Regeneration and sanctification

Thank you for answering my post. I appreciate it.

Specific examples would be good to discuss.

Nicodemus was no infant. That is reading into the Scripture things that are not there. In no way does the new birth speak about the regeneration of children (infants) no matter who said it.

I guess that is why I am a Baptist and not a Protestant. I disagree with this. I believe the very opposite of this can be taught even from John 1:11-13, as well as from other Scriptures.

That is not necessarily logical to me. It may be so, but it is not dependent on faith. Your assumption is based on faith comes from God, but the Bible does not teach that, and none of you have ever been able to give me any Scripture that supports that view.

Faith is needed to be regenerated. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate otherwise.

And they are wrong. Let them expound Scripture, not just give the reference. The Bible does not teach the regeneration of infants. That was a heresy that entered into the early church, and that heresy led to baptismal regeneration.

God gets the glory when things are done God's way. For example we agree that baptism is done after a person is saved and not made a requirement for salvation as the Catholics and Church of Christ teach. When the Lord teaches that faith salvation (including regeneration) is by faith and faith alone, then God gets the glory. Faith is not a work. Faith is what God demands. "Look unto me all ends of the earth." God demands that we look unto him in faith, believing that he is the Savior of mankind. He will have it no other way. Regeneration falls under that great umbrella of salvation. Faith precedes it all.

There are two things that are absolutely necessary to the new birth:
1. The Holy Spirit. John 3:5--You must be born of water and of the Spirit.
2. The Word of God. 1Pet.1:23 You must be born ...of the Word of God.
--You need both. Without the Word of God, and one's faith in that message of the gospel it is impossible to be born again. That is exactly what Peter says.

I hope to hear from you soon.
God bless.

 

It wasn't loaded, it was simply showing that what I said was indeed what you hold.. and thank for answering it.

 

that was kinda the point.. regenerated does not mean eternally saved at all.

One can be eternally saved and never have even heard of Christ Jesus.

The point goes back to not only what regenerate does, but how and when this is done.

 

I believe a lot of problems all of us have is our concept of things. For example,
"saved", how can we use this word as a full concept of something until we have received all that this is a concept of?

ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. Doesn't that underlined have to take place before we are saved? That is in possession of salvation? Is it not presently in Christ yet in the future be us? Does not the same principle apply to spiritual birth that applies to physical birth? Is the fruit of generation the day of conception or the day of birth? Why do most think in the spiritual realm conception and birth take place at the same moment? Is the physical anything but a shadow of the spiritual? Which is the earnest,
(begotten) until the redemption of (birth regeneration)

He would have seen corruption had he not been raised when he was.
And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, no more to return to corruption,
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, (Hades) neither his flesh did see corruption.

His soul was raised from the realm of the dead, Hades and given an incorruptible body. In the mouth of two or three witnesses
Col 1:18 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.
Rev. 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed [fn] us from our sins in His own blood,

The child doesn't need to be saved by his having and understanding faith. He needs to be born again by God into the kingdom of God through the faith of Christ.

He does not have an immortal soul he needs to be born again as an immortal soul.

 

Please don't take these Scriptures out of their context.
The word "firstborn" simply means "preeminent."
In Psalms, David is called the firstborn. But was he? He was the firstborn because he was the preeminent one.

 

Lets be careful about context at all times. Me especially. David also said in the Psalms his soul would not be left in hell. Do you think Peter understood this passage ten days before he spoke of it?

Psalms 89:27 Also I will make him [my] firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

Rev. 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Why is he higher than the kings of the earth? Because he is the firstborn from the dead. BTW you are correct, he is the preeminent one, until our resurrection to life eternal he not only is the first he is the only but then he will be the first of many.

 

Yes David understood the verse. He understood the verse in its literal and historical context as it should be:

I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, (Psalms 89:3)
--The verse speaks directly about David, and his position in the kingdom.
David was the firstborn.
David was higher than the kings of the earth.
And that is how David understood it. To both David and his son Solomon, kings and queens from all over the earth came to them. Both of them were great in the sight of all the nations on the earth. None was greater.

The fact that the verse had a secondary interpretation is just that--secondary. It does have a prophetic application, but that was not the literal and historical interpretation of the verse. David knew what it meant.

The first begotten of the dead--the first one to rise from the dead; not the first one to be born.

But that is not what those verses that you were using were teaching.
The word "firstborn" simply meant "preeminent" and nothing more than that. They had nothing to do with his resurrection.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Colossians 1:15)
--It is important to be careful about such things because this is an example of a verse that the J.W.'s go straight to, to show that Christ is a created being.

 

God bless you too DHK; but I'm really not in the mode to ride this merry go round with you again, at this time. There's some other things I'd like to consider, however if you need to review some of our past dialogs on this topic, go here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1675979#post1675979

...or here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1671391#post1671391

 

Scripture taken out of context doesn't really answer appropriate questions.
In Paul's own conversion experience, he called upon the name of the Lord.
Not only did he call upon the name of the Lord, that is what he commanded others to do in order to be saved. The verses you quoted in the last URL refer to something else entirely.

 

......no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 12:3

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: Acts 9:5


But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother`s womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, Gal 1:15,16

Take note DHK, Christ was already in Paul, and it wasn't until God's pleasure for it to happen that it was revealed.

 

It was the devil, not Christ, that was in Paul as he stoned Stephen and went about throwing Christians in jail and killing others. Your statement in light of the above facts is absurd. Christ is not a killer, thus Christ was not already in Paul.

