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.