This doesn't surprise me coming from you as I seriously question if you've ever read the Book. You never quote it. Try Psalm 22:9-10 and Luke 1:15.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Regeneration and sanctification
- Thread starter allinall
- Start date
- Status
This doesn't surprise me coming from you as I seriously question if you've ever read the Book. You never quote it. Try Psalm 22:9-10 and Luke 1:15.
I believe that He was revealing a mystery, at least it was a mystery to the OT saints, but it had not always been, because He was implimenting something new. John 3:13. Does that make sense?
But this reasoning still beggs the question: Is regeneration a process, or is it a one time event, thus allowing it to be synonymous with "born again"?
Why is this not regeneration? It's a work of the Holy Spirit in us, just like the new birth is. Maybe not identical is every way, but similar enough to warrent the question posed. Is it not regeneration? Does regeneration, if a process, need to be an even flow process?
Last edited by a moderator:
I do know that John the Baptizer and jesus were both filled with Holy Spirit from Womb...
I dont think you can take that as being normative though for answering the question, as both were fulfillers of prophecy...
One the forerunner of, other the actual Messiah...
So would have to use different examples to prove the point here....
Dying thou dost die.
Why does man need to be regenerated?
Is it not because of the above statement God made to the first man Adam? And beginning with Adam have not all who who have ever lived, died? I know most would say all except two, but trust me they died or Christ would not have the preeminence. Will all that are presently alive die?
Did God save man by being God or did he save him by becoming a man and dying and as the last Adam himself being regenerated a quickening Spirit in that all he might have the preeminence? The firstborn of the dead.
Please do not go off on me but give a little thought to the scriptures.
For example. I say that when Jesus says to those that follow me in the regeneration means those that are regenerated /resurrected as I was. But even if he is speaking of a regeneration in time think of this.
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels;
Is this not a spirit life that is greater than the life we presently possess, that regenerated life? Is this not the time when we shall be manifested as the children/sons of God? and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Is this the time of the regeneration? But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead,
Please correct me where I am wrong.
Why does man need to be regenerated?
Is it not because of the above statement God made to the first man Adam? And beginning with Adam have not all who who have ever lived, died? I know most would say all except two, but trust me they died or Christ would not have the preeminence. Will all that are presently alive die?
Did God save man by being God or did he save him by becoming a man and dying and as the last Adam himself being regenerated a quickening Spirit in that all he might have the preeminence? The firstborn of the dead.
Please do not go off on me but give a little thought to the scriptures.
For example. I say that when Jesus says to those that follow me in the regeneration means those that are regenerated /resurrected as I was. But even if he is speaking of a regeneration in time think of this.
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels;
Is this not a spirit life that is greater than the life we presently possess, that regenerated life? Is this not the time when we shall be manifested as the children/sons of God? and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Is this the time of the regeneration? But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead,
Please correct me where I am wrong.
Just need to be "reborn again" 1 time, once In Christ, than the work of the Holy spirit in us is to make us daily conforming to image of Christ, taht is the outward working out of the savation already dealed in us by the Holy Spirit
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't quite get the point you're trying to make with Jn 3:13; perhaps you can explain. If you meant 1:13, I still don't get it.
Have you checked any of these references out concerning the birth from above in the OT?:
Ps 22:9-10; Lk 1:15; Ps 87; Gal 4:22-31(esp vv. 28-29); Isa 54
If Christ was implementing a 'new' thing, why was it that the OT Saints never required regeneration yet those of the NT do? Was there something better about them that they never required to be made spiritually alive?
Also, such a drastic change within the spiritual realm doesn't fit well with the doctrine of the Immutability of God:
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. Heb 13:8
.......the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning. Ja 1:17
Wow, you actually opened the Book and looked something up; I'm proud of you!
You don't think it significant that David was made to hope while on his mother's breast, or that Isaac was born of the Spirit by the time he was weaned, or that John the Baptist jumped for joy in his mother's womb?
Think that many of the examples you would give would be "exceptions" not normative to us today..
Isaac was the promised child to come, to fulfill the Covenant contiuning, so not normal example..
David was the King, and during OT times, prophets/Kings had Spirit come upon them as He willed, and departed, NOT sealed as we are today...
have to base this on NT verses pretty much, as those the "normative" ones for today!
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Gal 4
With this reasoning JF you can negate or explain away just about anything you wish that doesn't fit your mold of the scriptures.
Would you please point out some normal ol' Joe Blows in the scriptures that you think we can use for examples?
