Regeneration and the Renewing of the Holy Spirit

Is that it?????


You play God and simply dismiss the evidence and your word is final??????


Pardon us from even approaching your majesty without grovelling before you! Next time we will seek your permission as to what constittutes Bibical evidence and what does not before we come before your royal presence!:laugh:

 

Nicodemus asked if he must go back into his mother's womb AGAIN and be born. Jesus did not deny he must be born "again" but explicitly stated he must but only denied he must be born "of the flesh" AGAIN!

So clear, so simple. Paul referrred to spiritual birth in the same way Jesus did! "generation' again simply has reference to a second birth of a different kind!

 

The use of regeneration concerning the New Birth in no way implies that one was "born of the Spirit" prior to their conversion.

In fact, according to Christ, apart from Himself...man is devoid of life.

The reference contrasts physical birth with spiritual birth, it is not being spiritually born...again.

The renewing speak of the work which the Spirit Himself does, and does not reference the person upon which this effected. When our minds are renewed, we do not receive new minds.

When we are renewed, it is from a fallen state which Christ states as a condition of death, having no life, to a condition of life.

One can be born physically without having the life with which only man can be in relationship with God.

God bless.

 

In the 142 times this word is used by itself, it is translated...again. To limit this to "repetition" and then to ascribe that definition so that the idea that man was, before regeneration, spiritually born, is to give the Doctine of the New Birth a connotation that cannot beupheld by scripture.

God bless.

 

One last verse for consideration when looking at the condition of men before conversion and after:


2 Corinthians 5:17-21 (King James Version)

17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.


While some would argue what "new" means, it is clear.

There is a difference between those who are born again and those who have not been regenerated. This is a new concept, though.

God bless.

 

In your opinion did Jesus die in Adam?

 

No! Jesus was virgin born and was not born of the seed of man. I believe that the sin nature is passed down from Adam through the father. As you know every child receives genes from both the father and mother. No human father attributed genetically to the birth of Christ.

 

Three facts that no one can successfully deny:

1. Pre-fallen Adam was fully human in nature - FACT

2. Post-fallen Adam was fully human in nature - FACT

3. Therefore the presence or absence of sin cannot be demanded as necessary for Christ to be made like his brethren in all things pertaining to human nature - FACT

 

What was lost "IN Adam" is restored "IN Christ." However, there are only two births -(1) born of the flesh; (2) born of the Spirit; And the second birth is defined as being born "AGAIN" with reference to the first birth and that is the BIBLICAL CONTEXT (not pagan, Jewish or Greek) of John 3:5-7 and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it EXCEPT pervert the scritpures as is your custom to do.

No, the renewel is always placed in context with the "NEW CREATION" or "NEW CREATURE" and in contrast to the former OLD CREATION in Genesis in Adam.

This is absurdly irrational for many obvious reasons. Spiritual life is not something abstractly undefinable. "SPIRITUAL" life is life in the "SPIRIT OF GOD" and there are "FRUIT" that manifest what kind of life that is and infants and small children do not express that fruit but express the fruit of the flesh! This is as obvious as the nose on your face if you have the ability to rationally think!!!!


Second, since you believe infants do not have a fleshly nature/sin nature and only have a HOLY SPIRIT NATURE and since you believe they cannot make moral choices so you are forced to believe that the only nature they can display, express is the SPIRITUAL NATURE and therefore their whole life from the womb to age of accountability should be nothing less than what is characterized by the fruit of the Spirit!!! If you believe that then I have ocean property in Nebraska I can sell you!!!

 

When dealing with the topic of New Birth it is.

The same argument is made for the word "New" in New Covenant, trying to make the New Covenant merely the First Covenant revitalized.

Would we think that the regeneration of Titus 3:5 is a separate event discussed than that of John ch. 3?

Would we deny that the context demands that physical birth is contrasted with spiritual?

And in the sense that man (in general) is spiritually dead and in need of being made alive, he would be correct. But the minute he tries to give man life (spiritual) that he does not have, he would be in error.

If man was "born of the spirit" after physical birth, then the premise of this thread might have merit. But what is suggested is that man has a spiritual life at birth, somehow loses that, and must have it restored.

The restoration is for the event which brought man into a condition of spiritual death, the fall of man in Adam, not an individual commission of sin in the life of every man.

It is man restored, meaning man in general, not "Jerry restored," or "Darrell restored."

