This question is niggling at my mind.
[This is not going to be an exciting post, so I sympathize with everyone who doesn't want to count angels on pinheads (or just pinheads) right now. Catch you in a later discussion!]
First, the "so what."
I believe, and have believed for a long time now, that regeneration is the implanting into a human being the very Life of the eternal God. In various discussions and readings over the past 6 months, I have finally begun to see that I am almost alone in that definition. It has taken me a long time to figure it out, but most people believe that regeneration is the restoration of human life such that it can interact with God.
If regeneration is man's nature resurrected, then man may be able to take a first step toward God. If regeneration is God's nature implanted in man, then man can only respond to God's gift after he has received it. That's no tiny matter. It strikes at the heart of the whole free-will discussion. I believe in man's free will, and I believe that fallen man always and without exception wills to place himself above God. If regeneration is man's will resurrected, then everything I believe about free will has to be reexamined.
The thing that has blown me away over the past couple weeks is that most Calvinists seem to believe that regeneration is man's nature being resurrected. I would never have guessed that. It strikes me as bizarre and self-contradictory. But then, I'm still a diesel mechanic at heart.
I would keep this whole discussion confined to the din of my own head, but I came across this quote in a pretty stodgy book, and it jazzed me. The book is, An Absolute Sort of Certainty, The Holy Spirit and the Apologetics of Jonathon Edwards.
(Personal note for those of you still reading: I really enjoy Jonathon Edwards. I just wish I had a couple more IQ points, so I could keep up with him, and some more time so I could finish some of the things he wrote. I picked up a biography of his wife nearly 20 years ago entitled, Marriage to a Difficult Man. It was my wife's favorite theology-ish book of mine. I wonder why? :-P)
Anyway, here is the quote from the book. McClymond is one of the many people who analyzed Edwards' philosophy against his theology, and the author of this book is analyzing his analysis.
McClymond's thesis might be improved if, rather than arguing that regeneration is Edwards's epistemological foundation, he argued that revelation is its basis. Regeneration then enables one to see the truth of revelation. The epistemological foundation, however, is not the perception of revelation, but revelation itself. Both revelation and the perception of it are given by the Spirit. Likewise, the basis of certainty is not the perception that one has or the new sense, but assurance or the Spirit's witness. ...
If you didn't have to read that portion of a paragraph more than once, my hat's off to you.
This paragraph says that the new birth of a Christian does not give him the ability to "know". The Spirit's revelation gives him the ability to know. But, without the new birth, the man will be unable to see the things the Spirit is revealing. So both the light that allows us to see the truth, and the eyes that can receive the light are gifts of the same Spirit.
Postmodernists seem to hold that whatever we see is truth, even if there's nothing objectively real to be seen. They actually seem to hold that there is no truth except for what is true to each person, and there is no truth except what each person perceives. Edwards argues that there is a true God Who reveals true truth about Himself and Who makes us able to receive that truth.
This caught my eye because I have focused in on regeneration as almost standing on its own in our salvation. Regeneration and revelation operate in tandem, both by the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit reveals Christ to us, and we are able to see Him because He makes us alive.
This almost threatens to put my thesis in jeopardy, that the mechanics of regeneration open or shut the door on free-will. Oh my!
So, I have something to think about for the next few months. :-)
FWIW, I have not started digging through scripture again on this yet. Nonetheless, I will share the biggest influences on me toward believing that we are given the Life of Christ when we are born again:
+ Eve was formed from Adam. It only makes sense that we would be formed from the spiritual essence of Christ, not simply by Him.
+ A wife for Christ (God and man) of another species (human only) makes no sense to me.
+ Christ Himself was planted as a Seed, and He rose again many seeds. When that happens, kind must be after its kind.
+ Verses like 2 Pet 1:4 - Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
It will probably be months before I am ready to declare one way or the other, but it was good to chat about it a bit. Thanks for listening.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
This post made me long for those late night one on one college discussions. I'll be rereading it a few times.
If you're looking at 1) God's life growing in us and 2) our selves being resurrected -- that's one of those "which side of the coin are you looking at" things. Where's there a need for separation between the two?
