Regeneration and born again are not synonymous

[Eleanor]

I was just trying to clarify a point that seemed to not be made as clearly as I thought that it was. The point being, we both believe that there was regeneration in the OT. We just disagree in how it is defined. You call it born again. I say scripture says that cannot be true.

peace

"Rebirth" is the meaning of the word "regeneration."

 

[Dave]

"Rebirth" is the meaning of the word "regeneration."

Hi Elenore.

Is it possible that the term "regeneration" has a larger context than "rebirth", which would make the two terms not synonymous.?

If not, then we must also come to the conclusion that there is no regeneration before faith, and there is no regeneration in the OT as a whole. Scripture will not allow any other conclusion when starting with the premise that any work that God does in a person is called born again for reasons noted already.

John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

It's not regeneration, based on your premise, that's a fact. They are being drawn to come to faith, yet it is only the baptism with the Holy Spirit that brings the new birth. That baptism is the result of faith, not the cause. That's what Scripture teaches.

So what do we call it?

I can specifically show born again in the NT. In fact, I have. It's specifically connected to the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. It specifically says that in that baptism, we die with Christ Jesus and are raised up with Him, born again. I believe that I've been pretty thorough explaining the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the Agent of that baptism, and the ingredients/benefits of that baptism, including being born again, and that it was only available to believers first at Pentecost.

In that same way, can you show me born again in the OT, or in a person who is pre faith in the NT? Keep in mind, showing verses that show any kind of regeneration fits with my definition and doesn't prove anything. I just don't see any reason to call it born again and haven't been given any reason to do so. That would be relying on the assumption noted in this thread many times. That idea being, that any kind of work by God in a person that is not from the flesh is regeneration, and therefore it's called born again.

Oh, for the record, the word regeneration is used one time in Titus 3:5. It's used in another place in the original languages but with a completely different context.

Dave

 

[Dave]

Were Old Covenant Believers Indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

Introduction1 The Gospel of John states, ‘Unless one is born of water and spirit, he is not able to enter the Kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).2 Later in John we read that the Spirit will not be received until after Jesus is glorified (7:39). If the Spirit is not received until after the cross, could...

www.thegospelcoalition.org

This is an interesting read. While I think it stops short, and there are some conclusion that I disagree with, he does bring up some interesting points, especially the Holy Spirits place in the Temple in the OT. He also includes some history of this discussion and mentions certain theologians and what their thoughts were in this matter. Even dividing them into different camps. As I said, while I don't endorse the complete work here. I do appreciate the effort and come away having learned a few things and considering few things that I hadn't considered before. Note; Jer. 9:25 at the end, my KJV Bible reads differently.

Dave

 

[Eleanor]

Hi Elenore.

Is it possible that the term "regeneration" has a larger context than "rebirth", which would make the two terms not synonymous.?

Not in the NT.

Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is from spiritual death into eternal life, whereby we believe and are saved.

If not, then we must also come to the conclusion that there is no regeneration before faith,

And what would keep the sovereign Holy Spirit from regeneration of the spiritually dead into spiritual life that they may believe to salvation?

and there is no regeneration in the OT as a whole.

You don't know that. . .they believed in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16)

Scripture will not allow any other conclusion when starting with the premise that any work that God does in a person is called born again for reasons noted already.

False premise. . .

God worked in Pharaoh and it wasn't a new birth.

John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

It's not regeneration, based on your premise, that's a fact. They are being drawn to come to faith,

One can be drawn without it being regeneration.

yet it is only the baptism with the Holy Spirit that brings the new birth. That baptism is the result of faith, not the cause. That's what Scripture teaches.

Not according to Jn 3:3-8, where the new birth is a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit, who is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8) in his sovereign acts.

So what do we call it?

I'm going with what Scripture calls it in Jn 3:3-5, born again (1 Pe 1:23), regeneration: palingenesia--palin = again, genesis = birth

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Nobody was in Christ before Pentecost. That's why we call it the birth of the church.

[Emphasis added.]

The birth of the church? This smacks of dispensational theology (which could possibly explain the weird parsing that you're attempting). Calling this the birth of the church is antithetical to covenant theology, which teaches that (a) the church is one people of God across redemptive history, not two peoples as in dispensationalism (Israel and the church), and (b) the covenant of grace was administered through promise (types and shadows) under the old covenant and fulfillment in Christ (inaugurated eschatology) in the new, but the one same plan of redemption under every administration.

