Regeneration and born again are not synonymous

[Dave]

He never said that!!

Can you summarize for me what you think that he said? BTW, He stated that He believed that the birth of the Church was in the upper room, not at Pentecost. Interesting.

 

[Arial]

Can you summarize for me what you think that he said? BTW, He stated that He believed that the birth of the Church was in the upper room, not at Pentecost. Interesting.

Start it at about 6:30.

learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/ultimately-with-rc-sproul/how-was-abraham-saved

rcsprouljr.com/how-were-people-saved-in-the-old-testament/

 

[Eleanor]

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.

No. . .that is not according to the NT.

According to the NT: man is spiritiually dead and spiritually powerless until his spirit is born again into eternal life by the sovereign choice of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5), whose sovereign choice is as unaccountable as the wind ( Jn 3:6-8).

The only logical conclusion is that regeneration (pre NT faith, OT faith), begot regeneration (born again).

No, according to Scripture, regeneration didn't "beget regeneration". . .rather tortuous construct.

They were reborn into eternal life the OT in the same way they are reborn into eternal life in the NT. . .
through faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:17).

 

[Dave]

Start it at about 6:30.

learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/ultimately-with-rc-sproul/how-was-abraham-saved

rcsprouljr.com/how-were-people-saved-in-the-old-testament/

Hey Arial

R.C. -- He saying the OT believers looked forward to the cross, and they did, but the cross wasn't realized until it happened. If any OT believer had been with God before the cross, that would, in fact, be God winking at sin. His Holiness would be winking at sin and compromised, His justice would be winking at sin and compromised. How can someone be in God's presence while still being unclean? That would stand the symbolism of the OT sacrifice to enter into the Holy of Holy's on it's head. The sacrifice happens first, then they are able to be with God. You see the illustration of it, right? The illustration that R.C. used suggest the same thing that I've been saying. The fact that he used Romans 3:25 sheds even more light on his point. If atonement was already applied, why would God need to pass over their sins of the OT believers to begin with? He passed over their sin until His justice was actually met. His Holy Standards were actually met. Not by promise, but by realization.

In the OT, just before the cross, in John 3:13. think of the implication of this.

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

Dave

 

[Dave]

No. . .that is not according to the NT.

According to the NT: man is spiritiually dead and spiritually powerless until his spirit is born again into eternal life by the sovereign choice of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5), whose sovereign choice is as unaccountable as the wind ( Jn 3:6-8).

But that's the OT, right? Testament means Covenant, and vise versa.

Hebrews 9:16-17 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Jesus was recorded crucified in John chapter 19. So John chapter 3 is still the Old Testament. Since Jesus rose from the dead, His covenant/Testament is a permanent one.

No, according to Scripture, regeneration didn't "beget regeneration". . .rather tortuous construct.

It's constructed from Scripture, not tradition.

They were reborn into eternal life the OT in the same way they are reborn into eternal life in the NT. . .
through faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:17).

See John 3:13

 

[David Lamb]

But that's the OT, right? Testament means Covenant, and vise versa.

Hebrews 9:16-17 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Jesus was recorded crucified in John chapter 19. So John chapter 3 is still the Old Testament. Since Jesus rose from the dead, His covenant/Testament is a permanent one.


It's constructed from Scripture, not tradition.


See John 3:13

The Greek word for "born" is "gennao". The Greek word translated "regeneration" is "paliggenesia" made up of two words, "palin" meaning "again, anew", and "genesia", which means "1) source, origin 1a) a book of one’s lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or progeny are enumerated
2) used of birth, nativity." So in the bible, regeneration and "born again" are the same thing.

 

[Josheb]

..........there is a pre-faith regeneration that is somehow distinct from being born again.

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.

That seems to be at odds with many reformed people today, but I don't think it should be.

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

It's right there in scripture. This idea that any regeneration is the result of being born again is in my opinion, serious error for the reasons stated above. In short, I believe that regeneration describes being born again accurately, but being born again is a much smaller context of what regeneration is as a whole.

I think it is going to be very important to correctly define the terms if that discussion is going to be had. For example, "born again," is not a wholly accurate reflection of Jesus' words and it has been popularized by the Pentecostal end of the Christian spectrum to mean things it did not mean in Jesus' day. The Greek, "gennethe anothen" transliterated means "born anew from above," not merely born a second time as "born again" indicates in normal reading. It's sad because there is no reason why our English Bible need to continue the practice of tradition when "born anew from above" would serve us much more effectively. I suspect much of the debate between born again and regeneration would disappear if the matter were framed correctly as born anew from above versus regeneration. One definition of paliggenesia is "new birth." Both come solely from above (God), so defining the term becomes necessary if they are going to be made entirely different phenomena. Gennethe anothen is a new birth from above and paliggenesia is a new birth from above.