Basically ANYTHING referened in context in NT after Book of Acts!
That is soooo wrong; it is seriously defective. God doesn't change, Jesus Christ is the same as He's always been, God still derals with us in the same ways He dealt with His people of the OT.
What you're implying here revolts me. Our Bible (or mine), has 66 Books, not just from Acts on.
John 3:
I believe that for one to "see the kingdom of God" vs.3b (parallel to...), to "enter the kingdom of God" vs. 5b, he must be born again vs. 3a, 5a. That's why no one had yet ascended to heaven (vs 13) but He who had first descended. In other words, if anyone was born again at that point in time, they would have seen and entered the kingdom of God. But vs.13 says that no one had ascended yet but for One, Who is Jesus.
Consider that Ezekiel 36:22-27 is a future promise, and was not true of that time. I believe it's speaking of being born again. A new covenant promise. why is it future?
If one could not "see" the kingdom of God without being born again. And could not be born again without Christ's death and resurrection (atonement also means of new birth). And the means of our entering that spiritual union with Him [to be born again] is the baptism with the Holy Spirit. The agent of that baptism, the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13), was not given until Pentecost, the birth of the Church. It was still a future promise until that time (John 7:39, John 14:16-118, John 14:26, John 15:16, John 16:7, John 16:10, -- all fulfilled at Pentecost Acts 2:33).
So, before Pentecost, there was no Body, which is the Church, which was birthed at Pentecost. There was no death and resurrection for them to spiritually identify with (to be born again) once they entered spiritual union with Jesus Christ, even if they could. Legally, there was no atonement yet made for sin. Most importantly, the NT indwelling of the Holy Spirit was yet given until Pentecost, so there was no baptism of the Holy Spirit to place them into spiritual union with Christ Jesus so that they could be born again --"raised up with Him".
Put that with what I wrote in reply to your next quote (I'll put it in italics)...
Yes, I've looked at them. I see filling in the OT. But not being born again. I see regeneration in the OT, but I would not take it as far as being born again. That's why I started the thread, because it's difficult for people to see the obstacles in scripture unless they first consider that being born again and regeneration are not synonymous. This much I do know...
I can't even begin to explain all the differences in the OT relationship between man and the Holy Spirit as compared to the NT relationship between man and the Holy Spirit. But I can see some of those differences in scripture. I can also see some of the similarities between the two. One of those similarities is that man apart from the Spirit of God cannot repent, produce a saving faith, obey God, nor will he ever desire to do any of those things apart from God moving first. The OT saints were not permanently indwelt with the Holy Spirit as we are today, but they could do nothing good without Him. Every miracle ever performed in the OT was by way of the Holy Spirit. Every truth revealed, spoken and understood in the OT was by way the Holy Spirit. The repentance, the faith, the perseverance in faith, that's regeneration in the OT. There's no way around it.
But is it being born again? That's where I part ways with traditional thinking.
I need to stress that I don't see born again and regeneration as synonymous. I see regeneration as a process, and being born again as a specific point in that process of regeneration. I don't even believe that regeneration is an even flow process. Now, having said that as a reminder, think of the means of being made spiritually alive. Was that even available to OT saints? They could not be "immersed" into spiritual union with Jesus, "placed into" the Body, the Church, because the "baptism" with the Holy Spirit needed the Holy Spirit, Who was given at Pentecost. They could not identify with His death and resurrection because there was no death and resurrection yet. What good would it have been to be in spiritual union with Jesus before there was a resurrection for us to be raised up in?
Hebrews 13:8 is speaking of the character of God, which has not changed. As I believe showed you, being born again, or made alive, was prophesied. This was part of God's eternal decree, but Jesus had to actually die on the cross before we could have peace with God. He had to actually provide everything we needed to be made right with God, even the means of our being born again. I'm not even sure were you see the problem between what I have said thus far and James 1:17. Maybe you can elaborate.
Dave
BTW, consider Hebrews 6:4-6. This was a faith to faith scenario. OT faith, to NT faith. Yet, it sounds very similar to our NT pre faith regeneration, no?
Last edited by a moderator:
Agrred. can learn from ALL of it, all equally inspired by Lord, just some more directly answering question discussed here!
In post 25 I said correct me if I am wrong and no one has so I assume I was right.
Regeneration root meaning new birth and or restoration of life after death.
I understand as with a tree we can put branches on that above.
Let me ask.
Jesus
And declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all he might have the preeminence.