There is no work to apply to a believer before Pentecost. That's why the promise of the Father—the Holy Spirit baptism—had to wait until Pentecost. Being joined with Jesus before that doesn't save a person because the work that saves was not yet accomplished.

[Emphasis added.]

It looks like you're separating the application of redemption from the accomplishment of redemption so rigidly that you effectively postpone salvation itself until after Pentecost? This is more than a theological misstep; it strikes at the continuity of the covenant of grace and denies the eternal efficacy of Christ's salvific work. To say that "being joined with Jesus before [Pentecost] doesn't save a person because the work that saves was not yet accomplished" is to say that no one could be saved before Pentecost—which seems to be a historically novel, hermeneutically flawed, and biblically untenable position. (That being said, I grant that I could be misunderstanding your view. But you said what you said.)

1. According to covenant theology, the atoning work of Christ is eternally efficacious and applicable. Temporally speaking, that means it is retroactive. Although accomplished at a specific historical moment, its application is not temporally constrained, especially in light of the eternal decree and sovereign purpose of God, and especially in light of the pactum salutis. The application of Christ's work has always been based on the promise of that work, according to God's eternal plan. Consider Romans 3:25, where Paul explicitly says God forgave sins committed before the cross. On what basis? On exactly that atoning work of Christ ("a propitiation by his blood")—who, in the OT, was still to come. "Abraham was overjoyed to see my day," Jesus said, "and he saw it and was glad" (John 8:56). God passed over sin, neither as a privation of justice nor contrary to it but rather because justice would be (temporally speaking) fully satisfied at the cross of Christ.

2. According to covenant theology, union with Christ is not temporally dependent on the cross. The benefits of the atonement are applied by the Spirit in all ages on the basis of the cross, even prior to Calvary and Pentecost. The historical cross is the basis, but the Spirit applies its benefits throughout redemptive history according to the eternal decree of God. Neither God nor his redemptive purposes are temporally bound. Moses regarded being ill-treated with the people of God as "abuse suffered for Christ" and greater riches than the treasures of Egypt (Heb. 11:26). It has always been one and the same body, Spirit, and faith.

3. According to covenant theology, the promise of the Father (Spirit at Pentecost) is not equivalent to regeneration for salvation. Pentecost is not the first time the Spirit regenerated anyone. It is the outpouring of the Spirit to inaugurate the new covenant age and empower gospel proclamation (Acts 1:8), not the beginning of salvation in Christ or regeneration. The atonement of Christ is the once-for-all ground of salvation that transcends time, applying both before (based on promise) and after (based on fulfillment) the cross. The Spirit has always applied that atoning work to the elect, uniting them to Christ by regeneration. Pentecost marks not the beginning of salvation but the dawning of the new covenant era in redemptive history. The redeemed have existed throughout time, all saved by the cross of Christ (Eph. 1:4; cf. Rev. 13:8).

Being born again is the result of faith, not the cause. In other words, regeneration caused the faith but not [the] being born again.

To be regenerated is to be generated again. To be reborn is to be born again.

They are one and the same, being born from above or born of God (gennethenai anothen).

Regeneration = born again.

No one can be born again apart from union with Christ, since the spiritual life of regeneration is found only in him. To say that regeneration is not being born again is to say that spiritual life does not equal spiritual life—a logical contradiction.

I also find myself wondering if you're forgetting effectual calling. Regeneration and effectual calling are not the same thing, but being born again and regenerated are the same thing.

[Look at] verse 40 [of Hebrews 11]. What did the NT believers have that the OT believers were lacking?

The advent of the promised Messiah. We share everything else in common with them. Like they did, we also pass from this life holding fast to a faith in which we haven't yet received the fullness of the things promised. They looked forward to the cross of Christ, whereas we look back at it. But the differences seem to end there. We seek a homeland as they did, a better, even a heavenly land, as well as a bodily resurrection and eternal inheritance, a glorified body and life everlasting in the new heavens and new earth. The structure of redemptive history is such that, like the old covenant saints of Hebrews 11, we also live between promise and fulfillment and share in that same pilgrimage. Christ has come, indeed—the decisive turning point in redemptive history—but the consummation of God's promises is future for us as it was for them.