CP,
If I am understanding what you are writing, this premise is based on a linear time progression. It implies that God is limited by the physics of this universe.
I think the point becomes moot when you accept that time is only something that we, as humans, are bound to.
We look and see a seed, sprout, flower in progressions. I would say that God looks and is able to see the entity and all of the essense that goes into the flower, as well as the course of its life.
As far as spiritual knowledge, I would contend that there is a line between head and Spiritual knowledge. It is the ability to hear the Holy Spirit that gives us spiritual insight. But the task is not in us getting smarter, the task is in being more in tune with the Holy Spirit.
Just some more random ponderings.
God Bless
Doug
I really admire you all for this. I would need to read and reread and reread it several times over and again!
WF,
1) God's life growing in us
This is assuming the conclusion. We are resurrected, yes, but is it actually God's Life growing in us?
How do I ask it?
Is God a kind of anti-parasite living inside of us, and feeding us? Are we indwelt by Him, and filled by Him, but still very much homosapiens?
Or, is the essence of God blended with our essence such that we are no longer what we were before?
To analogize.
We call dogs, "Man's best friend," but we all know that when we talk to them they only hear "blahblahblah SPOT blahblahblah SPOT."
So, if we were to actually do some magic to make a dog our peer, what would it be? Would we place a "human to dog" translating device in the dog, or would we make the dog able to think in "human"?
Obviously the latter.
If the dog did not think in human, it would be able to understand us say that it needs to take a bath, but it still would have no clue why. If we made it think in human, it would come to us asking for a bath.
The question could be expressed as wondering how deeply God indwells us.
I don't see this as a 2-sides issue at all.
If I am understanding what you are writing, this premise is based on a linear time progression.
I did mention that the outcome of this discussion would influence my take on God's workings within time, but this question has nothing to do with time. I am wondering what the mechanics of regeneration is. I don't primarily care when it happens or who moves first, though there are some secondary effects in that arena that interest me greatly.
We look and see a seed, sprout, flower in progressions.
But we know God does not indwell flowers. If He did, the question would be whether that flower was still living out only a flower's life with God's help, or God's life in a flower's body.
I would contend that there is a line between head and Spiritual knowledge.
No argument. Can there be Spiritual knowledge held in a merely human container, or must the essence of God be placed in us to hold that knowledge?
CP,
I don't primarily care when it happens or who moves first, though there are some secondary effects in that arena that interest me greatly.
But if free will is to be free will, then there must be a choice made by us first. So I think that time and order do matter (to us) and to your point of contention.
Flowers:
God is the creator of all things, so his Spirit dwells wherever He wants. God may not, but it is clear the the Spirit does... so God does.
Scripture says He can dwell in living things or in non-living things. I think that there is a set of scriptures in I Kings about how God Spirit slowly left the temple. It said something to the effect that it lingered at the doorway for a while, then completely left the bulding (like Elvis). The scipture also says that He chooses to dwell in the hearts of men. It is God's choice to do this, but this doesn't say that this is the only place He dwells.
Remember when Jesus cast the demon's out of Legion into a herd of swine? Here a spiritual entity (demons, not God), asked Jesus if they could dwell in something else. Not a man, but pigs. Needless to say spiritual entities can clearly dwell in non-humans.
Do you mean soul's: Our eternal component? Flowers obviously don't have souls.
Man, regeneration, God's spirit in living creatures... this is sounding more and more eastern with every comment. I better check the ice below my feet and make sure I can't see flowing water. ;)
God Bless
Doug
But if free will is to be free will, then there must be a choice made by us first.
Again, DugALug, this is assuming the conclusion. For purposes of this discussion, I don't see where one definition or another of free will can be postulated. I see free will differently than you do, so your argument is not persuasive to me.
but this doesn't say that [the human heart] is the only place He dwells. ... Flowers obviously don't have souls.
You brought up seeds, sprouts and flowers. I was trying to bring the point back to God's indwelling and how it happens.
