Regeneration

[JonC]

I again, disagree.

The believer stands as complete in Him. There is no half life. One is either alive in Him or dead in trespasses and sin. Jon, There is NO PROGRESSIVE regeneration any more than there is progressive sanctification.

What there is, is, progressive maturity and awareness of the parentage and reliance upon the parentage.

Just as a newborn is content in anyone's arms, but the three year old will hide behind the parent's legs, so to is the newborn believer. They learn, and experience the path God establishes for them to grow and mature in Him. As they do so, they do not become more holy, or more saved or any more in favor, but become more stable, more able to discern and determine the way of service and sacrifice.

Certainly there is transformation of thinking, of living. But these are the results of regeneration, and not the catalyst to or a part of regeneration. They are a by product.

One is complete, one is holy, one is clothed in righteousness when one is chosen by God to be His adopted child.

Be very careful that you do not place "regeneration" into some achievement aspect of acquiring. We are ALREADY new creatures.

That my final estate and being clothed in the immortal has not yet taken place is not some indication that the present is lacking, or that the immortal is somehow acquired other than by disposal of this husk.

The caterpillar is transformed, but that doesn't mean they are a "new creature." They are still a caterpillar at heart and bear their offspring in that estate.

WE do not. We, being born from above, bear our offspring by the gospel in which God uses to bring more of His adopted to Himself. In essence, our new birth provides for the effecting of the new birth of others who are born not of like kind as us, but as their own new unique creature for their own unique new creature obligations.

Regeneration IS salvation. It is not merely a part of it. One is either born again, or not born at all but by the flesh - which profits little if any.

When does regeneration come? When God appoints one as adopted. That person may not be made aware until the appointed time, but the choosing as His makes the results complete in Him.

I agree that there is no "half life". But I still think that we are in the process of being transformed into the image of Christ (we are not yet what we will be). I don't know if our disagreement is just in definitions or not, but I do see regeneration as salvation. I also see salvation as a state of "having been saved", a state of "being saved", and a future state of "will be saved".

 

[agedman]

I agree that there is no "half life". But I still think that we are in the process of being transformed into the image of Christ (we are not yet what we will be). I don't know if our disagreement is just in definitions or not, but I do see regeneration as salvation. I also see salvation as a state of "having been saved", a state of "being saved", and a future state of "will be saved".

First, the "have been, being, and will be" are all that our economy of time and space have to offer in the continuum aspects of salvation. It should not be suggesting a process or progress, but the estate is secure both throughout time and eternity.

Second, the "transformation into the image of Christ" is not sanctification it again is a mater of maturity.

For example, Paul talks about bearing the marks of Christ ON his body, not in his body. That is the path God chose for Paul was one that caused him to serve as a continual martyr. Struck down and left for dead more than once, and finally beheaded. But then Paul (and Peter) discuss the maturing aspects that a believer should acquire. Some are gifts as the result of personal dedication (love, joy, peace, long suffering...) and the experienced walk leaning and learning to rely upon God's providence. Some are skills "virtue, knowledge, self control, perseverance...) are learned and acquired over time.

But neither that of the Holy Spirit nor of the acquiring of human effort is but the by product of regeneration, that which produced from a new birth, is related to that new birth by the results of the new birth not the determiner of the new birth. The ground bears the seed, the seed does not bear the ground. When one is born again (new ground) the life displays that it bears is related only by the nourishment gained by being born again (in the new ground). Hence the practical application of the verse, "the one who has endured to the end who will be saved." With the new birth is perseverance and preservation.

Third, definitions are problematic which is why I long ago rejected the "progressive sanctification" label in favor of progressive maturity. Because in the definition of sanctification it is an either or estate not one that is progress oriented.

One was either declared and made holy or they were not. Another problem that comes from some using "sanctification" is the thinking of some transfer of position takes place. That one is literally moved from one spot to another. That, too, is inconsistent with what "sanctification" actually means.

The best illustration that I have been able to come up with to explain what sanctification actually means is this:

A person goes to a car lot. All the cars are available for the choosing. When one is selected what is the single difference between that car and all that were left behind? the looks? nope. The design? nope. The color? nope. The mechanics? nope. What was the difference?