1. Already/not yet (inaugurated eschatology). Christ's first coming inaugurated the kingdom, but it is not yet consummated. So we live in the overlap of the ages: (a) already, in that we have redemption, adoption, and are seated with Christ in heavenly places, but also (b) not yet, in that we still await the resurrection of our bodies and eternal fellowship with God in the new creation, the final glory of his consummated kingdom. Just as Abraham saw these promises from afar, so we also look forward to the blessed hope—the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead (cf. Titus 2:13).

2. We are still strangers and exiles. Like our forebears in Hebrews 11, we are pilgrims and strangers in this world, seeking a homeland not yet revealed. Even though Christ has come, we still await the full realization of what his coming guarantees: a better country, a heavenly one (Heb. 11:16); a city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God (v. 10); an unshakable kingdom (12:28). We confess with Paul that we walk by faith, not by sight, groaning with creation for the full redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:23).

3. We share in their faith. Verses 39-40 makes this explicit: "And these all were commended for their faith, yet they did not receive what was promised. For God had provided something better for us, so that they would be made perfect together with us." This indicates a corporate, eschatological fulfillment; namely, both old and new covenant saints will receive the inheritance together at the resurrection and glorification (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50-57; Rev. 6:9-11). We have the full revelation of Christ crucified and risen, the outpouring of the Spirit, and immediate access to God through the veil torn in Christ's flesh (Heb. 10:19-22). God has "provided something better for us," not insofar as they lacked saving faith but because we stand in the era of fulfillment and clarity with an assurance grounded in a finished work, not a shadowy system of types and figures.

 

[Eleanor]

[Emphasis added.]

The birth of the church? This smacks of dispensational theology

It's one people of God, one olive tree (Ro 11:17-23), one called-out assembly (ekklesia, Ac 7:38) from Abraham through the NT.

(which could possibly explain the weird parsing that you're attempting). Calling this the birth of the church is antithetical to covenant theology, which teaches that (a) the church is one people of God across redemptive history, not two peoples as in dispensationalism (Israel and the church), and (b) the covenant of grace was administered through promise (types and shadows) under the old covenant and fulfillment in Christ (inaugurated eschatology) in the new, but the one same plan of redemption under every administration.
[Emphasis added.]
It looks like you're separating the application of redemption from the accomplishment of redemption so rigidly that you effectively postpone salvation itself until after Pentecost? This is more than a theological misstep; it strikes at the continuity of the covenant of grace and denies the eternal efficacy of Christ's salvific work. To say that "being joined with Jesus before [Pentecost] doesn't save a person because the work that saves was not yet accomplished" is to say that no one could be saved before Pentecost—which seems to be a historically novel, hermeneutically flawed, and biblically untenable position. (That being said, I grant that I could be misunderstanding your view. But you said what you said.)

1. According to covenant theology, the atoning work of Christ is eternally efficacious and applicable. Temporally speaking, that means it is retroactive. Although accomplished at a specific historical moment, its application is not temporally constrained, especially in light of the eternal decree and sovereign purpose of God, and especially in light of the pactum salutis. The application of Christ's work has always been based on the promise of that work, according to God's eternal plan. Consider Romans 3:25, where Paul explicitly says God forgave sins committed before the cross. On what basis? On exactly that atoning work of Christ ("a propitiation by his blood")—who, in the OT, was still to come. "Abraham was overjoyed to see my day," Jesus said, "and he saw it and was glad" (John 8:56). God passed over sin, neither as a privation of justice nor contrary to it but rather because justice would be (temporally speaking) fully satisfied at the cross of Christ.

2. According to covenant theology, union with Christ is not temporally dependent on the cross. The benefits of the atonement are applied by the Spirit in all ages on the basis of the cross, even prior to Calvary and Pentecost. The historical cross is the basis, but the Spirit applies its benefits throughout redemptive history according to the eternal decree of God. Neither God nor his redemptive purposes are temporally bound. Moses regarded being ill-treated with the people of God as "abuse suffered for Christ" and greater riches than the treasures of Egypt (Heb. 11:26). It has always been one and the same body, Spirit, and faith.

3. According to covenant theology, the promise of the Father (Spirit at Pentecost) is not equivalent to regeneration for salvation. Pentecost is not the first time the Spirit regenerated anyone. It is the outpouring of the Spirit to inaugurate the new covenant age and empower gospel proclamation (Acts 1:8), not the beginning of salvation in Christ or regeneration. The atonement of Christ is the once-for-all ground of salvation that transcends time, applying both before (based on promise) and after (based on fulfillment) the cross. The Spirit has always applied that atoning work to the elect, uniting them to Christ by regeneration. Pentecost marks not the beginning of salvation but the dawning of the new covenant era in redemptive history. The redeemed have existed throughout time, all saved by the cross of Christ (Eph. 1:4; cf. Rev. 13:8).