Is the above speaking of Jesus as being greater than everything else or is it speaking of as Jesus by his resurrection having new birth and or restoration of life after death.
Is that not exactly how the word of God says we are saved? By the death and resurrection (given new life) of Jesus.
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
We are washed in the blood of the once dead Jesus after he is regenerated.
And if Christ be not raised,(Has not been given life) your faith vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
Regeneration root meaning new birth and or restoration of life after death.
I understand as with a tree we can put branches on that above.
Let me ask.
Jesus
And declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all he might have the preeminence.
Is the above speaking of Jesus as being greater than everything else or is it speaking of as Jesus by his resurrection having new birth and or restoration of life after death.
Is that not exactly how the word of God says we are saved? By the death and resurrection (given new life) of Jesus.
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
We are washed in the blood of the once dead Jesus after he is regenerated.
And if Christ be not raised,(Has not been given life) your faith vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
Hi percho
Greater, yes. Jesus didn't need to be born again, if that's what you were suggesting. He did not need to be regenerated.
He was physically resurrected, we are spiritually resurrected (born again), and physically resurrected (In Glory).
Dave
Greater, yes. Jesus didn't need to be born again, if that's what you were suggesting. He did not need to be regenerated.
He was physically resurrected, we are spiritually resurrected (born again), and physically resurrected (In Glory).
Dave
The reason Paul said that if Jesus be not risen we are still in our sins is because if Jesus did not rise from the dead he could not have ascended to his Father and offered his blood on the mercy seat in heaven.
It is not enough that Jesus poured out his blood, he had to offer it on the mercy seat. In the OT, simply killing an innocent lamb and pouring out it's blood was not enough to atone for the people, the blood had to be taken into the holy place by the high priest and sprinkled on the mercy seat.
So again, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, he would not have been able to offer his blood on the mercy seat in heaven as our high priest, and we would all remain in our sins.
Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
That is my point. If his soul had been left in Hades and not resurrected that is where it would be today, still in Hades. He (the personality that died) (The once living soul Jesus) had to be raised from the dead ascend to the Father to be accepted for us and also to receive from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit so it could be shed it on us. John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
My apologies for the delay; I've been entertaining/hosting guests since last week.
I believe you err here by making the kingdom of God to mean heaven. Eternal consequences are not what's being implied here, but the present reality of the spiritual realm is meant. Christ is referring to the kingdom of heaven which was AT HAND, THEN, NOW. Kingdom of God in Jn 3 no more refers to heaven (or eternal consequences) than does the kingdom in this passage:
Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue knowledge; and in your knowledge self-control; and in your self-control patience; and in your patience godliness; and in your godliness brotherly kindness; and in your brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, they make you to be not idle nor unfruitful unto the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins. Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble: for thus shall be richly supplied unto you the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 2 Pet 1:5-11
Or this passage:
for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Ro 14:17
Or this passage:
And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you. Lu 17:20,21
Christ is making it plain that it behoveth one to been born from above before one could see this 'kingdom of God that cometh not with observation' or enter into the 'righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit' that awaits within 'the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ', which is now. This kingdom cannot be seen with the mortal eye, nor touched with the hand.
Verse 13 is qualifying the Son of Man to teach the 'heavenly things' referred to in verse 12, because the Son of Man had descended out of heaven (OR FROM ABOVE).
Was it really a 'new' covenant, and was it really 'future'? Did Christ really just become 'a life-giving spirit' [in 1 Cor 15:45], or had He always been? Considering the passages below, why is the 'new' covenant considered to be 'new'?
In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old..... Heb 8:13
And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Heb 12:27
I suggest to you that there is actually nothing 'new' about any of the spiritual tenets of the 'new' covenant, which is in reality the eternal covenant, and how God has always dealt with His redeemed, born from above children of the heavenly Zion, OT and NT. There has been no change with God, 'with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning'. The 'new' covenant is 'new' only because the mysteries of it had not been revealed until the fullness of time came, the first became old and was removed, and that which was not shaken remained. The law covenant was ADDED (Gal 3:19), thereby casting a shadow of the eternal covenant that lay behind it, and then it was REMOVED. The tenets of the eternal covenant are just that, eternal. God is eternal, He doesn't change.
