Regeneration and born again are not synonymous

[Eleanor]

To whom it may concern @Arial @makesends @Josheb @Eleanor @Hazelelponi

John 3:3 is the silver bullet verse used by todays reformed believers. I've never seen another verse offered as a prooftext to make the claim that regeneration and born again are the same thing.

Then you need a better dictionary. . .

 

[makesends]

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.

Sometimes I have to just sit there pounding it before it will show up, but then, come to think of it, I also have to hit refresh many times before the site will even load. Not so for most other sites, though there are some.

 

[Dave]

No, we don't try to prove that born again and regeneration are the same thing. They simply are. If you say otherwise, ball's in your court.

Hey makesends

One is a larger context than the other, therefore they are not the same thing. Logically, if the contexts are matched, they can be the same. That has been proven.

Born again is the result of faith, as I have shown. The big four. Remember? Start there. Galatians 3:29 Colossians 2:10-14, Romans 6:3-6 1 Peter 3:21

faith>placed into Christ (indwelling)>born again, justified>greater understanding "seeing the kingdom of God"

So what do we call what brings a person to faith, if not born again? It's from God, so it's regeneration to a degree, at least, right? It's not born again. Your system wants it to be born again, but the Bible doesn't teach that.

Well, actually, what John 3:3 says is, "...born from above".

In my NKJV, it says born again. It really doesn't matter what the translation says. Nicodemus' thought of crawling back into his mothers womb would be an odd response if the idea of born again did not come across in that dialog.

Bad logic, grammatically. Born again DOES NOT EQUAL seeing the kingdom of God.

It may result in, It may be evidence of, It may accompany, It may do all sorts of things, but EQUALLING seeing the kingdom of God, it does not.

That's what I meant. It never dawned on me that someone would see it any other way. But, technically, you're correct. Thing of a Biblical process. I'll use > from now on.

You really need to stop sloughing your logic, to make your points. It is one thing to jump logical steps to make statements, but you seem to think the logical steps are all shown.

It's not slouched logic. Can you show me faith in John 3:3? If that's not why you're implying, that "seeing" results in understanding, and understanding results in faith, then what does John 3:3 actually do for the believer that allows him to come to faith? That's the way that verse is being used. That one must see the kingdom of God to believe, thus they must be born again to see. What other logical conclusion can one come to from what you're claiming other than one must be born again to see the kingdom of God so that they can come to faith?

Born again > see the Kingdom of God > faith. = born again does not precede faith. Regeneration precedes faith.

Watch...

2 Tim 2:25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

Philippians 1:29 For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,

God moves > people believe. I just proved it with Scripture. Your turn.

The only verse that people use to make that drawing by God > born again, or any Scripture speaking of any regeneration bringing a person to faith > born again is John 3:3. It's not only contrary to Scripture as I have shown above, it just doesn't say that. It's assumed into the passage. Just saying that regeneration and born again are the same is not an argument that comes from scripture.. If it is, I'd like to hear it from somebody. That's fair, right?

Dave

 

[Dave]

There's not enough time to finish responding today. I'll get back tomorrow.

 

[Arial]

So what do we call what brings a person to faith, if not born again? It's from God, so it's regeneration to a degree, at least, right? It's not born again.

It is difficult to have a cogent conversation with someone who makes two contradictory statements, back to back, like we see above. It is "born again", it is regeneration (but only to a degree?scripture or speculation?), it is not born again.

 

[Josheb]

Sometimes I have to just sit there pounding it before it will show up, but then, come to think of it, I also have to hit refresh many times before the site will even load. Not so for most other sites, though there are some.

Thx, but still not working for me. I just reloaded a dozen times and nada.

 

[Carbon]

Regeneration is the cause of faith. Regeneration and being born again are the same thing and without it there can be no faith. With it, there is faith, There are no stages of salvation, no being in a place of being partly saved, or having only some of the ingredients of salvation. All the "ingredients" of salvation, regeneration, faith, union with Christ, justification etc. are distinct, but they are not separate. And not really chronological. They all belong to and are necessary in salvation. They can only be expressed in their distinctions in a way that the appearance of some sort of chronological aspect exists.

On this point of regeneration, you give an excellent explanation. Amen!

 

[Carbon]

Without reading your OP, (though I did), it is plain your title is wrong. They are at least synonymous, if not the very same thing. Generated Again, Re-born.

