Regeneration and born again are not synonymous

[makesends]

One plan. Some came before it took effect, and some came after. It's a simple thing.

It's even simpler than you present it. No temporal considerations are necessary at all. The current "already but not yet" of the Bride and Body of Christ was around in the OT, too. The Gospel has never changed.

 

[Dave]

It is not a future promise and the argument supporting that claim is faulty.

Denial is not an counter argument. That's just denying. That passage clearly is a future promise "I will" in EZ 13:26-27.

Perhaps you should read Acts chapter two. There's lots of relevant stuff in it that pertains. @Dave, please be careful with what may appear to be condescending remarks. They usually spawn a return of the same attitude.

No, Jesus was stating a fact. The kingdom can't be seen unless a person is born anew from above. A survey of the New Testament's statements regarding the kingdom tells us the kingdom had already come.

Mark 1:14-15
Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

But in John 16:12-15 the same disciples were not seeing yet. Not until Pentecost.

Jesus said it was at hand. Jesus did not say it will one day in the far, far distant future be in hand.

Luke 11:20
"But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."

"Upon" which allowed them to do the signs of the Apostles. The Spirit of God was upon them, but not in them. Remember what Jesus said in John 16:12-15 and many other places to those same disciples.

Matthew 28:17-20
When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

All the power of the kingdom has been given to Jesus..... already. As a consequence....

Jesus had already died on the cross Matthew 27:32-56 and been raised from the dead. We call it the great commission. It's the New Testament. And the Promise of the Father , the Holy spirit is about to be given at Pentecost.

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.

Jesus, and Jesus alone, has the name above all other names and his is the rule is far above all other rule, authority, power, and dominion.

Despite these facts, none of it can be seen by those who are not born anew from above.

And Ephesians was when they could be born again.

Which is it? The OT saint believed but wasn't born again...... he needed to believe to be born again.

What does it say?

Ezekiel 36.26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put My Spirit within you and bring it about that you walk in My statutes, and are careful and follow My ordinances.

By what means did the Power of God bring these to faith, if they are not indwelt with the Holy Spirit and born again?

Born again, still a future promise.

John 7:39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Born again, still a future promise.

John 16:12-15 I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

Still a future promise in John 16.

Acts 2:27-33 (David said) For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.' "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

Promise delivered. Jesus glorified. Promise of the Father given. Now believers will have a new heart a heart that flows rivers of living water, and have complete understanding.

?????

He needed to believe to be born again and believed but was not born again.

I'll say it again. "That's proof (EZ 36:26-27) that a man doesn't need to be born again to believe. He needs to believe to be born again." That statement was made to point out the error in your understanding of scripture. It's not at odds with my understanding of scripture.

Think that question through. You have just argued regeneration precedes faith! A person must be indwelt with the Holy Spirit and born again....... as the means by which the power of God brings these to faith.

OK, you were replying to this statement by me "By what means did the Power of God bring these to faith, if they are not indwelt with the Holy Spirit and born again?"

It's regeneration or the flesh. That's the only two options. I don't believe it's the flesh, so yes, regeneration. But it's not born again. This is born again...the result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Both still a future promise.

Ezekiel 36.26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put My Spirit within you and bring it about that you walk in My statutes, and are careful and follow My ordinances.

But it is like a bunch of poorly used scripture was misused to assert positions not actually stated in scripture, positions that, in some cases, directly contradict what is explicitly stated elsewhere.

Well, I disagree. It may seem like it's poorly used to you, because you haven't yet connected the dots in your mind. Or your system has become a blinder. Explicitly stated. You mean John 3:3?

You see, when you spiritualize one passage, we must ask when does that spiritualization end? It's the same rule for symbolism. In John 3:5, when Jesus said that unless a man be born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven, is He speaking of understanding here too? Did Jesus ascend to this understanding only after He first descended to from it (verse 13)?

It is a very shoddy case and, in the end, it proves that which it set out to confront: Regeneration precedes faith.