To be regenerated is to be generated again. To be reborn is to be born again.

They are one and the same, being born from above or born of God (gennethenai anothen).

Regeneration = born again.

No one can be born again apart from union with Christ, since the spiritual life of regeneration is found only in him. To say that regeneration is not being born again is to say that spiritual life does not equal spiritual life—a logical contradiction.

I also find myself wondering if you're forgetting effectual calling. Regeneration and effectual calling are not the same thing, but being born again and regenerated are the same thing.




The advent of the promised Messiah. We share everything else in common with them. Like they did, we also pass from this life holding fast to a faith in which we haven't yet received the fullness of the things promised. They looked forward to the cross of Christ, whereas we look back at it. But the differences seem to end there. We seek a homeland as they did, a better, even a heavenly land, as well as a bodily resurrection and eternal inheritance, a glorified body and life everlasting in the new heavens and new earth. The structure of redemptive history is such that, like the old covenant saints of Hebrews 11, we also live between promise and fulfillment and share in that same pilgrimage. Christ has come, indeed—the decisive turning point in redemptive history—but the consummation of God's promises is future for us as it was for them.

1. Already/not yet (inaugurated eschatology). Christ's first coming inaugurated the kingdom, but it is not yet consummated. So we live in the overlap of the ages: (a) already, in that we have redemption, adoption, and are seated with Christ in heavenly places, but also (b) not yet, in that we still await the resurrection of our bodies and eternal fellowship with God in the new creation, the final glory of his consummated kingdom. Just as Abraham saw these promises from afar, so we also look forward to the blessed hope—the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead (cf. Titus 2:13).

2. We are still strangers and exiles. Like our forebears in Hebrews 11, we are pilgrims and strangers in this world, seeking a homeland not yet revealed. Even though Christ has come, we still await the full realization of what his coming guarantees: a better country, a heavenly one (Heb. 11:16); a city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God (v. 10); an unshakable kingdom (12:28). We confess with Paul that we walk by faith, not by sight, groaning with creation for the full redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:23).

3. We share in their faith. Verses 39-40 makes this explicit: "And these all were commended for their faith, yet they did not receive what was promised. For God had provided something better for us, so that they would be made perfect together with us." This indicates a corporate, eschatological fulfillment; namely, both old and new covenant saints will receive the inheritance together at the resurrection and glorification (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50-57; Rev. 6:9-11). We have the full revelation of Christ crucified and risen, the outpouring of the Spirit, and immediate access to God through the veil torn in Christ's flesh (Heb. 10:19-22). God has "provided something better for us," not insofar as they lacked saving faith but because we stand in the era of fulfillment and clarity with an assurance grounded in a finished work, not a shadowy system of types and figures.

 

[Dave]

False premise. . .

Hi Eleanor. That was not my premise. I was playing out the implications of the premise that I was arguing against. And that was my point, it's a false premise.

God worked in Pharaoh and it wasn't a new birth.

Exactly. So what was it?

One can be drawn without it being regeneration.

Are you claiming that these are drawn from the flesh?

There are those who believe that being born again is what motivates a person to be drawn. In their minds, that makes it regeneration, since they believe that regeneration and born again are synonymous. While I agree that it is God moving first which makes it possible for them to be drawn, I would not call it born again. It's regeneration, but that person being drawn is not yet in Christ, and not yet born again.

Not according to Jn 3:3-8, where the new birth is a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit, who is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8) in his sovereign acts.

I agree, a sovereign act of God. Paul describes the baptism this way. Born again, it's right there. It's the result of the Holy Spirit baptism, not the cause.

Romans 6:3-6 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.

Think of the implications of this. Our being born again is a result of being placed-baptized into Christ. This baptism is the result of faith. The other three passages previously listed to make four say the same thing. Col. 2:11-12. "In Him" you are born again. Not you are born again and then placed/baptized in Him. In Him, you get born again. How do we become "in Him"? The baptism with the Holy Spirit which is the result of our faith.

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.

