Regeneration and born again are not synonymous

[Josheb]

By Duck-Duck Go's Auto-Assist:

"Romans 10:9 states that if you declare with your mouth that "Jesus is Lord" and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. This verse emphasizes the importance of both verbal confession and heartfelt belief in the Christian faith.
BibleGateway
Bible Hub
Auto-generated based on listed sources. May contain inaccuracies"

Funny to me they don't seem to know, or maybe they intend, for their AI to be vague and irrelevant. The verse is not about belief in the "Christian faith". They introduce an element into the analysis that isn't there. It IS interesting, though, that if that is all AI gets from the verse, that the claim that it is a stand-alone verse, context irrelevant, there isn't much to say about it.

But I expect the bigger name AI's have more to say. Let's see—

Copilot says:
Romans 10:9 states: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”. This verse emphasizes the importance of both verbal confession and heartfelt belief in Jesus Christ for salvation.

Hmmmm!

Google AI:
"Romans 10:9 states: "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." This verse emphasizes the importance of both verbal confession and inward belief in Jesus Christ for salvation."

Well, at least Google added this:
"Here's a breakdown of the verse:

Confession with your mouth:
.
This refers to openly declaring your belief in Jesus as Lord, acknowledging his authority and importance in your life.

Belief in your heart:
.
This highlights the inner conviction and trust that God raised Jesus from the dead, signifying his victory over death and sin.

Salvation:
.
This is the promise of forgiveness, reconciliation with God, and eternal life for those who meet the conditions of the verse."

"...meet the conditions of the verse" —good luck with that.

The main, most salient, point is that the verse is not written about unregenerate non-believers. The verse is written about those who were already saved, the regenerate believers in Rome who were facing potentially life-threatening circumstance when the epistle was written. It has little do with how to become saved from the sinfully dead state and everything to do with how to maintain one's already-gifted salvation through the already-gifted faith of the already regenerate.

I do not expect AI to practice sound exegesis.

Notice my earlier question remains silently unanswered: Show me a verse in scripture reporting an unregenerate non-believer in whom God is not already working for salvific purpose suddenly salvifically believing with his/her sinful flesh. Just show me the verse. Show me the verse in which scripture explicitly attributes the previously Christ-denying unregenerate non-believer's conversion to his/her volition. There are no such verses in the Bible and there is no precedent, either. The only way to arrive at that position is by eisegetic inference and that is exactly what we've all observed throughout the last five pages of posts. On top of the inferential interpretations there's are deficits in the exegesis. Romans 10:9 does say a person can confess and believe, but that person is stated to be a brother in the faith of Paul.

The alternative is the many verses that explicitly assign causality to God.

• Verses that explicitly state God did it: Many
• Verses that explicitly state the unregenerate sinner's will did it: None

Acts 2:46-47
Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

The unregenerate did not add to the number of the regenerate.

 

[Josheb]

Has there ever been a point when Jesus was not ontologically the resurrection?

Here's two places Matthew 5:17, and Romans 3:25.

Let's take a look at those to verses to verify that claim.

Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

So..... not a single word about Jesus not being the resurrection.

Romans 3:25
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

So..... once again, absolutely no mention of Jesus not being the resurrection. In this particular case the exegesis is especially lacking and the lack is especially egregious because this verse is not a whole statement! This verse is a fraction of a statement.

John 11:24-26
Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

What Jesus did NOT state is, "I will be the resurrection," or "One day in the future I will be the resurrection," or, "Eventually, in the future I will become something other than what I now am." Jesus said those words before he was crucified,, before he had died, before he had been raised from the dead, and before he'd ascended. He claimed to be the resurrection before he resurrected.

And then asked if his words were believed.

This episode has huge implications for the position argued in this op. First is the problematic Christology. Next there is the premise argued by this op. If Martha had said, "Yes, I believe with my heart you are the resurrection," then she'd have been born anew from above and regenerate. The op argues that is what is necessary for new birth and regeneration and that's not possible prior to Pentecost. Therefore, Martha confessing the affirmative would have had absolutely no salvific value whatsoever if we take the positions asserted in support of this op. More importantly, the idea Jesus was at one point not the resurrect and at some other later point became the resurrection means Jesus, the Son of God who is God, could ontologically change. That completely denies the immutability of the Trinity.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jesus, the word of God, is God. He cannot not be God. Neither can he be a God different than the God he is, never can he be any God but the God that is God. Though fully human (and fully God), he cannot be any other kind of God than the God who has always existed, the God who existed prior to the creation of creation. He, and he alone is the resurrection and the life. To deny his inherent immutable resurrection claim implies we can also deny his claim to be the life.


That is a bad Christology.


So........ not only has this discussion served to expose the eisegetically inferential inferences replete throughout the case for the faith-precedes-regeneration position, along with the many conflicts where knowledge of God, His salvation, the resurrection, and imputed righteousness are held among those not born and anew or regenerate, we've also discovered there's a bad Christology within this particular faith-precedes-regeneration argument.



There has never been a single moment in creation when Jesus was not the resurrection and the life, the only way to come to the Father. He was present in Eden as the tree of life....... at the beginning.