With all do respect, I never argued against regeneration preceding faith. I did argue against born again preceding faith. My proof is in the title of the thread.

Therefore, if an Old Testament believed in the foreshadowed Messiah, he did so solely by the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit by which that person was able to see the kingdom. S/he was, in other words, born anew from above (even if s/he did not reap the fuller benefits that ensued with Calvary and Pentecost. That is what the posts supporting and defending this op say.

What does EZ 36:26-27 say? Believers, not indwelt, not born again, but they believe. A future promise. See above for just a few passages that support that interpretation all the way up until Pentecost. They didn't receive a Helping of the Holy Spirit, they received the Holy Spirit Himself. EZ 36:26-27 says the same thing.

Ezekiel 36.26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put My Spirit within you and bring it about that you walk in My statutes, and are careful and follow My ordinances.

Hebrews 11:39-40
And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

They gained approval by faith. How'd they get that faith? According to this "case" you've just rested, they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit and born again because that's the only way for the power of God to bring them to the faith by which they gained approval.

Hebrews 11:39-40 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

It's all there. They died having not received the Promised Holy Spirit. With us (NT), not apart from us, they were made perfect.

2 Corinthians 5: For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Revelation 1:18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

Ephesians 4:Therefore He says: "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men."(Now this, "He ascended"--what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

Remember, before all that, before the cross, John 3:13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Note: If you actually have rested your case then there is no need to repeat any of it or add to what has already been posted. If the case presented is sufficient to rest, then let's not read any more of it. It is now time to respond to what others bring to bear on this case. If the case has truly been made, then truly rest it.

I keep repeating it because you keep asking the same questions. The answers are sufficient to, at the very least, arouse some suspicion that the way that you see scripture may not be correct. So far, I've answered all the relevant questions. Whenever I was asked to show scripture, I have. I was asked to show "by faith", I did. I was asked to show when Jesus wasn't yet our resurrection, I did. I was asked to show faith before belief, I did. I was asked to show OT believers not born again, and not indwelt, I did. I was asked to show Biblical evidence for what I believe, to show why, and I did. It's not a silver bullet line that I use to redefine all of Scripture. What I believe scripture teaches is taught throughout Scripture. All I've been doing is tryin g to supply more context.

What do you have to say about Galatians 3? Is my understanding of it wrong? Tell me how i'm wrong? What about Your EZ passage? Tell me how I'm not getting it right.

This is why I hate systems. Because people become loyalists without even realizing it. They put the system before Scripture and define Scripture by the system. If used properly, theological terms and camps can be a asset. But improperly...It's like party loyalism in politics. It's blinds people.

Dave.

 

[Josheb]

Denial is not an counter argument. That's just denying.

Baloney. I explained how and why the statement is not a future promise and denying that is not a counter argument.

That passage clearly is a future promise "I will" in EZ 13:26-27.

Well..... aside from the fact there is no Ezekiel 13:26-27 in the Bible, yes, that prophecy of Ezekiel 36:26-27 is a promise, and that promise was fulfilled in the NT era. Ezekiel was speaking a promise made by God to a covenant people who were at that time disobedient. Jesus was speaking a fait accompli. The OT promise is now a done deal, not a future promise. Both statements attribute the causality to God (monergistically) and say nothing about any sinner's volitional agency. More importantly, the new birth and being given a new heart are not identical, they are not synonymous terms that can be interchanged, and I brought this up many, many pages ago. That failure of exegesis is still sitting silent in this thread unaddressed. However, there's more to be considered because Ezekiel's promise to the covenant-breaking disobedient does not preclude there being at that time some among those in whom God had (already) prevailed who had not already had that promise realized in their lives! Ezekiel would be an example of such a person! In other words, the position being asserted in support of this op is a version of onlyism, which I have already explained. There is no "only" in Ezekiel 36:126-27.

Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

That text does NOT state,

Moreover, I will give [only those in the future who believe with their sinful, fleshly volition] a new heart and put a new spirit [only within people living in the far, far distant future who believe with their sinful flesh]; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

If we were to couch that passage in the covenant promises made to Abraham hundreds of years before Ezekiel, we'd have to conclude Jesus is making a statement about conditions existing during his earthly ministry, a statement about prophecy fulfilled.

Exegetically speaking, a mess was made of the Ezekiel text, and I also pointed that out many posts ago and that error is still sitting silently ignored in this thread. Denial is not a counter argument. Go back to the posts where I first broached all of this and address that content. Please do not tell me I have denied anything when the posts demonstrably prove otherwise.

Perhaps you should read Acts chapter two................

Yes, In Acts 2 Peter explicitly stated, "this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel." The "this" is the phenomenon happening right then and there in Jerusalem in the first century at the first Pentecost following Jesus' resurrection. Those OT promises were fulfilled two thousand years ago. At that time, on that occasion, the people God changed that day on Pentecost were BOTH born anew from above and permanently indwelt AND they were BOTH born anew from above AND regenerated AND received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. As a consequence... they were also given a new heart, one of flesh and not stone, a heart circumcised by the Spirit. All circumcision is, according to Paul, is a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Removing the foreskin of a penis does not change the function of the penis anymore that removing the hardening of the heart due to obedience changes its function. More than the text supports is being read into most of the verses cited.

If that's the way that you're reading it....

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Matthew 7:3-4
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?

Everyone here has been asking for an examination of the additions to scripture you've posted and that is not happening. Acts 2 explicitly states it was God who added to the number, not the unregenerate sinner's will. Regeneration preceded faith and, once again, a mess of scripture is being made every step of the way. The exegesis is very poor, and this has been pointed out multiple times....... all of which is sitting silent in the thread ignored.

Which is why I took leave of this thread.


Exegetically speaking,

• It is completely inappropriate to ignore the covenant context of all the OT prophecies.
• It is completely inappropriate to ignore the covenant context of all scripture.
• It is completely inappropriate to ignore the audience affiliations of any scripture.
• It is completely inappropriate to take verses written about God's covenant people and apply them to non-covenant people.
• It is completely inappropriate to take verses written about regenerate believers and apply them to unregenerate non-believers.
• It is completely inappropriate to ignore any NT declaration of OT prophecy fulfilled. It is completely inappropriate to treat as future what scripture explicitly states has passed.
• It is completely inappropriate to read into scripture anything that would never have been considered by the original author and his original audience.
• It is completely inappropriate to infer an "only" where none exists in the text.
• It is completely inappropriate to conflate disparate terms, especially eisegetically and in absence of scripture's own definitions of the terms.

The case that was supposedly rested nearly twenty posts ago has violated every single one of these precepts! AND none of those errors has been addressed after being pointed out.

As a consequence, the posts now only recycle already posted nonsense. Go back to the first mistake made (with me, at least): failing to define your terms and then defining the terms inaccurately and correct that mistake. A new heart is not synonymous with the new birth. Prior to that there was a failure to correctly discriminate the covenant context of all the scriptures used in defense of this op. That fact was pointed out in the second post of this thread and visited upon the op by several respondents, not just me. Another early mistake was the premise, "the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the baptism with the Holy spirit are the same thing." They are not the same thing. I explained how and why that is not the case...... and that content is also sitting in the threads silently unattended. Denial is not a counter argument for anything.

Denial is not an counter argument......................

PLEASE,

do not bother me again until you are prepared to go back and address all the earlier problems brought to your attention, beginning with the earliest. The case was rested but it clearly has not been rested. Sadly, nothing new has occurred since Post #284 and none of the many problems in defense of this op have been corrected. Most of them haven't even been engaged.

 

[Dave]

Baloney. I explained how and why the statement is not a future promise and denying that is not a counter argument.