I'm going with what Scripture calls it in Jn 3:3-5, born again (1 Pe 1:23), regeneration: palingenesia--palin = again, genesis = birth

John 3:3-5 is still OT and it's speaking of the future, the new Testament/Covenant, wouldn't you agree? I Peter is that future.

 

[Dave]

It's one people of God, one olive tree (Ro 11:17-23), one called-out assembly (ekklesia, Ac 7:38) from Abraham through the NT.

Hi Eleanor

In the beginning they had to wait for the promises to be fulfilled for them to experience most of the benefits from the realization of those promises. The latter didn't need to wait. It's all the same, right? Are you disagreeing with me or John?

Dave

 

[Arial]

Hi Eleanor

In the beginning they had to wait for the promises to be fulfilled for them to experience most of the benefits from the realization of those promises. The latter didn't need to wait. It's all the same, right? Are you disagreeing with me or John?

Dave

Take a look at the video posted today with Sproul of the Crucifixion and the work of Christ. It touches on the issue of how the Day of Atonement affected believing OT saints through the work of Christ.

 

[makesends]

There are those who believe that being born again is what motivates a person to be drawn. In their minds, that makes it regeneration, since they believe that regeneration and born again are synonymous. While I agree that it is God moving first which makes it possible for them to be drawn, I would not call it born again. It's regeneration, but that person being drawn is not yet in Christ, and not yet born again.

Are you presenting the implication that since the synergist can also believe regeneration and born again are the same thing, that anyone who believes they are the same is a synergist? I hope not. I think you are drawing lines where there are none.

It is one thing to say that you "put things this way", but it is another to say that Scripture teaches what you are positing here.

 

[Eleanor]

Hi Eleanor

In the beginning they had to wait for the promises to be fulfilled for them to experience most of the benefits from the realization of those promises. The latter didn't need to wait. It's all the same, right? Are you disagreeing with me or John?

Dave

I'm disagreeing with dispensational theology, mentioned there, which contradicts NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16); i.e.,
one people of God, one olive tree (Ro 11:17-23), one called-out assembly (ekklesia, Ac 7:38) from Abraham through the NT.

 

[Dave]

[Emphasis added.]

The birth of the church? This smacks of dispensational theology (which could possibly explain the weird parsing that you're attempting). Calling this the birth of the church is antithetical to covenant theology, which teaches that (a) the church is one people of God across redemptive history, not two peoples as in dispensationalism (Israel and the church), and (b) the covenant of grace was administered through promise (types and shadows) under the old covenant and fulfillment in Christ (inaugurated eschatology) in the new, but the one same plan of redemption under every administration.

Hey John

As you know, I'm not fond of theological labels because of all the baggage that could potentially come with them, depending on what extent a persons belief is in line with the whole package. I'm not complaining, though. Those things needed to be said for context.

I like to think of it like this. The Church is Jesus, Right? So the Church always was. The first believers placed into the Church with the Holy Spirit baptism is what is called the birth of the Church. Before that, believers were members by promise, but not in actuality.

[Emphasis added.]

It looks like you're separating the application of redemption from the accomplishment of redemption so rigidly that you effectively postpone salvation itself until after Pentecost? This is more than a theological misstep; it strikes at the continuity of the covenant of grace and denies the eternal efficacy of Christ's salvific work. To say that "being joined with Jesus before [Pentecost] doesn't save a person because the work that saves was not yet accomplished" is to say that no one could be saved before Pentecost—which seems to be a historically novel, hermeneutically flawed, and biblically untenable position. (That being said, I grant that I could be misunderstanding your view. But you said what you said.)

You got it right for the most part. This is what I believe Scripture teaches. The only difference would be that nobody was "in Christ" before Pentecost. It was a hypothetical to make a point. People of the promise (OT believers) had to wait. They were owed salvation by the promise of the work of Jesus Christ, and those were realized at Pentecost. That's why OT believers had to wait in Sheol. Their sin was not yet atoned, and the righteousness of God not yet established by Law as a man, or imputed. which is all the result of being "in Christ". Just like being born again. They could not be in the presence of God until these things were done for obvious reasons.