Man, regeneration, God's spirit in living creatures... this is sounding more and more eastern with every comment. I better check the ice below my feet and make sure I can't see flowing water. ;)
I see the winky face, but I honestly don't know whether the entire paragraph is intended as a joke, or only the last sentence. Are you concerned that these thoughts are in some way pagan?
If the dog did not think in human, it would be able to understand us say that it needs to take a bath, but it still would have no clue why. If we made it think in human, it would come to us asking for a bath.
I'm still trying to see where the pieces lie in your framework but let's go with Fido for the moment. So Fido has just had his Human Image Implant. He's feeling torn between two worlds. Does he reach adult human maturity instantly, or does he begin like a baby still needing someone to explain why he needs a bath, but at least perceiving himself as of the same type of being as the bather (as long as the bather isn't over 40)?
So I'd switch the analogy from dog-and-human to child-and-parent. Kids don't get it all at once, even though they have the fully human nature of the parent it's not a fully mature nature.
Diving in. Hoping not to drown.
From what I gather it’s like this I was born with God’s love in me because He was with me before I came to this earth. I then, because of free will disregarded His love and sinned.. I then realized I was going to hell if I didn’t stop taking the wrong road. I regenerated His love in me by excepting Him. It wasn’t His love that need regenerated but my love for Him, thus regenerating Him in me.
Am I close to the shore line?
CP,
Are you concerned that these thoughts are in some way pagan?
Relax diesel man, I was just pointing out that these topics, are usually in discourses between eastern religions and Christianity. I wasn't commenting on the content. This is great stuff... with no winky face here.
I see free will differently than you do
How do I see free will? The words seem pretty self-defining to me. I'm curious.
I was trying to bring the point back to God's indwelling and how it happens.
And I was trying to point out that God dwells where He chooses. Do you mean you were trying to point back to God's indwelling in man? I'm confused.
Oh I forgot one more point, I don't believe God's life grows in us. God's life is fully grown, it is we who adapt to His indwelling. As we grow, we are more in tune with God's Spirit that chooses to reside in us: we have allowed Him to take control of our life. We can even choose to evict God from our hearts... hence the scriptures in James and Peter's insight in Acts 3 about apostasy. You can also tie this to the scriptures in Romans about God giving them over to the 'desires of their hearts'.
God Bless
Doug
WF,
So I'd switch the analogy from dog-and-human to child-and-parent.
I chose dogs because they are social, but not human. They think enough like us to be accepted by us, but they are clearly not us.
So it is between God and man. We are spiritual, but not divinely spiritual. Unsaved humans have a completely different category of spiritual needs than God. Babies have the same categories of needs as adults, just not the same capacities.
So what does that mean for regeneration?
Fido either gets a Human Image Implant, or he gets a Human Translator Implant.
What if Fido's sin nature were erased completely, and he got a Translator? What then? You would have the perfect dog. Whenever you gave a command, he would know what he should do, and since he was sinless, he would obey. But Fido would still be a dog. He would not have magically become someone with whom you could share your heartaches. He would not be a friend, and certainly not anything more than that.
Fido needs the Image Implant if he is going to be my friend.
He's feeling torn between two worlds. Does he reach adult human maturity instantly, or does he begin like a baby
Just like a baby. No one has to teach a baby how to cry or how to giggle, but he has to be taught how to love. Certain spiritual acts come naturally to us from day one, but mature acts are learned the hard way.
It would be easier, I think, if we stayed merely human, and got the universal translator for God's thoughts. Instead, we have to mature into seeing and understanding His world from His perspective.
The benefit of the Image Implant that I am now questioning is that it makes more sense for a bride to be of the same essence as her Bridegroom. (Of course, as I answer each question, I become a bit less questioning of my original opinion, but that's life.)
(as long as the bather isn't over 40)?
Cruel, I say!
CP,
you said to WF:
Is God a kind of anti-parasite living inside of us, and feeding us? Are we indwelt by Him, and filled by Him, but still very much homosapiens?
Or, is the essence of God blended with our essence such that we are no longer what we were before?
Or... were we designed, from the beginning to accomodate God's indwelling. I can't help but think that we were designed with this functionality in mind.