You have quoted a partial verse, taking it out of context.
First look at the context:

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. (1 Corinthians 12:1-2)
--First the context is spiritual gifts. He speaks of spiritual gifts from ch.12-14 of 1Cor.
--Second, the specific context of verse 3, which you made reference to is to their pagan background (vs.2). Pagan spirits don't call Christ Lord. The Holy Spirit calls Christ Lord. The context was speaking in tongues.
I can get any unsaved Roman Catholic to say that Christ is Lord, but he doesn't have the Holy Spirit and is not speaking by the Holy Spirit. He is a child of the devil and knows nothing of salvation. See how wrong your interpretation is.

Only Paul, an enemy of Christ all of his life, could call Christ Lord, if he had repented at this very time and called to him in faith. Thus repentance, faith and regeneration all took place at the same time.

Context is key. Why not take verse 14, look at it and see the context for understanding:
14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, (Galatians 1:14-15)
--First Paul tells them of his past as a Jew, and gives them quite a bit of detail.
--Notice the "But" in verse 15. It is a contrast to what he was just saying in the previous verses. Why? Now he is referring to election. There is no difference between the truth of this verse and this one:

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jeremiah 1:5)

That doesn't mean that either Jeremiah or Paul were regenerated in their mothers' wombs. That is a ridiculous belief. It speaks to God's election. God knew that they would be saved. God knew that they would be in his service. He even tells Ananias the same thing:

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. (Acts 9:15-16)
--He was telling Ananias what would become of Paul. He would suffer.

Paul was regenerated and saved the same way we all are--by grace through faith. You can't make the Scripture say something that it doesn't say.

 

Here is the greek to english of Galatinas 1: 15 and 16
V 15 When YET it-WELL-SEEMS THE God THE One-FROM-defining ME OUT OF-CAVITY OF-MOTHER OF-ME AND CALLing THRU THE grace OF-Him


v16 TO-FROM-COVER THE SON OF-Him IN ME THAT I-MAY-BE-WELL-MESSAGizING Him IN THE NATIONS immediately NOT I-TOWARD-UP-PLACED to-FLESH AND BLOOD

v15 As it states from above. "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,"

v16 as from above , "To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among
the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:"


Acts 9:5 greek to english "he-said YET ANY YOU-ARE Master! THE YET Master said I am JESUS WHOM YOU ARE-CHASING HARD t0-YOU TOWARD PIERCErs TO-BE-KICKING. v5 based on the above, "And he said, Who art thou,MASTER (Lord)? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:
[it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

From all this we see first that God allowed Paul to be born coming from his mothers womb. When God was pleased to call Him, to minister, Jesus came and called Paul on the road to damascus. Notice that Paul in the exchange called Jesus master, he gave him respect but was not saying you are my Lord, but who are you master that is speaking to me. Different contest from someone calling Him Lord as ruler of their life. Only those who have accepted Him and have the Holy Spirit indwelling and filling them will call Him LORD. So no where in the passage you gave us does it show that "Christ was already in Paul" it actually reveals just the opposite.

 

One question about context. Are these thoughts in the same context?

From Col. 1:18 the beginning
From 1 John 3:9 when he shall appear, we shall be like him;
From Heb. 5:9 he became the author

Was this speaking of Jesus being the beginning of what we shall be?

The resurrection of Jesus the Christ is spoken of as the birth of a new creation of man in the image of God. It is the last Adam resurrected that is in the image of God. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Borne and bear are related to birth. God became man and died and by resurrection the beginning. This resurrection is called a birth. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Begotten is a birth term. Firstborn from the dead. Firstborn is a birth term. The first begotten of the dead. Begotten is a birth term.

Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.


This is speaking of our resurrection from the dead as being a birth as children of God.

Born again is about resurrection as perfect sinless incorruptible beings in the image of the risen Christ, the beginning, into the kingdom of God. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

I do not need to know about the Greek of 1 John 3:9 trust me when we see him as he is we will be saved to sin no more.

IN Christ I love each and every one of you that post here.

 

Saul

Saul before he became Paul is a perfect example of a natural branch that was cut out for unbelief and wasn't able to enter, who was crafted back in because he did not persist in his unbelief.

 

Yeah DHK, about as absurd as murderers, adulterers, idolators, prostitutes, liars, and thieves being in the direct lineage of Christ.

 

Kyred, you deserve one of my special sausage & egg on a toasted buttered onion roll sandwiches for that bit of wisdom. Im making one now for my son before work (eggs are fresh today out from my chicken coop.)

The swiss cheese & the Zocor tablet are optional. :laugh:

 

Heheh, you just made me get up and go look in the fridge to see what kind of egg sandwich I can whup up. I believe it'll be bratz, egg and tomato on toast.....

 

I hope this won't derail the thread - I don't mean it to - but where in the bible are we told that Saul "became" Paul? He certainly didn't have a name-change on his conversion, because he still is referred to as "Saul" in Acts 13, some time after the Damascus Road event. Indeed, verse 9 of that chapter includes the words: "Then Saul, (who is also called Paul)". It doesn't say: "Then Paul (who used to be called Saul)".

We do have examples in the bible of people whose names were changed. Abram became Abraham, and Serai became Sarah, for instance.

But as far as I know, there is nothing to suggest that Saul's name was changed to Paul. Perhaps having the two names is something to do with him having dual nationality - he was a Roman as well as a Jew. "Saul" is a Jewish name, and "Paul" a Roman one.

 

This, Brother David, is worthy of "chewing" on.