You miss my point. Let me put it another way, as I can see just how confusing my statement seems (even to me...lol):

Your premise implies that we are born spiritually...twice.

So when is the first spiritual birth? It can only be said of Adam, and not one single person after him. Show me the verses that counter the many that clearly state that man has not been born of the spirit, though perhaps in not those words.


Titus 3

4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,


Now, when does this speak of? Was this from creation, or would you concede that this speaks expressly of the event of the coming of the Son of God?



5Not 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;


Would I be in error to point out that the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit coincides with the ministry of Christ...and not before?

In this we see that the renewing speaks of the work of the Holy Ghost, and when was it that the new birth was made available to man? Some will argue that man has always been reborn, pointing primarily to David's plea found here:


Psalm 51

10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.


While it is true that the Holy Spirit did indeed come upon man in the Old Testament, it would make little sense for the Lord to promise sending the Comforter if the omnipresent God was merely to continue in the same ministry in which He did under the First Covenant and even before.

David is aware of his condition, as expressed here:


Psalm 51

1Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

2Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.


Does the born again believer, who has been cleansed from sin, their transgressions blotted out, washed from sin...deny that the Cross of Christ "cleanses the conscience?"

And, if there is any question as to when the renewing of the Holy Spirit began, consider:


6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;


Again, the renewing speaks of the ministry of God in the life of the individual, but this is a reference to a general fact that this was made possible through Jesus Christ our Savior.

Unless you wish to suggest that all before Christ were bereft of the opportunity to be "renewed," or that this took place before Christ came (and some do), then it is impossible for the new birth to have occurred before Christ came, or for man to be spiritually alive that he might die during his lifetime only then to need to be...restored.

They did, when it is man in general that we are talking about. The New Birth speaks specifically to the spiritual condition of man. It is the fact that he "has no life" that he is in need of being "born again."


As I said, some believe that the new birth was a possibility before the Cross and the coming of the Comforter. One primary difference between the work of God in man before the Cross is that after...it is a permanent indwelling, in which we see that in the Old, it is not, King Saul being the example.

Consider:



1 Peter 1:3

King James Version (KJV)


3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,


Is this not the new birth which the Lord tells Nicodemus is required that a man may see the kingdom of God?

Or this:


1 Peter 1:23

King James Version (KJV)

23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.


A thorough study of 1 Peter 1 should remove all doubt as to how the New Birth became possible for man.

Okay, just a few thoughts to consider, hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas.

God bless.

 

Your great at insults and you are great at attacking me personally.

However, the evidence I placed before you exposes your position for exactly what it is - absolute foolisness.

Every reader of this thread can easily see why you did not dare to respond to the evidence placed before you. You were wise to ignore it as it would make you look very foolish if you tried to respond.

 

So if a person is restored by being born of the Spirit that means that previouly he was born of the Spirit.
The New Testament is very clear about what is restored. What is restored by creation is the image of God (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).

That image was lost in Adam but restored in Christ. There is no other way to restore it but "in Christ." There is no such thing as Spiritual life OUTSIDE of Christ!

Moreover, we know exactly what that image was which was lost! The Bible tells us explicitly what was lost and what was restored. The image that was restored is TRUE HOLINESS AND RIGHTEOUSNESS:

Eph. 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Col. 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

To be "renewed" in the image of God is to have true holiness and righteousness restored in your inward man. It is to be renewed in THE KNOWLEGE" that Jesus calls eternal life in John 17:3 - "This is eternal life that they might KNOW THEE the Only true God and Jesus Christ..."

This is the nature of the new birth:

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, you are demanding that infants come into this world with saving knowledge of God through Jesus Christ with an inward man created in true holiness and righteousness and then lose this by willful sin and must be "re-generated" or reborn, recreated in the image of God at some later date.

First, no infant is born with such knowledge and it is self-evident because they must be taught who God is and who Jesus Christ is.

Second, no infant is born in true holiness and righteousness as their manifest expressions are the very opposite to true holiness and righteousness. Indeed, if they were born with true holiness and righteousness they would do righteousness by nature but the very reverse is the truth. By nature they are "children of disobedience" regardless if they are held accountable or not as that is their natural manifest behavior proved by every parent who says "no" so often that their first verbal form of expressing rebellion to their parents is the word "no".

This is such a manifest foolish doctrine that it is laughable to even consider giving any serious time and energy to refute it.

 

Here is the evidence one more! Try again!