. In other words, you've exacerbated the problem to be solved, not solved it. The same holds true of the John 7 text. What you should have done, or should be doing, is surveying scripture for what it says about birth and new birth and what comes from above.

Colossians 2:10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Romans 6:3-10 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

Do you agree that theses passages are speaking of being born again or disagree?

These passages do speak about the born new from above condition, but they do not define it or explain what it is or how it occurs. They are post hoc texts - texts written about the already born anew and their already born anew state. What you should have done is survey scripture for what it says about birth new birth, and what come from above. You're on the right track with being made alive with him and the newness of life, but those are other phrases that needs defining. Trying to define one ambiguity with another ambiguity won't work (unless both ambiguities are defined ). Life it what follows birth.

@Josheb

I thought that I was defining the terms, even more than a few times in this thread.

I know. You thought you were doing the right thing, and I do not slight you for the effort. Don't take my directness for insult. The attempt to define the term "gennethe anothen" is mis guided because it seeks completely different terms to define the matter. It's bad exegesis.

Try starting with the preamble of John's gospel. Chapter 3 occurs within the context of what has been previously stated. John's gospel is a cohesive work, one that seeks to preach the gospel and uniquely address certain conditions under the inspiration of God's Spirit. That's true of each gospel.

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.

Do you think that might have something to do with John 3:3? Do you think being born of the will of God has anything to do with being born anew from above. Do you think "born of the will of God" is about volitional agency? If that is all it means, then John is not saying much. What else might it mean and where in scripture might you or I find that explanation? And what about John 3:8? What's simpler than stating the new birth is a birth of the Spirit? Should we equate "born of the Spirit" with "spiritual birth"? Where might I find scripture to support that conflation? How about 1 Peter 1? I saw you mentioned verse 3. Is that all the text states? I'm encouraged you seem to see and understand the overlap between soteriology and eschatology but I don't think that matter has been correctly adjudicated. Salvation is a condition that is spoken of has having been accomplished, an ongoing process, and as a matter yet to occur. Favoring one aspect over the other two is not exegetically sound. To the degree being born anew from above is salvific, it's not sound to emphasize the future promise at the expense of what God has already accomplished. It's ironic to speak of future promise not yet realized and then appeal to Colossians 2:10. That verse explicitly states, "you are complete in him"!!!

That is how to go about defining gennethe anothen. You are on the right track trying to use scripture to render scripture, but you haven't started with like terms, and you haven't started with what is explicitly stated (the appeals to Ezekiel and John 7 are inferential). The same has to be done with paliggenesia. This is especially true since both speak of new birth. If you're going to make the case and then prove there is a distinction between the two then this is the work that you now have the opportunity to do here in this thread. Despite the many apprehensions, questions, and disagreements I've observed, I suspect most are rooting for you to do the work and do it well because we'll al find some consensus if and when that happens. Post-biblical doctrines will then be meh. If the goal is to "confront" doctrine, can we assume all doctrines are fair game?

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb

It is faith that initiates the baptism with the Holy Spirit. This is absolutely undeniable from clear Scripture. Your point is besides the point. Yes, God drew them but the baptism is the result of faith. And being born again is the result of baptism, which is the result of faith, not the cause.

Wow. Not a single word of that is correct. If it were correct, then Apollos and the disciples of Acts 19 would have received the Spirit's baptism.

Acts 19:1-2
It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."

They are explicitly reported to have faith, yet they are NOT in possession of the Spirit baptism. It was not from scripture the claims above originated. Be careful because if you're going to argue the baptism is dependent on hearing about the Spirit then 1) that's a form of Gnosticism, and 2) it contradicts the report of most of the conversions I cited in Post 59. Many of those converts had never heard of the Spirit, either. God just laid into them in their ignorance.

Your assumption that God moving to bring that person to faith is the same as being born again is not proven from Scripture.

I never said any such thing.

Note to the Mods: The post makes claims about my position that are inaccurate. The post is misrepresentative. It, therefore, creates a strawman. My observing this condition in the past has caused consternation and I'd like to avoid that problem. Please, therefore speak to these misgudied claims of Post 62.

 

[Josheb]

Scripture clearly teaches the we are saved by faith...

That is incorrect.

What scripture clearly teaches is we are saved through faith, not by it. Nowhere in the entirety of the Bible does scripture ever state "saved by faith." Nowhere. We are saved by grace through faith for works. We are justified by faith, not saved by faith. BIG difference.

Ephesians 2:4-10
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), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

• Saved by grace
• Saved through faith
• Saved for works (having been created in Christ).

That is what scripture clearly teaches.

Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Romans 5:1-2
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

Galatians 3:23-24
But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore, the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

Justified by faith, not saved by it.

• Saved by grace (the cause).
• Saved through faith (the means).
• Saved for works (the purpose).
• Justified by faith (the cause).

Do not conflate justification with salvation. That is Catholicism. There's not a single place in scripture where we can find "saved by faith" stated.

This idea that OT saints were born again and a person must be born again to believe, flies in the face of very clear scripture. It's time to confront this. So here we go. Thoughts?

Thoughts? I think before anyone sets about confronting others' doctrines s/he should confront his/her own doctrines first because scripture never states anyone is saved by faith. It never states faith initiates Spirit baptism. It never states baptism is a result of faith. It never states gennethe anothen is the result of faith, either. I've been doing Boolean searches of scripture along the way and there are many statements in your posts that are nowhere found in scripture. It very much looks like you're either inventing things as you go or learned some very scripture-less teaching.

 

[Eleanor]

Hmmm... Is that right?

1 Timothy 6:13-16
I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time — He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

The word "sovereign" is nowhere in the Greek nor the KJV, just as the word "Trinity" is nowhere in the Greek nor the KJV.

 

[Eleanor]

So why use an invented term when what is plainly stated will suffice? Why assert never-mentioned terms without ever defining them, expecting others to accept the assertion without explanation....... if the goal is to confront questionable doctrine?

It's not about why, it's about what.

 

[Josheb]

The word "sovereign" is nowhere in the Greek nor the KJV, just as the word "Trinity" is nowhere in the Greek nor the KJV.

Post #58 proves "sovereign" is in the Bible.

I understand the point you are trying to make and it is a bad point. If a specific word or a phrase is not found in the Bible that does not mean it is wrong to use that phrase. It simply means the phrase is not used and its use as an extra-biblical concept has to be justified. Such would be the case with the word "Trinity." However, a specific word not being found in the Bible could also mean the word or phrase is invented without justification. In the case of "spiritually dead," that phrase is incredibly problematic for multiple reasons and the opportunity to clarify and justify it has occurred and been neglected.

It's not your job to explain @Dave when @Dave is perfectly able to express his own point of view and explain what he means when he uses the words and phrases he chooses to use.

It's not about why, it's about what.

Please do not tell me my own mind. There are reasons and purposes for the questions I asked and the comments I made. If the purposes of my inquiries and comments are not understood then ask, don't dictate.

So why use an invented term when what is plainly stated will suffice? Why assert never-mentioned terms without ever defining them, expecting others to accept the assertion without explanation....... if the goal is to confront questionable doctrine?

It's not about why, it's about what.

That's not an answer to my question. What would be the intent or purpose of using words not found in scripture when the words that are used suffice (and work amazingly well)?

It is about the why.

And if @Dave cannot explain his own decisions then it is not for you to put words in his posts he did not write. Whatever @Dave's explanation might be, I will address it dependent upon his answers. Proverbs 26:17. How do you know your explanation is identical to Dave's? We've already observed @Dave holds more than one that is view radically different than your own. Please do not presume you can speak for him or me.



.

 

[Arial]

I understand the point you are trying to make and it is a bad point. If a specific word or a phrase is not found in the Bible that does not mean it is wrong to use that phrase. It simply means the phrase is not used and its use as an extra-biblical concept has to be justified. Such would be the case with the word "Trinity." However, a specific word not being found in the Bible could also mean the word or phrase is invented without justification. In the case of "spiritually dead," that phrase is incredibly problematic for multiple reasons and the opportunity to clarify and justify it has occurred and been neglected.

It's not your job to explain @Dave when @Dave is perfectly able to express his own point of view and explain what he means when he uses the words and phrases he chooses to use.

Wisdom would dictate, for the sake of not posting and instigating posts filled with off topic personal comments, that if one desires to make a point, they do so in a less confrontational and dismissive manner.

Please do not tell me my own mind. There are reasons and purposes for the questions I asked and the comments I made. If the purposes of my inquiries and comments are not understood then ask, don't dictate.

I noticed no dictatorial comments being made by @Eleanor but this is a dictatorial comment. You too could ask questions and tone down the contention. "It is not about why, but what" is not telling you your own mind. Thanks.

That's not an answer to my question. What would be the intent or purpose of using words not found in scripture when the words that are used suffice (and work amazingly well)?

It is about the why.

And if @Dave cannot explain his own decisions then it is not for you to put words in his posts he did not write. Whatever @Dave's explanation might be, I will address it dependent upon his answers. Proverbs 26:17. How do you know your explanation is identical to Dave's? We've already observed @Dave holds more than one that is view radically different than your own. Please do not presume you can speak for him or me.