The title. Sanctification in its most simplest form (imo) is a title transfer from lost to saved, from unholy to holy.

All the rest requires warranty by the manufacturer and maintenance by the owner. God manufactures a new creature. We are responsible for the maintenance.

All this is part of Paul's discussion in 2 Cor. 5.

I just noticed that the farther in numbers I go, the longer the explanation.

 

[JonC]

First, the "have been, being, and will be" are all that our economy of time and space have to offer in the continuum aspects of salvation. It should not be suggesting a process or progress, but the estate is secure both throughout time and eternity.

Second, the "transformation into the image of Christ" is not sanctification it again is a mater of maturity.

For example, Paul talks about bearing the marks of Christ ON his body, not in his body. That is the path God chose for Paul was one that caused him to serve as a continual martyr. Struck down and left for dead more than once, and finally beheaded. But then Paul (and Peter) discuss the maturing aspects that a believer should acquire. Some are gifts as the result of personal dedication (love, joy, peace, long suffering...) and the experienced walk leaning and learning to rely upon God's providence. Some are skills "virtue, knowledge, self control, perseverance...) are learned and acquired over time.

But neither that of the Holy Spirit nor of the acquiring of human effort is but the by product of regeneration, that which produced from a new birth, is related to that new birth by the results of the new birth not the determiner of the new birth. The ground bears the seed, the seed does not bear the ground. When one is born again (new ground) the life displays that it bears is related only by the nourishment gained by being born again (in the new ground). Hence the practical application of the verse, "the one who has endured to the end who will be saved." With the new birth is perseverance and preservation.

Third, definitions are problematic which is why I long ago rejected the "progressive sanctification" label in favor of progressive maturity. Because in the definition of sanctification it is an either or estate not one that is progress oriented.

One was either declared and made holy or they were not. Another problem that comes from some using "sanctification" is the thinking of some transfer of position takes place. That one is literally moved from one spot to another. That, too, is inconsistent with what "sanctification" actually means.

The best illustration that I have been able to come up with to explain what sanctification actually means is this:

A person goes to a car lot. All the cars are available for the choosing. When one is selected what is the single difference between that car and all that were left behind? the looks? nope. The design? nope. The color? nope. The mechanics? nope. What was the difference?

The title. Sanctification in its most simplest form (imo) is a title transfer from lost to saved, from unholy to holy.

All the rest requires warranty by the manufacturer and maintenance by the owner. God manufactures a new creature. We are responsible for the maintenance.

All this is part of Paul's discussion in 2 Cor. 5.

I just noticed that the farther in numbers I go, the longer the explanation.

I understand what you are saying, and believe much of our disagreement is in definition and interpretation. I believe that what we will be is to us unknown, except that we will be like Christ. I also do not see transformation to be maturity but instead a process of "becoming", of being increasingly transforned.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[agedman]

I understand what you are saying, and believe much of our disagreement is in definition and interpretation. I believe that what we will be is to us unknown, except that we will be like Christ. I also do not see transformation to be maturity but instead a process of "becoming", of being increasingly transforned.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

On the mount of transfiguration, did Christ transform in a progressive manner, or was he transformed immediately? "2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light." (Matthew 17)

The resurrection gives a snapshot of the "transformation" when it says, "51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." (1 Cor. 15).

Perhaps you are attempting to place words such as transformation and sanctification into areas that need to be reserved for other words dealing more with maturity and growth.

Both of these words (transformation, sanctification) are things that God does to us, not that we do for God.

 

[kyredneck]

our being "born again" or "from above"

It's not 'born again', it's 'born from above'.

As in:

But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. Gal 4:26

As in:

3 Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. Selah
4 I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon as among them that know me: Behold, Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia: This one was born there.
5 Yea, of Zion it shall be said, This one and that one was born in her; And the Most High himself will establish her.
6 Jehovah will count, when he writeth up the peoples, This one was born there. Selah
7 They that sing as well as they that dance shall say, All my fountains are in thee. Ps 87

There's nothing 'new' about Christ's revelation given in Jn 3:8. 'Born from above' is a direct reference to the children of the heavenly Zion. Every saint that ever was, OT or NT, are children of 'HER', and this includes God's children among the nations, of which there were more of than Israelites under the old covenant.