God Bless
Doug
Diving in. Hoping not to drown.
There's no fear in knowing the Lord! Of course, you are not exactly timid. :-)
I was born with God’s love in me because He was with me before I came to this earth. I then, because of free will disregarded His love and sinned.
In Adam all sinned (Romans 5) and because of that, we were all born sinners. (Ps 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.) So, God loved me before I was born, but I did not so love Him. I was born in passive rebellion against God, and by my free will soon entered into active rebellion against Him.
I then realized I was going to hell if I didn’t stop taking the wrong road.
Because of the work of the Holy Spirit.
I regenerated His love in me by excepting Him. It wasn’t His love that need regenerated but my love for Him, thus regenerating Him in me.
Amen! about His love not needing regeneration. Very cool.
You add a third thought to the mix here. That it might only be our love that needs to be regenerated.
Whatever regeneration is needed, we know that it is the work of God, and not of ourselves. So, can God simply regenerate our love to cause us to be born from above? I don't think so, because the bible is pretty clear that we were dead in our sins. But it is worth a look, because "dead" is a funny word. It's hard to be sure exactly what it means. I have heard and like the definition, "separated." If we go with that definition, then love might be the cure for death.
DugALug,
Lunch is over, but I'll be back!
Ps 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
If taken (I move with caution here) literally yes we are born with sin. However, (I slap a title on me, You know I hate it) as a COC I don’t think that’s it. I believe It means we are born with a sinful nature because we are born in a sinful place-earth with freewill.
(Man this would have been a great late night college moment.:-}
DugALug,
How do I see free will?
I am always nervous quoting you, because I seem to get your meaning wrong so often. Still,...
But if free will is to be free will, then there must be a choice made by us first. The words seem pretty self-defining to me. I'm curious.
Many people take "free will" as something laid out in the scripture in so many words. It is not. It is a derived doctrine. So when most people postulate that free will must exist, and then base their doctrines of sovereignty upon their doctrine of free will, they are making a logical mistake that often results in practical mistakes.
So, yes, the words you use are self-defining, but they are not used in scripture. Your statement seems to sound as if you are postulating what free will is, rather than questioning it. I simply believe that its meaning should be built, not assumed.
My definition of free will differs from what I believe yours to be in that I believe that we are free only to be fallen humans. I believe you would call this no real freedom at all. I believe we exercise our free will every day by doing what fallen humans do - rejecting God over and over and over. I believe you would say that man can and does choose God, that someone does every day.
That brings us back to the question at hand.
I don't believe God's life grows in us. God's life is fully grown, it is we who adapt to His indwelling.
It sounds to me as if you believe that we have the Translator implanted in us. That we hear God's will and reasons, and adapt to them as we grow, but that we do it as human beings growing better at doing the things that please God.
Or... were we designed, from the beginning to accomodate God's indwelling. I can't help but think that we were designed with this functionality in mind.
Both options I have put on the table require this to be true. We were definitely designed to be alive toward God, and to have Him indwell us. That is not at question. The question is whether He dwells alongside our spirits, or whether the Life we live is actually, in its very essence, the Life of God.
Are we humans indwelt by God, or is our essence changed and then we are still indwelt by God. Does regeneration make us able to trust the divine nature, or does it give us the divine nature? The indwelling is a given. It's how we interact with Him Who indwells us that is rolling around in my head.
(Man this would have been a great late night college moment.:-}
I probably should have outgrown those, but as long as someone will play I'm still here. :-)
I believe It means we are born with a sinful nature because we are born in a sinful place-earth with freewill.
I put a lot of stock by the statement that everything produces kind after its kind. Adam was spiritually dead, so I don't believe that he can give spiritual life to anything. The children that Adam and Eve bore were born separated from God.
I can see some ways in which it doesn't matter, but for this discussion it really does. If a man was born alive toward God and then separated himself by sin, then he might be able to turn back to God for mercy. That would mean that a man can be alive toward God without the indwelling of God, and I cannot buy that from scripture.