Get back on the topic of the OP please, and make every attempt to respect others, and in doing so post without, the contemptuous tone.

 

[Arial]

That is incorrect.

What scripture clearly teaches is we are saved through faith, not by it. Nowhere in the entirety of the Bible does scripture ever state "saved by faith." Nowhere. We are saved by grace through faith for works. We are justified by faith, not saved by faith. BIG difference.

"Mary arrived at a correct conclusion by careful analysis of the data."
"Mary arrived at a correct conclusion through careful analysis of the data."
MOD HAT:
Though you are technically correct, there is no need to instigate another off topic argument, when the preponderance of @Eleanor posts show that she knows very well that salvation is by grace through faith, and justification by faith.

 

[Josheb]

"Mary arrived at a correct conclusion by careful analysis of the data."
"Mary arrived at a correct conclusion through careful analysis of the data."
MOD HAT:
Though you are technically correct, there is no need to instigate another off topic argument, when the preponderance of @Eleanor posts show that she knows very well that salvation is by grace through faith, and justification by faith.

I think you might want to check the handles because the post about "through" versus "by" was not addressed to @Eleanor and has absolutely nothing to do with Eleanor's posts. Eleanor is commenting about the validity of doctrinal terms not found in scripture.

 

[Arial]

Note to the Mods: The post makes claims about my position that are inaccurate. The post is misrepresentative. It, therefore, creates a strawman. My observing this condition in the past has caused consternation and I'd like to avoid that problem. Please, therefore speak to these misgudied claims of Post 62.

It has never been your observing the position of a straw man that has caused consternation. (And the use of that word to describe what has taken place is beyond exaggerated.) The issue was the violation of rule #4.4.

If you think someone has misrepresented you, it is up to you, not staff, to explain what your view is, and to do so respect fully, taking into consideration that what was posted in post #62 is how the poster was understanding your view, and in relation to his view. Probably not an intentional misrepresentation.

 

[Arial]

I think you might want to check the handles because the post about "through" versus "by" was not addressed to @Eleanor and has absolutely nothing to do with Eleanor's posts. Eleanor is commenting about the validity of doctrinal terms not found in scripture.

My mistake. It was addressed to @Dave . However, that does not change in any way what I said. Just don't instigate arguments with anyone. Ask questions. E.G. "Do you mean that faith is the avenue through which we are saved when you say "by" faith?" You know very well, I am sure, that "by" and "through" can be used in the same way.

 

[Dave]

disagree. Ezekiel is about being given a new heart, not being born anew from above.

What's the difference? Please explain the difference.

These passages do speak about the born new from above condition, but they do not define it or explain what it is or how it occurs.

That's a joke, right?

I know. You thought you were doing the right thing, and I do not slight you for the effort. Don't take my directness for insult. The attempt to define the term "gennethe anothen" is mis guided because it seeks completely different terms to define the matter. It's bad exegesis.

I simply posted scripture. Line upon line..... Where is your belief built from? You have yet to make a case without your assumption.

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.

And that right was realized at Pentecost.

 

[Dave]

Wow. Not a single word of that is correct. If it were correct, then Apollos and the disciples of Acts 19 would have received the Spirit's baptism.

Acts 19:1-2
It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."

They are explicitly reported to have faith, yet they are NOT in possession of the Spirit baptism. It was not from scripture the claims above originated. Be careful because if you're going to argue the baptism is dependent on hearing about the Spirit then 1) that's a form of Gnosticism, and 2) it contradicts the report of most of the conversions I cited in Post 59. Many of those converts had never heard of the Spirit, either. God just laid into them in their ignorance.

Context is everything. These are OT saints who were due the Promise. The whole thing passed by and they missed. it. Jesus came and went and they knew nothing of it. Their belief ended with OT teachings. Paul askes them is they received the Holy Spirit. Their reply told Paul everything that he needed to know. He shared the Gospel with them, and they believed, and they received the NT indwelling. A unique point in time and history, unrepeatable. Nice try though.

I never said any such thing.

Note to the Mods: The post makes claims about my position that are inaccurate. The post is misrepresentative. It, therefore, creates a strawman. My observing this condition in the past has caused consternation and I'd like to avoid that problem. Please, therefore speak to these misgudied claims of Post 62.

Then what do you call God moving to bring that person to faith, if not regeneration? And if regeneration, then you also believe that regeneration and born again our synonymous, right? Two plus two.

 

[Dave]

I was fixing the last post and ran out of time. so here it is.