I agree, and he seems to be separating the two into ways scripture does not.

 

[Carbon]

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

Amen!

 

[Carbon]

Hi Dave,
Looks like this could be an interesting subject. I just have a couple of questions for you first. Thanks

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.

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?

How do you get regeneration (assuming you mean baptism here is regeneration) being the result of faith, and not the cause? And would you point out where scripture teaches such? Thanks.

can you show me born again in the OT, or in a person who is pre faith in the NT?

What do you mean by showing you a person in the NT who is pre-faith? Isn't anyone who is not a believer, "possibly pre-faith?"

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.

This makes no sense to me. Would you please explain your meaning? Thanks.

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.

Please show. Thanks

 

[Carbon]

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

Your statement here pretty much tells me what I need to know to understand where you are coming from in this thread and toipic.

Now, if I may,

The way that I view regeneration is God doing for us what we are incapable of doing in the flesh.

This is your view of regeneration. This is why no one could give you a reasonable explanation.

The biblical view is much different then yours. It is a supernatural act of God, whereby a new and divine life is infused into an elect person who was spiritually dead, and that by the incorruptible seed of the word of God made fruitful by the infinite power of the Holy Spirit.

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).

Of course, effectual calling would be from God. Unless you have a whole other meaning for the word effectual. But you seem to be using your definition of regeneration again here, you say, "How does God accomplish this without some form of regeneration?"

To the Reformed Christian world, what you are saying is, God needs to partially regenerate a dead sinner before He can effectually call him to salvation. God must make him partially alive so the sinner can discern what the Spirit is trying to do and teach.

So, unless you have another meaning, I cannot help but believe you are a confused Christian. Please consider explaining if that is not your meaning.

Also, biblically speaking. Regeneration is accomplished in a moment, there is no delay in the transition from death to life. And no person can be regenerated so long as he is in the state of spiritual death, but in the instant he begins to live, he is born again.

There is no intermediate state between the regenerate and the unregenerate. A man is either in the spirit or in the flesh, a child of God or a child of the devil, either in the way of salvation or in the way of damnation. There is no middle position here. God's word divides man into two classes, sheep and goats.

Heaven is open only to the actually regenerated,
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Do you believe your view of regeneration is better or more trustworthy than scriptures?

 

[Carbon]

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."

I think it would do me well to remember you are not reformed. Am I correct that you are not reformed, or is it safe to say you are a synergist?

 

[Dave]

You certainly have not proved that born again and regeneration are NOT the same thing. But lets look at your assumption of what others are saying born again is.

Hi Arial

I actually have proven it, quite clearly, it's trying to get you to see it that's the problem. I'm trying to find ways to help the people here to see it, but I'm running low on ideas.

1. "Cannot see the kingdom of God--" does not refer to a visible sighting, but rather "see" as in "know of or about". It speaks directly to the condition of mankind as a sinner incapable of understanding spiritual things, therefore unable to choose them. ("Unable to enter").
2. Born again and "faith" are not synonymous and are not used as synonyms as you imply. The necessity of being born again---generated again by God from hard hearted to soft hearted in his hands----is what allows faith to exist. It can't exist in the natural man in Adam.

Let me simplify. It's assumed into Scripture that regeneration and being born again are synonymous. Which the people here agree is an idea that doesn't come from Scripture. But you want me to prove that it doesn't exist in scripture? Also, it has been stated that faith is the result of being born again. Using John 3:3, even coupled with John 3:5,13. Those texts don't say that. unless you're equating see the kingdom of God with faith, that passage simply doesn't say it. Therefore, faith must be assumed/inserted into that passage. Context was added.

And everyone you tagged has said exactly that.

May I point out that one word is not a context. But the formula you present here, has the cart before the horse and contradicts what you previously said that faith is the result of being born again, not the cause. At least it very much sounds like it.

Dave said; 2) The Bible tells us that faith is the result of being born again, and not the cause.

I said that backwards, obviously. After seven pages of saying the opposite...My dyslexia is a nightmare. I try to clean up my posts and make them readable, but sometimes I miss the obvious stuff. You can run with it if you like, but that would show weakness in your argument, not strength. Kind of like when a person constantly peppers their posts with belittling comments. It's liberal argumentation at it's best. And one word is added context.