Adam and Eve were not yet alive toward God, even before they sinned. This has to be true, or God would not have needed to plant a Tree of Life, and He would not have profited by keeping man away from it. Adam was NEVER alive to God. He was sinless for a little while, but that doesn't mean that he was regenerated.
Adam and Eve died that day, but they were never truly alive in the first place.
CP,
I am always nervous quoting you, because I seem to get your meaning wrong so often.
Don't worry compadre. You live in Ohio, outside of Columbus no less, and that automatically makes you my friend. You know I have no fear clarifying and/or running off in a serpentine pattern. Apparently I do the same to you. At least you know that you are alive.
So, yes, the words you use are self-defining, but they are not used in scripture.
Oh contrair mon frare: In Exodus, and Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronmy, the idea of a freewill offering is introduced. There is nothing that needs to be inferred. God said to bring the offering of your choice before him. Here is one of the versus in Leviticus:
Leviticus 22:23 NIV
23 You may, however, present as a freewill offering an ox or a sheep that is deformed or stunted, but it will not be accepted in fulfillment of a vow.
Old testament scriptures like this are archetypes. Freewill is derived from the gift from God references in the NT. Here is one:
Ephesians 2:8-10 (NKJV)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
The meaning is clear, and there is little need for any extreme extrapolation. Not too much building to do.
We are free to recieve or reject God's gift of salvation. We are free to allow God to 'dwell' within our hearts or not.
The gift motif is reiterated many times (I think Paul really liked it).
Technically you're view of freewill is correct. We are either heading to or away from God, so as fallen humans we are choosing a course that invites or rejects God.
I believe that we are designed with a place that is empty that only God can fill. We are designed to accomodate God's indwelling. I don't think it is like a Universal Translator, it is more like power assist on your car. When you would hydroplane the steering would get all loose. Over a gravel roads, the steering gets squirrely. You can choose to ignore the feedback that the road 'tells' you but it is a better plan to listen to what the wheel is 'telling' you.
God Bless
Doug
Online at the same time. Pretty cool.
You may, however, present as a freewill offering an ox or a sheep that is deformed or stunted, but it will not be accepted in fulfillment of a vow.
Praise the Lord for the freewill offering. It is probably educational that our freewill offerings can be deformed and still accepted. Very cool.
I would note 1) there is no definition here of what free will is, and 2) a free will offering can only be offered after all the other sacrifices have been done. Until Christ has paid the price for our sins, and we have been made clean, etc. there is no place for the freewill offering.
My definition of free will after salvation is that we do what children of God do. Before we were saved, our free will always led us to reject God. After we are saved, our free will always leads us to turn to Him. Hence, this offering seems to affirm the constrained will position.
Ephesians 2:8-10 (NKJV)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Honestly, DugALug, I have never heard anyone suggest that these three verses assert free will.
I usually here these verses commented something like this:
By God's grace (apart from our free will) God has saved us by faith (which came not from us, but from God) not because of any work we have done (like changing our minds) but because God created us in Christ (according to His eternal plan) for good works (that we didn't even decide to do, but rather that He planned for us.)
This verse is usually accepted as a bastion of the predestinationist crowd. I am curious how you see it.
I don't think it is like a Universal Translator, it is more like power assist on your car.
Much, much more palatable analogy than my Universal Translator. It is almost exactly what I mean when I talk about the Translator positionme, too. God is under the hood alongside us, and teaching us what to do.
It loses me only because I cannot come up with a comparable analogy in the same genre for the Image position.
I'm confused by this
Adam and Eve were not yet alive toward God, even before they sinned.
Milly,
I'm confused by this
Adam and Eve were not yet alive toward God, even before they sinned.
It's not something that 99% of Christians have heard, nor that 98% of Christians would accept.
DugALug keeps talking about man being designed to contain God. Adam and Eve were created alive in their bodies, and alive in their souls, but empty in their spirits - dead. They were ready to come alive, but they were not alive yet.
Moses records that God placed an angel with a flaming sword at the entrance of the garden to keep man from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life. Maybe that was because the Tree of Life could have undone the physical effects of sin-induced death. I don't believe that even comes close. The Tree of Life contained - contains - the power of regeneration in its fruit.