 

[Josheb]

Jesus said the same thing three times, and meant the same thing all three times.

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

John 3:5 "enter" interprets John 3:3 "see". I still contend that being born again is the result of the baptism, which is the result of the faith. More later.

"Contend" and "confront" all you like but after five pages of posts it is now time to prove the position, and do it with impeccability.

Verse 5 does not "interpret" "see" as "enter." That is another eisegetic claim. A person cannot see or enter the kingdom unless born anew from above. A person who has been birthed anew from above both sees and has entered the kingdom. S/he has experienced it inside and out. A simple listing of all the attributes of the kingdoms stated in the NT informs the nature of the kingdom the born anew see and enter. In the John 3 narrative, Jesus attributed the new birth to the Spirit. He attributed the new birth to the Spirit without any mention of the unregenerate sinner's fleshly volition.


You did not actually disprove the OT saints were not born anew from above. You have not disproven a person must be born again to believe...... and that is what this what you've claimed you will do.




Exegetically speaking, it's not possible to prove or disprove anything with eisegetic inference. The deficits in exegesis evidence to far in these five pages all need to be corrected and a better exegesis provided. Logically speaking, internal contradictions and conflating correlation with causation warrnat correction and replacement with a consistent rationale.

 

[Josheb]

Bingo! This is why I'm convinced now more than ever that OT saints were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

Scripture explicitly states,

1 Peter 1:20-21
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture [m]becomes a matter of [n]someone’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

So, all those OT saints who prophesied were moved by the HS. On top of this movement by the HS explicitly reported, I have provided examples of the OT saints knowing and understanding the resurrection (that content has yet to receive a response). Those people saw the kingdom. They may not have experienced it the exact same way, but they saw it, and there's no reason to think they hadn't entered it since they had such knowledge, the kingdom is obtained through faith, and the kingdom is not of this world.

It might help you to survey the verses that describe the kingdom because the kingdom is described as something that had already come (past-tense,) something that existed at that time (present-tense) and something yet to come/be entered (future-tense).

 

[Josheb]

Is anyone else lacking the Like feature in their browser? I don't have very good wifi service where I'm at so it might be me.


@makesends for Post 100.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Salvation:
.
This is the promise of forgiveness, reconciliation with God, and eternal life for those who meet the conditions of the verse."

"...meet the conditions of the verse" —good luck with that.

Lol .. it’s saying we can’t meet God’s conditions for salvation—how true! (Rom. 3:23).

 

[Josheb]

So, anything that happened in the OT for believers was not the result of the Holy Spirit being in them, but only Him being upon them.

Hmmm...

Psalm 51:10
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

Do not assume the OT promises made to a disobedient and rebellious people did not already exist among the obedient and affirming. Unless you're going to say David never received a renewed heart or God renewed his heart without ever entering him, Psalm 51 disproves the claim above. If you define regeneration a specific way that does not apply to the OT saint then you'll have to

1. state that definition,
2. prove the veracity of that definition,
3. prove the definition does not apply to the OT saint.
4. prove that definition applies to the NT (post-Pentecost) saint.

That has not happened.

Ezekiel 36:27
I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

This implies those in the OT who confessed the LORD's Lord and obeyed God's ordinances, did so by His Spirit. The only alternative available is they did so solely by means of the unregenerate sinful flesh and nothing - no choice and no act - of the sinful flesh is salvific. Ezekiel was speaking to a rebellious, covenant-breaking audience. He was not speaking to those in that era who did not need that admonition, or those promises.

These are the kind of mistakes that are caused by a strictly temporal, a strictly sequential, a strictly dichotomous reading of scripture.

2 Samuel 23:1-3
Now these are the last words of David. David the son of Jesse declares, the man who was raised on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob and the sweet psalmist of Israel, declares, "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me, and His word was on my tongue. The God of Israel said it...

David was anointed by God. He was one of God's many anointed ones. Was David's anointing merely one in which the Spirit was "on" him, but not in him? Think this through. How could the almighty Spirit of God be on a person and that person not be changed? If changed then what basis is there for claiming the change is solely superficial, one of surface and not substance. Can David be compared to Darius in every way except for the surface presence of the God's Spirit? David understood the resurrection. David understood the Lordship of the Messiah. How can he do that without being born anew from above? How can he have that knowledge and not be changed?




With respect, none of the many matters I have broached have been addressed with any substance. The degree of the Spirit's influence and change may be different, but that is a distinction of degree, not kind. The gospel was preached to Abraham, and he believed with his heart. He confessed the knowledge a monogenes son would be provided by God as the sacrifice and God was able to bring him back from the dead (Heb. 11:19). Confession and faith. The same confession and faith found in the epistolary teaching, only pre-Calvary. The same confession and faith that has been argued is synonymous with being born again!

 

[Dave]

John 11:24-26
Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

What Jesus did NOT state is, "I will be the resurrection," or "One day in the future I will be the resurrection," or, "Eventually, in the future I will become something other than what I now am." Jesus said those words before he was crucified,, before he had died, before he had been raised from the dead, and before he'd ascended. He claimed to be the resurrection before he resurrected.