Well..... aside from the fact there is no Ezekiel 13:26-27 in the Bible, yes, that prophecy of Ezekiel 36:26-27 is a promise, and that promise was fulfilled in the NT era. Ezekiel was speaking a promise made by God to a covenant people who were at that time disobedient. Jesus was speaking a fait accompli. The OT promise is now a done deal, not a future promise.

As I stated before, a Promise fulfilled at Pentecost.

Both statements attribute the causality to God (modernistically) and say nothing about any sinner's volitional agency.

I only said that they were not born again. It's you're understanding that is in conflict.

More importantly, the new birth and being given a new heart are not identical, they are not synonymous terms that can be interchanged, and I brought this up many, many pages ago. That failure of exegesis is still sitting silent in this thread unaddressed. However, there's more to be considered because Ezekiel's promise to the covenant-breaking disobedient does not preclude there being at that time some among those in whom God had (already) prevailed who had not already had that promise realized in their lives! Ezekiel would be an example of such a person! In other words, the position being asserted in support of this op is a version of onlyism, which I have already explained. There is no "only" in Ezekiel 36:126-27.

Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

That text does NOT state,

Moreover, I will give [only those in the future who believe with their sinful, fleshly volition] a new heart and put a new spirit [only within people living in the far, far distant future who believe with their sinful flesh]; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

That's not the only alternative available in Scripture. The Holy Spirit was upon them. The correct alternative lays in understanding the distinction made between the indwelling of the NT, and the Holy Spirit being upon a beleier in the OT.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Matthew 7:3-4
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?

Everyone here has been asking for an examination of the additions to scripture you've posted and that is not happening. Acts 2 explicitly states it was God who added to the number, not the unregenerate sinner's will. Regeneration preceded faith and, once again, a mess of scripture is being made every step of the way. The exegesis is very poor, and this has been pointed out multiple times....... all of which is sitting silent in the thread ignored.

Which is why I took leave of this thread.


Exegetically speaking,

• It is completely inappropriate to ignore the covenant context of all the OT prophecies.
• It is completely inappropriate to ignore the covenant context of all scripture.
• It is completely inappropriate to ignore the audience affiliations of any scripture.
• It is completely inappropriate to take verses written about God's covenant people and apply them to non-covenant people.
• It is completely inappropriate to take verses written about regenerate believers and apply them to unregenerate non-believers.
• It is completely inappropriate to ignore any NT declaration of OT prophecy fulfilled. It is completely inappropriate to treat as future what scripture explicitly states has passed.
• It is completely inappropriate to read into scripture anything that would never have been considered by the original author and his original audience.
• It is completely inappropriate to infer an "only" where none exists in the text.
• It is completely inappropriate to conflate disparate terms, especially eisegetically and in absence of scripture's own definitions of the terms.

The problem is that what you call the context of scripture, is actually the context of your system. You want to keep arguing within the framework of your systems, and I won't allow that. It's not my baggage, it's yours. It's you who are ignoring Scripture at the expense of scripture.

Take John 3:3 as an example.

Where is faith in John 3:3? It's not there. Assuming (yet again) that "seeing" is speaking of understanding, how do you know John 3:3 is not speaking of a deeper knowledge of a person that already believes (John 16:12-15) in a unique point in time in history? You don't know, it's assumed. When I ask any one of you to show why faith is inserted into the understanding of John 3:3, It's at that point i'm shown a passage where God moves first for a person to believe. But that assumes that 'God moving first so a person can believe' is the result of being born again, because of the assumption that regeneration and born again are synonymous. It's circular reasoning. Each passage is defined by the assumption of the other.

In short..

Show me how you come to the conclusion that John 3:3 is not speaking of John 16:12-15? You can't.

With regards to EZ 36:26-27 above. Why would I reply and defend what I don't believe? You simply cannot see the Bible outside of your system. Let God speak to you through His Word. Stop trying to understand Scripture by your system. As Carbon said, It's ok to have questions. Let Scripture be your system.