1. According to covenant theology, the atoning work of Christ is eternally efficacious and applicable. Temporally speaking, that means it is retroactive. Although accomplished at a specific historical moment, its application is not temporally constrained, especially in light of the eternal decree and sovereign purpose of God, and especially in light of the pactum salutis. The application of Christ's work has always been based on the promise of that work, according to God's eternal plan. Consider Romans 3:25, where Paul explicitly says God forgave sins committed before the cross. On what basis? On exactly that atoning work of Christ ("a propitiation by his blood")—who, in the OT, was still to come. "Abraham was overjoyed to see my day," Jesus said, "and he saw it and was glad" (John 8:56). God passed over sin, neither as a privation of justice nor contrary to it but rather because justice would be (temporally speaking) fully satisfied at the cross of Christ.

I'm actually getting the exact opposite meaning from Romans 3:25. I believe what Paul saying is that God forgave the sins that He passed over at the cross. He simply passed over them (withheld judgment) before the cross until the cross took place.

2. According to covenant theology, union with Christ is not temporally dependent on the cross. The benefits of the atonement are applied by the Spirit in all ages on the basis of the cross, even prior to Calvary and Pentecost. The historical cross is the basis, but the Spirit applies its benefits throughout redemptive history according to the eternal decree of God. Neither God nor his redemptive purposes are temporally bound. Moses regarded being ill-treated with the people of God as "abuse suffered for Christ" and greater riches than the treasures of Egypt (Heb. 11:26). It has always been one and the same body, Spirit, and faith.

I would say, it was applied in Promise, but realized at Pentecost. From that point forward, no believers had to wait. God's Promises are not bound by the temporal, as you call it, but His promises are bound by His attributes. As a result, those promises realized, and then taking affect are bound by time.

3. According to covenant theology, the promise of the Father (Spirit at Pentecost) is not equivalent to regeneration for salvation. Pentecost is not the first time the Spirit regenerated anyone. It is the outpouring of the Spirit to inaugurate the new covenant age and empower gospel proclamation (Acts 1:8), not the beginning of salvation in Christ or regeneration. The atonement of Christ is the once-for-all ground of salvation that transcends time, applying both before (based on promise) and after (based on fulfillment) the cross. The Spirit has always applied that atoning work to the elect, uniting them to Christ by regeneration. Pentecost marks not the beginning of salvation but the dawning of the new covenant era in redemptive history. The redeemed have existed throughout time, all saved by the cross of Christ (Eph. 1:4; cf. Rev. 13:8).

I see here that you said the same thing as me. So I agree with this statement. "The atonement of Christ is the once-for-all ground of salvation that transcends time, applying both before (based on promise) and after (based on fulfillment) the cross."

I would add to that, I believe that God is bound by His attributes.

At this point, for the sake of argument, we have two options.

One God says, come on in (heaven), the work will be done eventually, you get credited until then.

Or

Two God says, while it is going to happen, it still needs to actually happen before you come into my presence. My justice must be satisfied, not only in promise, but in actuality. My righteous demands must be satisfied and applied to you. So until that happens, my holiness, My justice, will not allow you to be in my presence.

Likewise, being born again does not happen as a result of promises made, rather it happens as a result of promises realized.

Think about why OT believers were not allowed in God's presence until after the death resurrection and ascension? Why were Adam and Eve removed from the garden? This promise needed to be realized before they actually took affect.

Continued. ..

 

[Dave]

To be regenerated is to be generated again. To be reborn is to be born again.

They are one and the same, being born from above or born of God (gennethenai anothen).

Regeneration = born again.

No one can be born again apart from union with Christ, since the spiritual life of regeneration is found only in him. To say that regeneration is not being born again is to say that spiritual life does not equal spiritual life—a logical contradiction.

I also find myself wondering if you're forgetting effectual calling. Regeneration and effectual calling are not the same thing, but being born again and regenerated are the same thing.

The way that I view regeneration is God doing for us what we are incapable of doing in the flesh. Effectual calling would be from God, not from the flesh. How does God accomplish this without some form of regeneration? (Assumed in the question, as you know, I don't believe that being born again happened yet). This is where I believe that the distinction needs to be made. And also one of the reasons that I believe that regeneration is a much bigger context than born again. This distinction goes into the difference in God's working with His people from the OT to the NT, while also showing similarities in a pre faith NT setting to the OT faith.

Dave

 

[Dave]

Are you presenting the implication that since the synergist can also believe regeneration and born again are the same thing, that anyone who believes they are the same is a synergist? I hope not. I think you are drawing lines where there are none.

It is one thing to say that you "put things this way", but it is another to say that Scripture teaches what you are positing here.