These are OT saints who were due the Promise of the Father. The whole thing passed by and they missed it. Jesus came and went and they knew nothing of it. Their belief ended with OT teachings. Paul askes them if they received the Holy Spirit. Their reply told Paul everything that he needed to know. Paul shared the Gospel with them, and they believed it, and they received the NT indwelling. (Those next few verses that you left out.) The circumstances were unique to that point in time and history, and unrepeatable. The result is similar to us even today, even though the circumstances were unique. When all the OT saints who lived in faith both before and after the cross were given the Promise owed to them, the Holy Spirit's indwelling, then the transition was over and the norm is that anyone who believes will receive the Holy Spirit the moment that they first believe. Even today, Jesus putting the Holy Spirit in us as a result of a persons genuine faith is still called the baptism with the Holy Spirit. That places a believer in Christ.

I never said any such thing.

Note to the Mods: The post makes claims about my position that are inaccurate. The post is misrepresentative. It, therefore, creates a strawman. My observing this condition in the past has caused consternation and I'd like to avoid that problem. Please, therefore speak to these misgudied claims of Post 62.

Then what do you call God moving to bring that person to faith, if not regeneration? Remember, you believe that regeneration and born again are synonymous.

 

[Eleanor]

Post #58 proves "sovereign" is in the Bible.

I understand the point you are trying to make and it is a bad point. If a specific word or a phrase is not found in the Bible that does not mean it is wrong to use that phrase.

Agreed. . .Trinity is not in the Bible.

Post #58 proves "sovereign" is in the Bible.

I understand the point you are trying to make and it is a bad point. If a specific word or a phrase is not found in the Bible that does not mean it is wrong to use that phrase. It simply means the phrase is not used and its use as an extra-biblical concept has to be justified. Such would be the case with the word "Trinity." However, a specific word not being found in the Bible could also mean the word or phrase is invented without justification.

The justification is given in "dead in your transgressions and sins" (Eph 2:1, 5, Col 2:13).

 

[Dave]

An accurate portrayal of whole scripture would include how things ensued after Pentecost. After Pentecost conversion typically entailed regeneration, a manifestation of the Holy Spirit (construed to be "baptism") and water baptism occurring simultaneously. There were exceptions to the general character of the event, but the various aspects being separated by long priods of time was not normal for the post-Pentecost Church.

With regards to my comment and concern about Catholics and baptism...Catholics, while trying desperately to maintain the illusion that the types have power (so believers feel the need for the hierarchy who are the only ones who can administer it.), and not wanting to confront the idea that it's faith that initiated the the Spirit baptism, will often claim that it is water baptism that initiated the Spirit baptism. They reason that it take faith to first get water baptized. I make sure to maintain the distinction between water baptism, a symbolic public testimony after the fact, and the Spirit baptism that is the result of faith. When lines are blurred, I feel compelled to clarify.

It is "at odds" with 99% of Christian thought, doctrine, or practice today. That does not mean modernity is wrong.

A servant is not greater than his Master.

At the risk of muddying the water, I make a distinction between conversion, or having been brought from death to life and the ongoing work of regeneration. It take a minute to give birth but that birth is merely the beginning of a much longer endeavor in which God makes a mortal creature into an everlasting creature. That moment of new birth from above gets radically altered with another form of new birth, or transformation, that occurs in resurrection.

Why is it so easy for you to see regeneration after being born from above, but hard for you to see regeneration before being born from above?

I make that same distinction. I just do it in both directions both before and after being brought to life. By your own words, you do not see being born again and regeneration as the same context. I see regeneration in a bigger context than life to death, as you call it, also. I call life to death, being born again.

Ok, at the end of your quote, are you claiming two new births? Please explain what you mean there.

Dave

 

[Eleanor]

Post #58 proves "sovereign" is in the Bible.

It does not prove the word "sovereign" is in the Bible, only that the concept is in the Bible, as is the same with the word "Trinity."

The words "potentate" and "sovereign" are not the same words, just as the words "big" and "large" are not the same words.

Precision matters.

I understand the point you are trying to make and it is a bad point. If a specific word or a phrase is not found in the Bible that does not mean it is wrong to use that phrase. It simply means the phrase is not used and its use as an extra-biblical concept has to be justified. Such would be the case with the word "Trinity." However, a specific word not being found in the Bible could also mean the word or phrase is invented without justification. In the case of "spiritually dead," that phrase is incredibly problematic for multiple reasons and the opportunity to clarify and justify it has occurred and been neglected.

It's not your job to explain

Is it your job to tell me what my job is?

@Dave when @Dave is perfectly able to express his own point of view and explain what he means when he uses the words and phrases he chooses to use.

Please do not tell me my own mind.