The only way born again and regeneration are synonymous, is if both are understood as the result of believing. I believe that would be a mistake. Born again is the result of believing, that much is clear from Scripture, but God moving in a person for them to believe goes much further in Scripture than the boundaries that same Scripture sets for being born again.

What is the significance of Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father after He ascended? His work of atonement and reconciliation was complete. That's why in the beginning, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, so that one day He could say 'it is finished'. That's why Pentecost ushered in all the promises that were before unavailable to believers.

Dave

 

[Josheb]

With regards to EZ 36:26-27 above. Why would I reply and defend what I don't believe?

Because your beliefs are wrong.

 

[Josheb]

Are born again and regeneration the same thing? Are gennethe and paliggenesia the same thing?

Sinclair Ferguson answers the question fairly succinctly.

Yes and no. The New Testament uses the term regeneration in connection with cosmic renewal. Jesus speaks about the time when there will be the regeneration of all things. Being born again as an individual, in terms New Testament theology, is the individual’s participation in the inauguration of that final cosmic regeneration.

So, if you’re asking whether the language used in different ways in the New Testament, the answer is yes. If you’re asking the theological question, “Is regeneration the same thing as being born again?” then the answer is yes—we’re talking about the same thing when it applies to the individual. They are two different ways of saying the same thing: “born/generated” and “re/again.” They’re two different linguistic, traditional forms of the same idea.​

Are regeneration and the baptism in the Holy Spirit the same thing?

No. Regeneration is distinct from baptism in the Holy Spirit, although both can occur at the new birth. Regeneration is the Holy Spirit's work of giving new life to the person dead in sin. Spirit baptism is a subsequent experience wherein the now born anew believer is further empowered by the Spirit to practice the Christian life. Regeneration changes the person's nature or disposition relative to God. Baptism adds to that change by washing, renewing, empowering the person in an ongoing manner, placing them in the body of Christ and uniting them with other believers. The baptism is dependent upon the new birth, upon regeneration. A person is indwelt by God at his/her conversion, his birth anew from above. Being made alive, however, does not fully empower a person to live as Christ lived. This is evident by the disciples who had only water baptism They were disciples, but they lacked the experience of empowerment. Christ relied on his Father's Separate and Sacred Spirit every day. Christ had never been a sinner and, therefore, did not need a new birth from above, an experience where he was brought from death to life, from being dead in sin to alive in Christ (himself ). Humans, on the other hand, are all sinners, all dead in sin and need to be made alive. Being made alive we then require an empowerment because works of the flesh do not merit anything and bring us back to prior darkness. The whole purpose of salvation is to be able to do good works God planned for us to perform before He saved us (Eph. 2:10). If it were possible for the flesh to do that new birth would be unnecessary. The change in nature, from dead sinner to alive Christian is one in which God works in us to will and work for His good pleasure (Php. 2:13).


Adjust thinking......, doctrine......, and practice accordingly.

 

[Dave]

As a consequence... they were also given a new heart, one of flesh and not stone, a heart circumcised by the Spirit. All circumcision is, according to Paul, is a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Removing the foreskin of a penis does not change the function of the penis anymore that removing the hardening of the heart due to obedience changes its function. More than the text supports is being read into most of the verses cited.

As I'm sure that you're aware already, but I'm going to lay out some context anyways.

Many reformed theologians believe that in many respects, circumcision is to the OT what water baptism is to the NT. That's what R.C. Sproul believes. They both point to the same thing.

Aside from the fact that the physical circumcision marked God's covenant with Israel, what the physical act of circumcision pictures in cutting off the foreskin was symbolic of cutting out sin. In the OT, God often commands believers to circumcise their own hearts. In other words, cut out the sin, repent.

Duet. 10:16 Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.

Jer. 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, And take away the foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth like fire, And burn so that no one can quench it, Because of the evil of your doings."