1 Corinthians 15:20-26

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so ***in Christ****all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

 

[Dave]

"Contend" and "confront" all you like but after five pages of posts it is now time to prove the position, and do it with impeccability.

Verse 5 does not "interpret" "see" as "enter." That is another eisegetic claim. A person cannot see or enter the kingdom unless born anew from above. A person who has been birthed anew from above both sees and has entered the kingdom. S/he has experienced it inside and out. A simple listing of all the attributes of the kingdoms stated in the NT informs the nature of the kingdom the born anew see and enter. In the John 3 narrative, Jesus attributed the new birth to the Spirit. He attributed the new birth to the Spirit without any mention of the unregenerate sinner's fleshly volition.

Josheb, you're changing what is probably hundreds of passages from simply stating regeneration to meaning born again based on your interpretation of one verse, John 3:5, which is a questionable interpretation at best. Even if it did mean see, it still doesn't necessarily fit the context that your using it for. Here's my proof....

These disciples in the passage below still cannot "see" to some extent until Pentecost, when they receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit owed to them, and they become born again.

John 16:12-13: I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

Either way, numbering the each possible interpretation from one to three, with number one being the most probable interpretation to be true given the evidence, in my opinion, yours would be distant three. I still maintain that all three verses in John 3 are saying the same thing.

 

[Dave]

So, all those OT saints who prophesied were moved by the HS. On top of this movement by the HS explicitly reported, I have provided examples of the OT saints knowing and understanding the resurrection (that content has yet to receive a response). Those people saw the kingdom. They may not have experienced it the exact same way, but they saw it, and there's no reason to think they hadn't entered it since they had such knowledge, the kingdom is obtained through faith, and the kingdom is not of this world.

Your reasoning here is still all based on the misunderstanding of John 3:5. They were moved by the Holy Spirit. He was upon them, but were not born again. Being born again is the result of being "in Him". Being "in Him" comes by way of the baptism with the Holy Spirit, which is the result of faith.

 

[Dave]

Hmmm...

Psalm 51:10
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

Do not assume the OT promises made to a disobedient and rebellious people did not already exist among the obedient and affirming. Unless you're going to say David never received a renewed heart or God renewed his heart without ever entering him, Psalm 51 disproves the claim above. If you define regeneration a specific way that does not apply to the OT saint then you'll have to

1. state that definition,
2. prove the veracity of that definition,
3. prove the definition does not apply to the OT saint.
4. prove that definition applies to the NT (post-Pentecost) saint.

That has not happened.

Ezekiel 36:27
I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

This implies those in the OT who confessed the LORD's Lord and obeyed God's ordinances, did so by His Spirit. The only alternative available is they did so solely by means of the unregenerate sinful flesh and nothing - no choice and no act - of the sinful flesh is salvific. Ezekiel was speaking to a rebellious, covenant-breaking audience. He was not speaking to those in that era who did not need that admonition, or those promises.

These are the kind of mistakes that are caused by a strictly temporal, a strictly sequential, a strictly dichotomous reading of scripture.

It says that they didn't have the Holy Spirit. Implied is that when they do, God will cause them to walk in His statutes. You're "only alternative" is based on your understanding of John 3:5, which I disagree with. This passage fits perfectly with what I've said thus far.

BTW, the disobedience....you quoted some of theses passages earlier about God pleading with Israel to repent, and He will give them life. Here's some more context. Those please were made all throughout the OT and up until AD 70 when that judgment was realized. Even Jesus prophesied about one stone will not be left upon another.

CHAPTER 9

2 Samuel 23:1-3
Now these are the last words of David. David the son of Jesse declares, the man who was raised on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob and the sweet psalmist of Israel, declares, "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me, and His word was on my tongue. The God of Israel said it...

David was anointed by God. He was one of God's many anointed ones. Was David's anointing merely one in which the Spirit was "on" him, but not in him?

It doesn't say "in him, so I've got to go with upon until otherwise proven. Even in Psalm 51 when David asked God not to take His Holy Spirit from him, I can no longer assume an indwelling. Being in David would be God dwelling with someone who is unclean. Not until Pentecost is David made clean. That's why he was kept in Shoel/Hades until then. Abrahams bosom.

Think this through. How could the almighty Spirit of God be on a person and that person not be changed? If changed then what basis is there for claiming the change is solely superficial, one of surface and not substance.

They were changed, but they weren't born again. I've shown all this stuff already. I don't know all the nuances, for sure, but scripture does set some boundaries and limits how we can define some of these things.

Can David be compared to Darius in every way except for the surface presence of the God's Spirit? David understood the resurrection. David understood the Lordship of the Messiah. How can he do that without being born anew from above? How can he have that knowledge and not be changed?

Again, this is all based on your understanding of John 3:5 which I disagree with. Believers did not become the Temple of God until after the death of Christ Jesus on the cross, and the curtain was torn. Any indwelling equates to the believer being the Temple of God. This is not possible until that Temple (believers) could be cleansed by the blood of Christ Jesus. Believers could not be the Temple of God until Jesus Christ died on the cross. Promises don't cleanse, they assure of what is to come.

Dave