And, before anyone can enter into or even see the long awaited kingdom of God here on earth, they must first be a child of the heavenly Jerusalem. One must first be 'born from above' before one can enter into 'the regeneration'.

The children of the heavenly Zion have always been the true Jews, the real Israel, thus we’re told, “they are not all Israel, that are of Israel, neither, because they are Abraham`s seed, are they all children”.

 

[kyredneck]

Per Edersheim, anothen always has the meaning 'above' when used by John:

3 Jesus answered and said to him, 'Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;' (YLT)

7 'Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above; (YLT)

31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly , and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. Jn 3

11 Jesus answered , Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout . Jn 19

Anothen always has the meaning 'above' when used by James:

17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Ja 1

15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure , then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. Ja 3

 

[JonC]

On the mount of transfiguration, did Christ transform in a progressive manner, or was he transformed immediately? "2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light." (Matthew 17)

The resurrection gives a snapshot of the "transformation" when it says, "51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." (1 Cor. 15).

Perhaps you are attempting to place words such as transformation and sanctification into areas that need to be reserved for other words dealing more with maturity and growth.

Both of these words (transformation, sanctification) are things that God does to us, not that we do for God.

Paul, in 2 Corinthians 3, says "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

I understand this to be a transformation into the likeness of Christ with ever-increasing glory. I do not hold this view in such a way that I will dogmatically denounce your position, but it is how I understand the passage. I believe that we have been saved and are not what we once were. But I also believe that we are in a state of "being saved" and we will on "that day" be what we are not now. As long as we understand each other through our disagreement I'm fine with that (and I appreciate your critique of my post).

 

[JonC]

It's not 'born again', it's 'born from above'.

As in:

But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. Gal 4:26

As in:

3 Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. Selah
4 I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon as among them that know me: Behold, Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia: This one was born there.
5 Yea, of Zion it shall be said, This one and that one was born in her; And the Most High himself will establish her.
6 Jehovah will count, when he writeth up the peoples, This one was born there. Selah
7 They that sing as well as they that dance shall say, All my fountains are in thee. Ps 87

There's nothing 'new' about Christ's revelation given in Jn 3:8. 'Born from above' is a direct reference to the children of the heavenly Zion. Every saint that ever was, OT or NT, are children of 'HER', and this includes God's children among the nations, of which there were more of than Israelites under the old covenant. And, before anyone can enter into or even see the long awaited kingdom of God here on earth, they must first be a child of the heavenly Jerusalem.

The children of the heavenly Zion have always been the true Jews, the real Israel, thus we’re told, “they are not all Israel, that are of Israel, neither, because they are Abraham`s seed, are they all children”.

I'm fine with "born from above", although I believe John 3 should be translated "born again".

 

[kyredneck]

I'm fine with "born from above", although I believe John 3 should be translated "born again".

[edited] 'Born again' is totally inadequate and misses the mark of directing the reader to make the connection of 'the woman' of Gen 3:15, Ps 87, Isa 54, Gal 4, Rev 12, and no doubt other places.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It's not 'born again', it's 'born from above'.

The reason that most translators take anothen to mean 'born again' in John 3:3 is that that is what Nicodemus understands it to mean. 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter into his mother's womb and be born a second time?

 

[kyredneck]

The reason that most translators take anothen to mean 'born again' in John 3:3 is that that is what Nicodemus understands it to mean. 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter into his mother's womb and be born a second time?

I understand that. Anothen can mean 'anew' or 'over again', but that's not what Christ meant, thus His further explanation the next verse:

5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit. Jn 1 YLT

Christ wasn't speaking of an earthly physical birth which Nicodemus wrongly perceived, He was speaking of a spiritual birth FROM ABOVE.

anothen:

from above, from a higher place

of things which come from heaven or God

from the first, from the beginning, from the very first

anew, over again

 

[percho]

διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας

Through washing (bathing) of regeneration

What is washed and or bathed, through the regeneration, of one?

Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. Matt 20:22,23 --- Does that baptism have anything to do with regenerated life? ---When? --
Verse 22 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. ----- Are those verses speaking of the same point in time as these? ---- Matt. 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? ---Therefore when? Verse 24? And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. ---- Does verse 28 tell when that is? --- And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. --- BTW I put the comer following regeneration where I believe it belongs. Followed me, in the baptism I am baptized with after having drank the cup I also drank.

Please tell me what followed after Jesus had been put under the water, representing his death? Did not, going up straightway out of the water, show regeneration, life again and THEN, what took place. Did the Holy Spirit descend upon him? THEN what? Did a voice from heaven declare Jesus as his beloved Son.

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. Romans 8:19 --- Will that follow our being baptized with the baptism he was baptized with?

Last questions. Is the man who has had his sins washed away in the blood of the resurrected Christ, fit to enter the kingdom of God? Is he still not born of the flesh and still subject to corruption? Does he still need to be changed?

 

[percho]

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Mark 1:14,15

Sir, how does one enter that kingdom?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Acts 20:25 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

2 Tim 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: --- The gospel of the kingdom of God?

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. Acts 17:2,3,7 ---- The gospel of the kingdom of God? And how to enter therein? Being born from above?

Is the great salvation of Heb 2:3-5 the kingdom of God and being born from above or again into it?

 

[agedman]

It's not 'born again', it's 'born from above'.

I understand what you are attempting to state, but the Greek could be just as easily read "born again."

Especially as it relates to Nicodemus, who responded with him questioning how as an old man he could again enter the more ancient mother's womb.

Had he taken the word as "born from above," there would be no confusion as to what Christ meant.

It seems that you might be taking a single part of the term's definition and trying to make a umbrella statement for all occasions. Unfortunately, the context of the passage and the balance of use in the Scriptures is more likely the determiner of a definition.

However, I agree that in some of the passages that you list, "born from above" is an excellent fit.

 

[kyredneck]

I understand what you are attempting to state, but the Greek could be just as easily read "born again."

Born ‘again’, or ‘anew', breaks the continuity of how John consistently uses the word anothen in other places, even in that very chapter a mere 24 verses later, AND, it caters to and appeases the synergists in that it allows them wiggle room to claim having a part in it. 'Born from above' strongly denotes the truth that man is totally passive in the heavenly birth and it melds perfectly with all of John’s other ’born from above’ statements:

who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten. Jn 1:13 YLT
if ye know that he is righteous, know ye that every one doing the righteousness, of him hath been begotten. 1 Jn 2:29 YLT
9 every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten. 1 Jn 3:9 YLT
7 Beloved, may we love one another, because the love is of God, and every one who is loving, of God he hath been begotten, and doth know God 1 Jn 4:7 YLT
1 Every one who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God he hath been begotten, and every one who is loving Him who did beget, doth love also him who is begotten of Him
4 because every one who is begotten of God doth overcome the world, and this is the victory that did overcome the world -- our faith
18 We have known that every one who hath been begotten of God doth not sin, but he who was begotten of God doth keep himself, and the evil one doth not touch him 1 Jn 5 YLT

Especially as it relates to Nicodemus, who responded with him questioning how as an old man he could again enter the more ancient mother's womb.

Had he taken the word as "born from above," there would be no confusion as to what Christ meant.

But Christ addressed Nicodemus’s confusion:

6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.` Jn 3 YLT

The entire dialog, yea the entire chapter, carries the tenor of heavenly things ‘from above’:

2 this one came unto him by night, and said to him, `Rabbi, we have known that from God thou hast come -- a teacher, for no one these signs is able to do that thou dost, if God may not be with him.`
3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;`
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
21 but he who is doing the truth doth come to the light, that his works may be manifested, that in God they are having been wrought.`
27 John answered and said, `A man is not able to receive anything, if it may not have been given him from the heaven
31 he who from above is coming is above all; he who is from the earth, from the earth he is, and from the earth he speaketh; he who from the heaven is coming is above all. Jn 3 YLT

It seems that you might be taking a single part of the term's definition and trying to make a umbrella statement for all occasions.