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.

Kind of like ordained compared to predestined. 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.

I disagree.

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

Dave

I think if confrontation is the goal, then you should begin by confronting your own beliefs. Start by defining your terms. Then consider the premise being born anew from above is not monolithic. Nor is it something to be defined with any legalism that restricts what is otherwise a significant amount of diversity found in scripture.

 

[Josheb]

And it's that placing into Christ that makes us born again, as we identify with Christ death and resurrection in such a way that we ourselves spiritually die and are raised up with Him, born again.

There's no such thing as "spiritual death" in the Bible. That phrase is a colloquialism. The phrase is a doctrinal colloquialism. I mention this because if you want to confront" viewpoints that warrant correction then not only is it important to define terms and start with your own/our own beliefs, but it's also important to stick as closely as possible to scripture and not beg the question of arguing against doctrinal inconsistencies using doctrinal inconsistencies.

If a human's spirit is literally dead, then that human in his or her entirety is also literally dead. That's the reality of scripture. There are no spiritless humans, no soul-less humans, no bodiless human spirits, and if one is dead then the entire creature is dead.

Define your terms.

 

[Arial]

R.C. -- He saying the OT believers looked forward to the cross, and they did, but the cross wasn't realized until it happened. If any OT believer had been with God before the cross, that would, in fact, be God winking at sin. His Holiness would be winking at sin and compromised, His justice would be winking at sin and compromised. How can someone be in God's presence while still being unclean? That would stand the symbolism of the OT sacrifice to enter into the Holy of Holy's on it's head. The sacrifice happens first, then they are able to be with God. You see the illustration of it, right? The illustration that R.C. used suggest the same thing that I've been saying. The fact that he used Romans 3:25 sheds even more light on his point. If atonement was already applied, why would God need to pass over their sins of the OT believers to begin with? He passed over their sin until His justice was actually met. His Holy Standards were actually met. Not by promise, but by realization.

In the above you took what Sproul said and then inserted your interpretation into what he said. In doing so, you make the claim that he agrees with you when he does not.

The OT saints understood something about the Atonement as it was presented in the Day of Atonement that occurred once a year in Israel, and all of its ritual shadows and types. Not everyone did, but those who God had revealed it to, did. Not through their own understanding, but through the revelation of God, and for his own purposes in the plan of redemption. Just like with NT believers. There is no difference. They understood what it was looking forward to and that is what they believed. It is not God winking at sin. It is God saving them through the same means as he saves us. Through faith in the shed blood of Christ---his person and work. It was not the blood of bulls shed on the Day of Atonement that saved them. It was faith in what it was portraying and the One who would fulfill it, and his blood shed for the forgiveness of sins.

Don't confine the eternalness or mind of God, to minutes and hours and days and years.

 

[Josheb]

In short, I believe that regeneration describes being born again accurately, but being born again is a much smaller context of what regeneration is as a whole.

I am inclined to agree but that does not preclude the OT saints' gennethe anothen. You will have to define your terms and make that case (with well rendered scripture).

 

[Eleanor]

But that's the OT, right? Testament means Covenant, and vise versa.
Hebrews 9:16-17 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
Jesus was recorded crucified in John chapter 19. So John chapter 3 is still the Old Testament. Since Jesus rose from the dead, His covenant/Testament is a permanent one.

Jesus was born, lived, preached and died under the Old Covenant.
He also gave teaching for the New Covenant; e.g.,Jn 3:18.

It's constructed from Scripture, not tradition.

Biblical assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

See John 3:13

Relevance?

 

[Dave]

In the above you took what Sproul said and then inserted your interpretation into what he said. In doing so, you make the claim that he agrees with you when he does not.

The OT saints understood something about the Atonement as it was presented in the Day of Atonement that occurred once a year in Israel, and all of its ritual shadows and types. Not everyone did, but those who God had revealed it to, did. Not through their own understanding, but through the revelation of God, and for his own purposes in the plan of redemption. Just like with NT believers. There is no difference. They understood what it was looking forward to and that is what they believed. It is not God winking at sin. It is God saving them through the same means as he saves us. Through faith in the shed blood of Christ---his person and work. It was not the blood of bulls shed on the Day of Atonement that saved them. It was faith in what it was portraying and the One who would fulfill it, and his blood shed for the forgiveness of sins.

Don't confine the eternalness or mind of God, to minutes and hours and days and years.