It's not about your own mind, it's about the text.

There are reasons and purposes for the questions I asked and the comments I made. If the purposes of my inquiries and comments are not understood then ask, don't dictate.

That's not an answer to my question. What would be the intent or purpose of using words not found in scripture when the words that are used suffice (and work amazingly well)?

I ask the same question regarding use of the explicit words "Trinity" or "sovereignty."

It is about the why.

And if @Dave cannot explain his own decisions then it is not for you to put words in his posts he did not write.

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

Is it also not for you to tell me what to do?

 

[Josheb]

Context is everything. These are OT saints who were due the Promise. The whole thing passed by and they missed it. Jesus came and went and they knew nothing of it. Their belief ended with OT teachings. Paul askes them is they received the Holy Spirit. Their reply told Paul everything that he needed to know. He shared the Gospel with them, and they believed, and they received the NT indwelling. A unique point in time and history, unrepeatable. Nice try though.

The facts or correct but they are also diversionary. The one specific point you are supposed to be confronting is whether or not the the OT saints were born again.

• Can a person believe in God's anointed one without being born anew from above?
• Can a person believe in God's anointed one and inherit Gods kingdom without being born anew from above?
• Can a person be deemed righteous by faith and not be born anew from above?
• Can a righteously deemed person live by faith and not be born anew from above?
• Can a person know about the covenant resurrection of the dead and not be born anew from above?
• Can a person be assured, convicted, substance, reality of God's promises and the conviction of the things promised in the future but never received and not be born anew from above?
• If fleshly faith of the sinner is sufficient to obtain the inheritance of the new birth, then how is it any one Jew could be singled out? How is it ALL Old Testament people, or at least ALL Old Testament Hebrews are not saved? How can any Old Testament person be called a "saint" (Gk = hagion) (btw, if you're going to confront the notion of an OT saint being born anew from above..... you might want to define the term "saint")?
• How can specific people among the holy people be called holy apart from the holy people? Confused? Israel was called holy. The word "saint" simply means holy. The word "holy" simply means separate. It carries with it the connotation of being separated for sacred purpose(s). So Israel was holy = separated from all the other nations of the world for sacred purpose..... BUT within that group of people there are specific individuals God also called holy. Those individuals are the holy within the holy. These holy-within-the-holy people are the ones made perfect through us, the NT saints . How can that be if not born anew from above?
• Peter draws parallel's between the flood and water baptism (and the pledge of a clear conscience, and the Gentile Naaman was baptized (full immersion in water) and came to believe in God. According to you, faith initiates baptism and baptism saves. How can that be if they are not also born anew from above?
• How does God initiate and sustain a covenant relationship with a person and not birth them anew from above? The only alternative is that He covenants with unchanged people.

Remember: mere intellectual assent is not salvific in any way.


You've chosen to prove the negative, not the affirmative, side of that debate. The minute it is acknowledged the OT saints inherited all the promises you have to explain how they could be inheritors of the kingdom and not be born again. The minute it is acknowledge a person is deemed righteous and is living by faith the only alternatives available are that they continued to live in the sinful flesh and thereby inherit the kingdom, or they lived by a godly alternative (like the new birth). If the former is chosen, then you will have to explain how works of flesh inherit the kingdom and doesn't violate Galatians 5. These bullet points are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. You bit off quite a lot when you chose to confront the OT saint's status. You took on that endeavor without defining your terms and when attempting to define the terms did a very poor job with the first attempt. A new heart is not the same as a new birth. The effects of a new birth are not the new birth itself.

Then what do you call God moving to bring that person to faith, if not regeneration?

Well....... if the OT people were moved by God to bring them to faith then...... they were regenerated and you've just proven the premise you set out to confront .

And, as I have already stated, asking me what are my alternatives to your failures is shifting the onus. It also ignores the fact I have already tried to help you define gennethe anothen exegetically, and already provided a reason to construe gennethe anothen and paliggenesia as at least overlapping, if not synonymous. I've done my part. You were the one setting up the op to confront the notion the OT saints were born again and asking us to join you in that endeavor.

It's time to confront this. So here we go. Thoughts?

Dave

"We"? Perhaps that was supposed to read, "So here I, @Dave, go."


Do not take all my corrections as opposition. Take them as adversity, if you like, but not adversariness. If the case for the OT saints not being born again can be made, then I would like to read it. I want you to do the best you can and make the best possible case for that position. I endeavored to do that myself, so if you manage to pull it off, you'll have accomplished something at which I failed. You ask anyone here and they'll tell you I am a pretty critical thinker and reasonably adept at forensic analysis. Use it to your advantage where you can, where you're willing.