For all occasions concerning the writings of John, yes. John was staunch in presenting absolute sovereignty in his writings:

27 John answered and said, `A man is not able to receive anything, if it may not have been given him from the heaven; Jn 3

Unfortunately, the context of the passage and the balance of use in the Scriptures is more likely the determiner of a definition.

Unfortunately, if the truth be known, the renderings ‘born again’ or ‘born anew’ in most of the translations are due to the bias of the synergists.

However, I agree that in some of the passages that you list, "born from above" is an excellent fit.

Yea, ‘born from above’ opens up a marvelous ‘thread’ that runs from beginning to end within the scriptures.

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem is that one cannot understand life until they first understand what is the meaning of death. Life is the opposite of death.

Death is separation. In connection with Adam there was an instantaneous SPIRITUAL separation at the moment he sinned in his heart. This separation was from God WHO IS LIFE and WHO IS LIGHT and WHO IS WHOLLY. Thus at the very moment of SPIRITUAL separation FROM GOD, Adam was without LIFE, without LIGHT and without HOLINESS. However, spiritual separation FROM LIFE in spirit began the principle of corruption by indwelling sin in the body, thus a PROGRESSIVE separation began which culminates in the separation of the material from the immaterial aspects of man. THIS initial, progressive and culminate aspect of death is THE FIRST DEATH. The second death is when the material and immaterial is united in the resurrection and the whole man is then eternally SEPARATED from God in Gehenna which is a PLACE of eternal torment.

Life is the opposite of death. If death is SEPARATION then life is UNION. Life begins precisely as death began in man. It begins with instantaneous SPIRITUAL UNION with God, thus UNION with life, light and holiness. Indwelling union is progressively manifested "IN" and "THROUGH" man. Internally it is manifested by progressive transformation of the mind, affections and will to the image of Christ and externally manifested in righteous words and deeds - thus the progressive salvation of the daily life of man = redeeming the time. This is progressive life. Ultimately there is the UNION of the immaterial with the material aspects of human nature in an instantaneous glorification act of God whereby the indwelling principle of "corruption" is removed. This is the culmination of life with regard to the individual nature of man. However, there is a SECOND life or the eternal UNION with God in a PLACE called the new heaven and earth. Thus paradise lost "in Adam" is restored "in Christ" in the new heaven and earth.

Regeneration is being "created IN Christ" or IN SPIRITUAL UNION WITH CHRIST who is God, thus the reversal of SPIRITUAL SEPARATION from God. This is a creative act of God and is instantaneous and a completed action as is the act of God effectually calling into existence light in Genesis 1:3 (2 Cor. 4:6). It is described as a perfect tense action that is a completed action that continues as a completed action (Eph. 1:5, 8). Therefore, the new birth is not a progressive linear action. The consequence of this completed action upon the soul of man through the indwelling Holy Spirit is a progressive action whereby the life of the Spirit progressively transforms the mind, affections and will manifesting the life of the Spirit in attitude, words and deeds. Thereby the life, light and holiness of God is made manifest in the outward life of the elect. The progressive life is the repetitive act of PUTTING ON the new man in the mind, affections and will and thus the external life is thus clothed "in Christ" as manifested in words and deeds.

 

[agedman]

Paul, in 2 Corinthians 3, says "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

I understand this to be a transformation into the likeness of Christ with ever-increasing glory. I do not hold this view in such a way that I will dogmatically denounce your position, but it is how I understand the passage. I believe that we have been saved and are not what we once were. But I also believe that we are in a state of "being saved" and we will on "that day" be what we are not now. As long as we understand each other through our disagreement I'm fine with that (and I appreciate your critique of my post).

However, you are taking the "transformation" away from the original context and placing it into one in which some individual attainment is made of "ever-increasing glory."