Hey

Everything that I write is what I believe scripture teaches. I don't think that being born again and regeneration being synonymous or not has any implication with regards synergism. It can be assumed, but I don't believe that I ever stated that, or even implied it. At least not that I'm aware of. Am I missing something here?

It's God's input in regeneration that differs from the OT to the NT, not mans ability. Apply that same reasoning to the NT and a believer from before to after being born again. It's the level of God moving. Man, apart from God, in the flesh, can only produce sin. Anything good that comes from us for the Church is an undeserved gift from God. The fruit of the Holy Spirit. Faith included.

I know that this idea that regeneration and being born again not being synonymous flies in the face of traditional interpretations from the reformed perspective, at least these days. But I'm not bound by tradition.

My belief is that OT saints were not born again. Yet they had a primitive form of God working in their lives, as evidenced by scripture. I call this regeneration. I don't call it born again.

Dave

 

[Dave]

Take a look at the video posted today with Sproul of the Crucifixion and the work of Christ. It touches on the issue of how the Day of Atonement affected believing OT saints through the work of Christ.

I don't know why I missed this. I'll reply tomorrow after I see the video.

Dave

 

[David Lamb]

The way that I view regeneration is God doing for us what we are incapable of doing in the flesh. Effectual calling would be from God, not from the flesh. How does God accomplish this without some form of regeneration? (Assumed in the question, as you know, I don't believe that being born again happened yet). This is where I believe that the distinction needs to be made. And also one of the reasons that I believe that regeneration is a much bigger context than born again. This distinction goes into the difference in God's working with His people from the OT to the NT, while also showing similarities in a pre faith NT setting to the OT faith.

Dave

Yes, but exactly the same thing applies to being born again. A person cannot bring about his own birth, whether natural birth, or being born again:

“having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,” (1Pe 1:23 NKJV)

And, as many others have said, regeneration means being born again.

 

[makesends]

Hey

Everything that I write is what I believe scripture teaches. I don't think that being born again and regeneration being synonymous or not has any implication with regards synergism. It can be assumed, but I don't believe that I ever stated that, or even implied it. At least not that I'm aware of. Am I missing something here?

Thanks. Good. Just making sure. (Your mention of motivation in your reasoning concerning the matter, sounded like you were denying something a synergist would come up with.)

It's God's input in regeneration that differs from the OT to the NT, not mans ability. Apply that same reasoning to the NT and a believer from before to after being born again. It's the level of God moving. Man, apart from God, in the flesh, can only produce sin. Anything good that comes from us for the Church is an undeserved gift from God. The fruit of the Holy Spirit. Faith included.

Myself, I'm disagree with the first two sentences, there, but you are in good company. It has been discussed at some length on other threads, though.

I know that this idea that regeneration and being born again not being synonymous flies in the face of traditional interpretations from the reformed perspective, at least these days. But I'm not bound by tradition.

Lol, yeah, but tradition is a good thing to consider, before getting too entrenched in what appeals to me. Yep, I have my own favorites.

Also, what some call tradition, others call orthodoxy. When it comes to that, one should be awfully careful where they go with their constructions. It gives us some pretty good boundaries.

My belief is that OT saints were not born again. Yet they had a primitive form of God working in their lives, as evidenced by scripture. I call this regeneration. I don't call it born again.

Dave

I disagree.

 

[Dave]

Take a look at the video posted today with Sproul of the Crucifixion and the work of Christ. It touches on the issue of how the Day of Atonement affected believing OT saints through the work of Christ.

OK I watched it. He didn't get too deep into it as it relates to this subject, but from what I gathered, he was in line with what I've been saying. God's justice was set on hold until the cross.

Dave

 

[Dave]

Yes, but exactly the same thing applies to being born again. A person cannot bring about his own birth, whether natural birth, or being born again:

“having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,” (1Pe 1:23 NKJV)

And, as many others have said, regeneration means being born again.

Hey David.

I get that. But being born again, at least according to the NT, is the result of the Spirit baptism, which is the result of faith. The only logical conclusion is that regeneration (pre NT faith, OT faith), begot regeneration (born again). That idea fits Scripture, and is built from Scripture. The idea that born again and regeneration are synonymous, thus born again produces faith appears to be hostile to the Scripture that I posted. I simply want someone to explain with Scripture why it's not. Tie it together for me. At least give me theory. I need more than an assumption that Scripture must be defined by the idea that regeneration and born again are synonymous, therefore all regeneration is born again.

Dave