Hi Arial

You didn't answer anything that I posted. You gave some superficial answer that talked around the points that I made. Adding insult to injury, you added the eternal argument. Implying that all time related scripture is overturned because God is not bound by time. You should know that the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world is a temporal statement. Foundation means beginning. beginning is time. It's talking about the eternal decree, not God not being bound by time. The way that you're using it, It's self defeating. It overturns itself. It's not logical. It's not Biblical. Jesus is the Word.

Dave

 

[Dave]

Jesus was born, lived, preached and died under the Old Covenant.
He also gave teaching for the New Covenant; e.g.,Jn 3:18.

Biblical assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

Relevance?

this is what I said and is what i believe that you were replying to.

Dave said: "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."

Lets look. Is being buried with Him in baptism, and raised up with Him (born again), the result of being "in Him", or the cause of being "in Him"?

What is being described in that passage as a result of being "in Him" is being born again. Do you disagree with that interpretation?

Col. 2:1014 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,

Next verse.

The first step of being born again is dying with Christ. The baptism initiates this and finishes our being born again "in Him" because we are also raise dup with Him. The baptism places us "in Him." so that we can die with Him and be raised up with Him. That's what baptism means, placed into. How could our old man be crucified with Him if we are not "in Him". How can we be raised up with Him if we are not "in Him. These are the result of our spiritual union with Jesus. The baptism that does this is a baptism activated by faith. Faith causes this. Being born again is the result. It's right there, just read it. The only way out of that interpretation that can see is if all that born again language is simply a metaphor that was being used to describe what being born again is by placing in that context. I have yet to see any reason to read it any other way but literally.

Romans 6:3 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.

The same baptism is the result of faith. Jesus placing Himself in us by way of the Holy spirit as a result of faith. Galatians 3 tells us

Galatians 3: 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

I'm out of time. Sorry

 

[Dave]

I am inclined to agree but that does not preclude the OT saints' gennethe anothen. You will have to define your terms and make that case (with well rendered scripture).

Josheb

I'll need to get back to you. Thanks for the reply. I wanted to note that It's faith that initiated the Spirit baptism. Not sure if you were implying something when you said that they happened simultaneously. That sounded Catholic to me.

Dave

 

[Eleanor]

this is what I said and is what i believe that you were replying to.

Dave said: "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."

That is not Biblical.

There is no spiritual faith, nor anything else spiritual, in the spiritually dead.
They must be regenerated (rebirthed) into eternal life by the Holy Spirit in order to be able to spiritually believe.

 

[Eleanor]

There's no such thing as "spiritual death" in the Bible.

There is no such thing as "sovereignty" of God in the Bible, nor "Trinity" for that matter.

But there is "dead in your transgressions and sins" (Eph 2:1, 5, Col 2:13).

That phrase is a colloquialism. The phrase is a doctrinal colloquialism. I mention this because if you want to confront" viewpoints that warrant correction then not only is it important to define terms and start with your own/our own beliefs, but it's also important to stick as closely as possible to scripture and not beg the question of arguing against doctrinal inconsistencies using doctrinal inconsistencies.

If a human's spirit is literally dead, then that human in his or her entirety is also literally dead. That's the reality of scripture. There are no spiritless humans, no soul-less humans, no bodiless human spirits, and if one is dead then the entire creature is dead.

Define your terms.

 

[Arial]

You didn't answer anything that I posted. You gave some superficial answer that talked around the points that I made.

You may see it as talking around the points that you made, but what I was doing was showing that you were attributing the points that you made as being the same as what Sproul said, as not being the same at all. I showed you why.

Adding insult to injury, you added the eternal argument. Implying that all time related scripture is overturned because God is not bound by time

Is that your way of talking around what I said instead of addressing the content itself?

I never implied that all time related scriptures are overturned. I was only talking about the eternal aspects contained within the temporal aspects of the Day of Atonement. God's perspective IOW, instead of only the human perspective.

You should know that the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world is a temporal statement.

"Before the foundation of the world" is obviously the eternal aspect---before time. It was in the Covenant of Redemption with the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, before he created our world. And God created linear time, but he does not see or do in linear time. That is our boundary, and our perspective.

Foundation means beginning. beginning is time. It's talking about the eternal decree, not God not being bound by time. The way that you're using it, It's self defeating.

Self defeating how?
I was not talking about God not being bound by time. You have inserted that implication into my words by not understanding what I am saying.

In case you are wondering what it was that I was talking about: I was talking about God's perspective as opposed to the human perspective. They both exist and the ruling perspective is God's. That we see it played out through time, does not change that in God's perspective, time is irrelevant. Therefore---and this is the critical part that was ignored--- when those God redeemed in the OT participated in the Day of Atonement, they saw beyond all the rituals and items of the Day of Atonement to the very things they were representing. (Just as we do today by looking backwards at them.)And only through a regenerating work of the Holy Spirit revealing it to them. (Same as with us.) They too were trusting in the shed blood of Christ for redemption. "But it had not been shed yet!" you cry. In the economy of God, in his perspective, oh yes it had. They looked forward (looking ahead and seeing something that has not yet come to pass in time, and believing it. The very definition of biblical faith.) God knows what it is they are believing because he is the one that gave it to them. Same as with us.