In the NT, both prophesied beforehand and actual, a circumcision of the heart is a new heart. The old one is cut out, a new one is put in, that's born again. In the OT, the circumcision cut sin out of the heart, but didn't make the heart new, not born again. Note, this next OT passage is also is still a future promise.

Deut. 30:6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

That helps us to understand what was being said in Ezekiel 36:26-27 In the NT, God is not cutting out the sin from an old heart, He's replacing the heart, that's born again.

26-27 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

In the NT, that idea is expanded on. This is speaking of the circumcision of Christ. Being buried with Him in baptism with the Holy Spirit, the agent of that baptism, and raised up with Him. A circumcision done without hands. It's a spiritual circumcision. This is born again.

Colossians 2:10-14 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, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

It even carries over to chapter three.

Colossians 3:1-2 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.

9-10 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge (John 3:3?) according to the image of Him who created him,

Paul compares the two circumcisions, the physical with the spiritual in...

Romans 2: 26-29 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

It makes me wonder if there is not something to be learned from the idea of cutting out sin of a heart that is desperately wicked, to replacing it with a new one, per say, and the OT Holy Spirit being upon a believer, verses the NT indwelling of that same Holy Spirit.

Something else also came to mind. Jesus saying that if a member of our body sins, cut it off/out. Matthew 5:29-31 was still the OT. Jesus was always stressing the impossible, that being for us to fulfill the Law. It makes me wonder if He was not pointing to something here with regards to this discussion. It's not the members that sin and need cut out (OT), it's the heart (NT). The old heart needs to be cut out and replaced with the new heart. Jesus, using the OT imagery cutting sin out of what is already dead, may have been pointing to the NT truth, circumcision of the heart.

Dave

 

[Dave]

Are born again and regeneration the same thing? Are gennethe and paliggenesia the same thing?

Sinclair Ferguson answers the question fairly succinctly.

Yes and no. The New Testament uses the term regeneration in connection with cosmic renewal. Jesus speaks about the time when there will be the regeneration of all things. Being born again as an individual, in terms New Testament theology, is the individual’s participation in the inauguration of that final cosmic regeneration.​

​

So, if you’re asking whether the language used in different ways in the New Testament, the answer is yes. If you’re asking the theological question, “Is regeneration the same thing as being born again?” then the answer is yes—we’re talking about the same thing when it applies to the individual. They are two different ways of saying the same thing: “born/generated” and “re/again.” They’re two different linguistic, traditional forms of the same idea.​

Are regeneration and the baptism in the Holy Spirit the same thing?

No. Regeneration is distinct from baptism in the Holy Spirit, although both can occur at the new birth. Regeneration is the Holy Spirit's work of giving new life to the person dead in sin. Spirit baptism is a subsequent experience wherein the now born anew believer is further empowered by the Spirit to practice the Christian life. Regeneration changes the person's nature or disposition relative to God. Baptism adds to that change by washing, renewing, empowering the person in an ongoing manner, placing them in the body of Christ and uniting them with other believers. The baptism is dependent upon the new birth, upon regeneration. A person is indwelt by God at his/her conversion, his birth anew from above. Being made alive, however, does not fully empower a person to live as Christ lived. This is evident by the disciples who had only water baptism They were disciples, but they lacked the experience of empowerment. Christ relied on his Father's Separate and Sacred Spirit every day. Christ had never been a sinner and, therefore, did not need a new birth from above, an experience where he was brought from death to life, from being dead in sin to alive in Christ (himself ). Humans, on the other hand, are all sinners, all dead in sin and need to be made alive. Being made alive we then require an empowerment because works of the flesh do not merit anything and bring us back to prior darkness. The whole purpose of salvation is to be able to do good works God planned for us to perform before He saved us (Eph. 2:10). If it were possible for the flesh to do that new birth would be unnecessary. The change in nature, from dead sinner to alive Christian is one in which God works in us to will and work for His good pleasure (Php. 2:13).


Adjust thinking......, doctrine......, and practice accordingly.