What the discussion is in 2 Corinthians 3 is that there was a giving of the law that came with a manifestation of Glory. One in which Moses had to veil that the Israeli's not see it fade. Those that abide in reading of Moses for their hope of God have a veil over their hearts - even to this day.

However, not so with Christ. "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." (NASB)

Now, I understand that you would desire for such a transformation to be "ever increasing." However, the actual statement leans more toward the "transformation" as being one that neither is veiled nor able to fade - sustained by the Lord, the Spirit. Not one that can perish or can even diminish. That the glory of the law is transformed into that glory of Christ.

I realize this is a very small matter, but it does come down to whether a metamorphosis takes place over time, or does the metamorphosis occur individually as each are given in Christ.

Paul is stating the case of with what authority and the boldness he can speak, and the assurance that the believers will not fad in the glory of Christ as contrasted than what glory Moses experienced and the people witnessed.

The transformation of individuals is not (imo) that of the believers getting more and more glory, but of more transformations of individuals into the estate of believers who are given the same glory of Moses, yet because it is in Christ, such glory will not fad nor be veiled. Unbelievers "are being transformed" into the same image of Moses glory (accepted in God) that is the unfading glory (from fading veiled glory shown by Moses to unfading and unveiled glory in Christ).

There really is not an increasing glory, but a transformation from the glory of Moses's experience to that of the Christ.

 

[agedman]

Born ‘again’, or ‘anew', breaks the continuity of how John consistently uses the word anothen in other places, even in that very chapter a mere 24 verses later, AND, it caters to and appeases the synergists in that it allows them wiggle room to claim having a part in it. 'Born from above' strongly denotes the truth that man is totally passive in the heavenly birth and it melds perfectly with all of John’s other ’born from above’ statements:

I don't consider it a synergistic plot, but an understanding of the context. Again, the word has more than one definition. Not always will the definition be "born from above" but can be "born again." There is no conflicting message that you are assuming.

Further, of all those that hold to the D of G thinking, I am a rather lonely in the view that of all the writings of Scriptures, John was the most careful in selecting the exact words the Lord directed him to write. That is why I consider the word "Kosmos" used in John 1:10, John 3:16-17, John 15:19 (which John restates in 1 John 4:5), John 17:14, 1 John 2:6, 1 John 5:4, and 1 John 2:2 to pertain to the total and not to some selection or subset of the total. This is in direct conflict with most who hold to a subset of the whole.

It isn't a matter of "synergistic" thinking, it is a matter of consistency.

However, consistency must also be aligned with context.

Hence when John quotes the high priest's words in John 12:19, it is NOT taken as the whole, but the typical hyperbole spoken by the unregenerate heathen Jewish leadership.

It is a matter of consistency being properly mixed with the context. If one is going to chose to make much of the literalness of Scripture, there must needs be consistency of both definition and context.

The same with the passage dealing with Nicodemus.

Certainly our Lord is pointing Nicodemus to being "born from above" BUT, he first must capture Nicodemus away from thinking of having to "do" something to gain approval. DOING was all that the religious righteous Jews were concerned about when it came to understanding and following God. The temple practices, the standards of law and living were all centered around something done or not done.

So, when Christ was confronting Nicodemus, there had to be a bit of "physical" education that brought about an understanding of the Spiritual.

Such is not a matter of the translations having a bent towards synergistic views, in fact I would consider that the majority of KJV translators were far from "synergistic" but "monergistic" thinkers, and I (though I have not researched the matter) would think that the only synergistic work done on the NASB was the cooperation among the translators as they individually worked on there assigned passages.

You make some very good points, but I do think that it is important to always consider the context before grasping at which definition can be applicable.

 

[kyredneck]

it is a matter of consistency.

Right. Zactly. That's why the rendering should be 'born from above'.

 

[Van]

Regeneration refers to being born anew. After the fall, all people are born spiritually dead, separated from God. We are made sinners. Thus to be made spiritually alive is our rebirth. When God transfers us from the realm of darkness (spiritually dead) into the kingdom of His son, we are made alive together with Christ. Thus "regeneration" refers to being made alive, born anew. This is a very simple concept.

The Greek work (paliggenesia) means born anew.