Dave

 

[Dave]

Dave, your claim that the Kingdom of God in John 3:3 refers to the “third heaven” misses the biblical reality. The Kingdom of God is not a distant physical place but a present and ongoing spiritual reality in Christ. Jesus declares, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:20-21). The Kingdom is Christ’s reign, active now through His Spirit in believers.

Hi Hazelelponi

John 3:3 could be the Kingdom of Heaven. And it could be in reference to this John 16:12-13, before the Holy Spirit was given and they were not born again yet. I noticed that nobody touched that one. The context of John 16:12-13, and most of John 16 fits the meaning of the John 3:3 perfectly. I cannot say the same for the consensus interpretation here. The John 16 context does not require us to spiritualize John 3:3 for it to fit, or John 3:5,13 for that matter. Contextually speaking, it's a perfect fit. The difference is the context that we place John 3:3 into.

When Jesus tells Nicodemus, “Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3), He points to the spiritual transformation required to perceive and enter Christ’s rule. Being “in Christ” by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8–9) is to be in the Kingdom now. John 3:5 (“born of water and the Spirit”) at the least confirm this.

Ephesians was the NT, and John 3:3 is still the OT. That spiritual transformation that makes us born again is the result of being placed into Christ, which is the result of faith. Only after Pentecost. I'm going to get more into this later. One more try.

Your externalizing the Kingdom as a locale rather than Christ’s present rule. The Kingdom is “in your midst” now—Christ Himself, ruling in the hearts of His people (Rom. 14:17).

Where did Jesus ascend to?

Regeneration: God’s sovereign act of opening the heart to respond to the gospel, as with Lydia (Acts 16:14, “The Lord opened her heart”). It precedes faith, enabling it

Agreed. But OT saints could not be born again. It's impossible. Therefore, they had regeneration as you noted above, but they were not born again. Regeneration exists everywhere in scripture. Born again is limited to those placed into Christ. Before that it is was only a Promise. God does not take up residence in believers until after that which cleanses the Temple (the blood of Christ) is given to believers with the indwelling to cleanse the Temple (us).

Dave

 

[Dave]

The accusation reform believers prooftext John 3:3 is ironic because throughout this these six pages of posts it has not been the the Reformed believers that prooftexted. You did. I have repeatedly pointed out you took one verse out of a three-chapter commentary in Romans and ignored the fact the verse was written about the already born again, already regenerate believer.

What do you want me to reply to? What is this significance that it was born again believers that Paul was speaking to in Romans? If I had seen any significance to it, I would have answered it. I agree, Romans was written to believers. What's the significance with regards to the discussion at hand. Are you claiming that Romans 3:25-26 is not referring to OT saints? I disagree. How does Paul speaking to born again believers change that passage to something else other than speaking of OT saints? Please explain.

Dave

 

[Carbon]

Ephesians was the NT, and John 3:3 is still the OT. That spiritual transformation that makes us born again is the result of being placed into Christ, which is the result of faith. Only after Pentecost. I'm going to get more into this later. One more try.

Dave, you do know Jesus was not teaching about the Old Covenant here, but the New. I believe that you know that.

 

[Dave]

Dave, you do know Jesus was not teaching about the Old Covenant here, but the New. I believe that you know that.

Yes, I agree. I think that was my point. I'm working on a reply to your earlier post now.

Dave

 

[Carbon]

I'd like to mention,

There are no preparations antecedent to the first beginning of regeneration. Previous to regeneration is nothing but mere death. Nothing else.


It's when we were "dead in sins" He quickened us together with Christ. As Ephesians 2:5 states.

Scripture shows that all previous preparations are entirely excluded.

 

[Carbon]

Yes, I agree. I think that was my point. I'm working on a reply to your earlier post now.

Dave

Oh okay. Thank you Dave.

 

[makesends]

Arial said:
You certainly have not proved that born again and regeneration are NOT the same thing. But lets look at your assumption of what others are saying born again is.

Hi Arial

I actually have proven it, quite clearly, it's trying to get you to see it that's the problem. I'm trying to find ways to help the people here to see it, but I'm running low on ideas.

Have you got two different Greek words that are translated into the two different English words/concepts? So far as I have seen —granted, I may have missed something— I only see you trying to define two different things, calling one, this, and the other, that.

Or are you asserting that there are actually the two different concepts in Scripture, and you claim Scripture actually calls one of those concepts, this, and the other concept, that?