That name sounds familiar, but I can't place it. I already know where many reformed theologians stand on regeneration and born again, and I'm sure by now that you know I disagree. But regeneration and the baptism with the Holy Spirit is different, and could probably use some attention.

If I'm understanding you correctly.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not the same as being born again, but it is through that baptism, just like it is through faith that we are saved. The faith, per say, does not satisfy God righteous requirements, but does give us access to what does. So we say we are justified by faith, when we assume the dots are connected between faith and what faith brings us to having. It's the same with the baptism with the Holy Spirit. The baptism with the Holy spirit just means the placing into with the Holy Spirit. It doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit is placed into us, even though He is. It means, as a result of the indwelling, we are placed into something, and the Holy Spirit is the one connecting the dots, just like faith. When we receive the Holy Spirit, we are placed into the Body of Christ, the Church, which is a spiritual body. That makes us one with Jesus, as He is one with the Father, we also are one with the Father.

I would say that the new birth is dependent on the baptism (1 Peter 3:21). It's through the resurrection that were saved, both positionally and practically (born again). We have access to all of that from the baptism, which is the indwelling. As Paul said in Romans 8:9-11, If you have the Spirit in you, you are saved, if you don't then you are not of Christ Jesus and not saved. "In Him" is what we are placed into, or baptized into with the baptism (indwelling of) the Holy Spirit and everything that gives the believer. "We are complete in Him and lacking nothing.

It's true that it's by the Spirits power that we continue to be conformed to Christ likeness. And it is also true that being able to do that is a direct result of being born again and living by the Spirit, not the flesh. But....being born again is the result of being placed into Christ, the baptism with the Holy Sprit. If you put being born again before the baptism, you're to some extent, recreating the doctrine of subsequence held by Pentecostals and Charismatics. They come to the same conclusion, just a little differently. They reason that if man was already born again, then the baptism of the Holy Spirit must be something more. It initiates a believer to be spiritually elite, to put it bluntly. You're kind of following the same path, but without the elite part.

1 Peter 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[Josheb]

That name sounds familiar, but I can't place it. I already know where many reformed theologians stand on regeneration and born again, and I'm sure by now that you know I disagree. But regeneration and the baptism with the Holy Spirit is different, and could probably use some attention.

If I'm understanding you correctly.

Who said what is immaterial. What matters is whether or not the words posted are correct. You may disagree all you like but you're already on record failing to present a reasonable, rational, cogent, and coherent case of well-rendered scripture. Half a dozen posters have brought scores of problems to your attention and few if any of them have been addressed, let alone corrected. As a consequence, this thread now stands with you reposting already posted content already demonstrated to be filled with multiple problems.

That makes what you're doing argumentum ad nauseam.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not the same as being born again, but it is through that baptism, just like it is through faith that we are saved.

That is incorrect.

Both the thief on the cross and the believers in Acts 19 prove that claim false. You're wrong. The claim is demonstrably wrong. The claim was wrong the first time it was posted and that claim is wrong every time it gets posted no matter how many times it gets posted. A person does not need to be baptized in water or in the Spirit to be saved. If a person dies after professing Christ as Lord and Savior but dies before being baptized in the Holy Spirit, s/he is/will be saved.

This is only one of the many holes in the foundation of this op's argument.

Until you go back and fix all the already cited errors further posts are worthless. They add to the already existing problem of shoddy exegesis, and irrational reasoning.

 

[Dave]

Who said what is immaterial. What matters is whether or not the words posted are correct. You may disagree all you like but you're already on record failing to present a reasonable, rational, cogent, and coherent case of well-rendered scripture. Half a dozen posters have brought scores of problems to your attention and few if any of them have been addressed, let alone corrected. As a consequence, this thread now stands with you reposting already posted content already demonstrated to be filled with multiple problems.

That makes what you're doing argumentum ad nauseam.