I reiterate, sometimes I think the term 'born again' can lead off in wrong directions. It is a mistake to confuse the birth of the Spirit with the baptism of the Spirit. Take note of the PRESENT TENSE of this passage:
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. Jn 3:8 (Christ is telling Nicodemus that it behooves him to be born from above, present tense, now, 7th verse (I believe the root, motivating cause of his being drawn to Christ that fateful night was that Nicodemus was born of the Spirit, he just didn't realize it yet)).
Compared with the future tense of this passage:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you. Jn 16:7
These are two different functions of the same Spirit.
You seem to be using 'born again' as a metaphor for the process of growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ, which, is actually a good metaphor. However, the birth from above, or of God (as described in Jn 1:13), is a supernatural event wherein man is totally passive. 'Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.' Isaac was a child of the heavenly Jerusalem then, just as we are now.
Probably I'm not understanding your position clearly, and I'm not saying that you are wrong or right. You've made several statements above that I agree with. I have respect for free thinkers, or those that exercise their right to private judgment as you seem to do. If you don't mind, I would like to pause and ask you a [needful] question that is right on the topic that we're presently discussing:
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Ro 3:1
What prompted Paul to ask the above question?
A penny for your [free] thoughts?
I believe you err here by making the kingdom of God to mean heaven. Eternal consequences are not what's being implied here, but the present reality of the spiritual realm is meant. Christ is referring to the kingdom of heaven which was AT HAND, THEN, NOW. Kingdom of God in Jn 3 no more refers to heaven (or eternal consequences) than does the kingdom in this passage:
Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue knowledge; and in your knowledge self-control; and in your self-control patience; and in your patience godliness; and in your godliness brotherly kindness; and in your brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, they make you to be not idle nor unfruitful unto the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins. Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble: for thus shall be richly supplied unto you the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 2 Pet 1:5-11
Or this passage:
for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Ro 14:17
Or this passage:
And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you. Lu 17:20,21
Christ is making it plain that it behoveth one to been born from above before one could see this 'kingdom of God that cometh not with observation' or enter into the 'righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit' that awaits within 'the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ', which is now. This kingdom cannot be seen with the mortal eye, nor touched with the hand.
Verse 13 is qualifying the Son of Man to teach the 'heavenly things' referred to in verse 12, because the Son of Man had descended out of heaven (OR FROM ABOVE).
Was it really a 'new' covenant, and was it really 'future'? Did Christ really just become 'a life-giving spirit' [in 1 Cor 15:45], or had He always been? Considering the passages below, why is the 'new' covenant considered to be 'new'?
In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old..... Heb 8:13
And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Heb 12:27
I suggest to you that there is actually nothing 'new' about any of the spiritual tenets of the 'new' covenant, which is in reality the eternal covenant, and how God has always dealt with His redeemed, born from above children of the heavenly Zion, OT and NT. There has been no change with God, 'with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning'. The 'new' covenant is 'new' only because the mysteries of it had not been revealed until the fullness of time came, the first became old and was removed, and that which was not shaken remained. The law covenant was ADDED (Gal 3:19), thereby casting a shadow of the eternal covenant that lay behind it, and then it was REMOVED. The tenets of the eternal covenant are just that, eternal. God is eternal, He doesn't change.
I reiterate, sometimes I think the term 'born again' can lead off in wrong directions. It is a mistake to confuse the birth of the Spirit with the baptism of the Spirit. Take note of the PRESENT TENSE of this passage:
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. Jn 3:8 (Christ is telling Nicodemus that it behooves him to be born from above, present tense, now, 7th verse (I believe the root, motivating cause of his being drawn to Christ that fateful night was that Nicodemus was born of the Spirit, he just didn't realize it yet)).
Compared with the future tense of this passage:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you. Jn 16:7
These are two different functions of the same Spirit.
You seem to be using 'born again' as a metaphor for the process of growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ, which, is actually a good metaphor. However, the birth from above, or of God (as described in Jn 1:13), is a supernatural event wherein man is totally passive. 'Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.' Isaac was a child of the heavenly Jerusalem then, just as we are now.
Probably I'm not understanding your position clearly, and I'm not saying that you are wrong or right. You've made several statements above that I agree with. I have respect for free thinkers, or those that exercise their right to private judgment as you seem to do. If you don't mind, I would like to pause and ask you a [needful] question that is right on the topic that we're presently discussing:
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Ro 3:1
What prompted Paul to ask the above question?
A penny for your [free] thoughts?
Last edited by a moderator:
Amen! Along those lines:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=68957
I just can't see 'delight in the law of Jehovah' without the involvement of the Spirit. The Spirit HAD to be the source of the joy.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status