 

[Josheb]

There is no such thing as "sovereignty" of God in the Bible, nor "Trinity" for that matter.

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 Greek there is "dynastes," which is variously translated as ruler, potentate, sovereign, an individual who rules by force (G1413). Paul prayed the believers in Ephesus would understand this when he wrote,

Ephesians 1:18-23
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of his calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised him from the dead and seated him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Elsewhere Paul wrote,

Philippians 2:9-11
For this reason also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Sounds pretty sovereign to me. I don't recall reading anything in the New Testament about an election where people got to choose who would be seated far above all rule, authority, power, dominion, and name, or if any creature in creation was asked if they wanted to be put in subjection under Christ's feet. I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times but maybe I missed that verse .

Would you like me to survey the entirety of scripture and sample from numerous places where God's sovereignty and Christ's sovereignty is, in fact, asserted, both explicitly and implicitly?

There is no such thing as "sovereignty" of God in the Bible...

Scripture proves otherwise.

nor "Trinity" for that matter.

First of all, my critique is not about an argument from silence and, second, Just about everyone here can define "Trinity," and provide an incredibly well-reasoned case full of scripture to justify both that doctrine and the use of that label.

Did you read that being done with "spiritually dead"? Or was the term asserted as a given without definition, without explanation, and without cause..... in the effort to "confront" questionable doctrine? In any other endeavor we might not pay much attention to the use of that phrase but if the objective is to confront doctrine, then doctrinal terms shouldn't be used, or if used then defined and their definition justified. Otherwise, as I have already pointed out, the argument is either hypocritical, circular, or question-begging.

But there is "dead in your transgressions and sins" (Eph 2:1, 5, Col 2:13).

Yep.

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?

 

[Josheb]

Josheb

I'll need to get back to you. Thanks for the reply. I wanted to note that It's faith that initiated the Spirit baptism. Not sure if you were implying something when you said that they happened simultaneously. That sounded Catholic to me.

Dave

No, not asserting Catholicism. When the jailer got saved he experienced both the Spirit and was baptized in water on the same occasion. The same is true of Saul's conversion (Acts 9), Cornelius and the converts in Caesarea (Acts 10), Lydia and her entire household (Acts 16), Titius Justus, Crispus, and the other converts in Corinth (Acts 18). These are the explicit reports. There are a handful of implicit reports in addition. There are exceptions (like Apollos and/or the converts of Acts 19 who knew only the baptism of John) but the standard operating procedure is for both water and Spirit baptism to occur at the time of conversion.

...I wanted to note that It's faith that initiated the Spirit baptism.

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.

 

[Dave]

You may see it as talking around the points that you made, but what I was doing was showing that you were attributing the points that you made as being the same as what Sproul said, as not being the same at all. I showed you why.

Is that your way of talking around what I said instead of addressing the content itself?

I never implied that all time related scriptures are overturned. I was only talking about the eternal aspects contained within the temporal aspects of the Day of Atonement. God's perspective IOW, instead of only the human perspective.

"Before the foundation of the world" is obviously the eternal aspect---before time. It was in the Covenant of Redemption with the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, before he created our world. And God created linear time, but he does not see or do in linear time. That is our boundary, and our perspective.

Self defeating how?
I was not talking about God not being bound by time. You have inserted that implication into my words by not understanding what I am saying.

In case you are wondering what it was that I was talking about: I was talking about God's perspective as opposed to the human perspective. They both exist and the ruling perspective is God's. That we see it played out through time, does not change that in God's perspective, time is irrelevant. Therefore---and this is the critical part that was ignored--- when those God redeemed in the OT participated in the Day of Atonement, they saw beyond all the rituals and items of the Day of Atonement to the very things they were representing. (Just as we do today by looking backwards at them.)And only through a regenerating work of the Holy Spirit revealing it to them. (Same as with us.) They too were trusting in the shed blood of Christ for redemption. "But it had not been shed yet!" you cry. In the economy of God, in his perspective, oh yes it had. They looked forward (looking ahead and seeing something that has not yet come to pass in time, and believing it. The very definition of biblical faith.) God knows what it is they are believing because he is the one that gave it to them. Same as with us.

Hi arial

I was in kind of a hurry this morning. Maybe I read things into your post. I'll get back more tomorow. I need to get the Josheb first.

Dave