All I said was that in so may words, that what you posted was nothing new. I know your position well and have addressed it many times. What was your point in posting it? Was the name Sinclair Ferguson supposed to add more weight to your argument? I didn't see anything new.

Josheb, the only things that I passed over were things that were already answered or irrelevant to what was being discussed at that time. Try answering five people at once, with some of them writing very long posts. It's not easy. I had to pick my spots and did the best that I could to have an honest discussion. I'm not trying to hide anything or avoid something meaningful to the discussion. Just the opposite. I want to be challenged. Isn't that the point? I didn't think that I missed anything significant.

I've repeated myself many times trying to find different ways to say the same thing so that you can see and understand the answers that I'm giving. I know it's a lot of context to swallow all at once, I'm just trying to feed you context in the hopes that it it eventually clicks in your heart and mind.

Do you want to go back over this thread one post at a time? I'm all for that. You won't even need to rewrite it, just quote it. How easy is that?

Let me know.

That is incorrect.

Both the thief on the cross and the believers in Acts 19 prove that claim false. You're wrong. The claim is demonstrably wrong. The claim was wrong the first time it was posted and that claim is wrong every time it gets posted no matter how many times it gets posted. A person does not need to be baptized in water or in the Spirit to be saved. If a person dies after professing Christ as Lord and Savior but dies before being baptized in the Holy Spirit, s/he is/will be saved.

This is only one of the many holes in the foundation of this op's argument.

Until you go back and fix all the already cited errors further posts are worthless. They add to the already existing problem of shoddy exegesis, and irrational reasoning.

The thief on the cross went to Paradise with Jesus to be with the rest of the OT believers that had already passed. He was saved the same way that all OT believers already passed were saved. As I've already shown, Paradise was in Hades when Jesus descended. Later, Paul said in 2 Corinthians that it was in the third heaved. It must have ascended with Jesus, which makes sense, because what they were waiting for was completed when Jesus ascended. They now could hear the Gospel, as Jesus did preach to the Spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19), And now they could be alive in the Spirit, born again, if that was necessary for OT believers already passed on. I'm assuming that it was. But most importantly, they had an atonement, and the righteousness of God to claim, which gave them peace with God. It was owed to them by promise. Now they could be with Him in every way, just like the Garden, I suppose.

Acts 19 was already addressed, but I'll do it again. They were saved just like we're today. What made that conversion unique was they were OT believers who had enough faith by OT standards, but never heard the Gospel. The whole incarnation and the cross where missed by them. Now, at that time when Paul talked to them, there was no longer any Paradise in Sheol (OT language), or Hades (NT language), for them to go to. Paradise was already in the Third Heaven (2 Cor. 12:2-4). It was very unique, but at that time Paradise was ascended with Jesus. So their faith was enough had they died, but now wasn't enough. No matter, because all that the Father gave Jesus would come to Him, and He would not lose one of them. Paul, after asking these believers a simple question, understood the situation clearly. These were OT believers. There understanding stopped with John the Baptist quoted below in Matthew 3. Paul shared the Gospel with them, and they received the indwelling, they were baptized spiritually with the Holy Spirit by Jesus. And I believe that because these were OT saints who were due the Promise, even though their faith in OT revelation needed to be upgraded to a NT revelation, the signs accompanied that indwelling, or baptism, just as it did for believers at Pentecost.

This is the passage your question was from.

Acts 19:1-6 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

This is where those believers in Acts 19 knowledge ended, right here in Matthew 3. Note the last verse prophesying that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire was still future.

Matthew 3:1-11 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight.' " And John himself was clothed in camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

That prophesy in Matthew 3:11 which came true at Pentecost, came true for those believers personally Acts 19. They go straight to heaven when they die, just like us.

BTW, unless I specifically mention water, assume any baptism mentioned to be spiritual. It's faith that initiate's the Spirit baptism. Water baptism is just a public testimony. When I mean water baptism, I always try to make mention of the water with the baptism.

Dave