When Jesus came, He declared that He was the Vine (Tree). In the Revelation, John describes that Vine Tree. It only makes sense to me that these Trees are all the same Tree. That first Tree in Eden did not just "go away." That cherubim continues to guard it. It's still waiting somewhere.
I believe that had Adam and Eve eaten of the Tree of Life, they would have experienced the same thing in their whole beings that we experience in our spirits when we accept Christ. They would have been "saved" or "born again" or "born from above", but it would have happened not just to their spirits like it does in us, but in their bodies and souls too.
Like I said. This is not a common Christian belief, but it seems pretty clear to me.
CP,
Sigh, I just lost my whole comment. Okay let me try this again:
Your points are pretty good CP, let me try to break this Ephesians thing down:
8 For by grace {Of God, it was God's choice to bestow this} you have been saved through faith {a deliberate act of free will, our acceptance is our choice}, and that not of yourselves{we are unable to save ourselves}; it is the gift of God {freely given to all who choose to accept it},
9 not of works{the gift cannot be earned, it is given based on our willingness to receive it}, lest anyone should boast {It is not for the elite, or a special person it is offered to all}.
10 For we are His workmanship {humans were His special and by designed were made the way they were}, created in Christ Jesus for good works {we are equipped and have the capacity to do good workd}, which God prepared beforehand {God prepared what would be defined as good works beforehand}that we should walk in them {by doing this beforehand we are able to know what is good and choose to do them}.
The word Predestined is in the bible, but I take it to mean the litmus by which we are judged has been pre-determined. Ephesians basically says. God predestined, us, In Him (aka Christians), to be spotless and without blame.
Christianty was his litmus, not individuals. The fact that He already knows my decision is arbitrary to us, but it explains why it has already been taken into account in His master plan. I neither make Calvanists happy or Arminians...lol
You are also right that we don't see eye to eye on free will. Free will is the soveriegn entity which resides in us. By design, God has given this untouchable place, where we must, by faith, accept or reject Him.
Side note: I see the Adam/Eve discussions. I think I see a flaw in your view concerning them.
Adam and Eve were created alive in their bodies, and alive in their souls, but empty in their spirits - dead. They were ready to come alive, but they were not alive yet.
The word used in Genesis for their creation is translated 'God-Breathed'. It is the same word used in Ezekial concerning His vision of the dried bones, it also used in Isiah concerning the Holy Spirit. The word literally means His Spirit within.
I believe that Adam and Eve were born spiritually alive. It was their choice to eat from the tree of knowledge that made the chasm between us and God. It was their act of free will, that made the need for God to offer the gift of salvation. Hense the wages of sin is death and the serpent's lie is brought to light.
Adam and Eve were the first souled entities to walk the earth, and Genesis also tells us that they walked with God. The breaking of this communion set the course for mankind and the condition we are now in.
God Bless
Doug
Cdepoke,
I may not exactly be timid. I do have issues with not, let’s just say I have issues. I will need to read this again. I appreciate that you pointed out that not all see things the way that you do. It helps us to see it better. And that you are willing to say how you see them. I try to say how I feel I know not everyone agrees. Not being exactly raise in a church or with a Bible in my hand I feel at times as if I’m a new learner. That’s a warning to those around me. I ask a lot of questions at times and say stuff like SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURE.
Any who thanks!
So back to your original question: is regeneration God's nature implanted in man, or man's nature resurrected? Well, why would man's nature need to be resurrected, and what was it? Man's nature was the image of God. It was a Nature Implant, not just a Translator Chip, that died. It is a Nature Implant, not a Translator Chip, that is back after regeneration.
Isn't it cool how we can read the Bible and get different meanings and views? :-} I love that we can all discuss this kind of stuff.
:-} I know you folks do too.
Comforting to find agreement. Thank you.
It's still disconcerting to find that the guy I'm reading about Edwards seems to believe that Edwards did not believe that the divine nature was implanted in us at regeneration. In due time I will read Edwards himself, but in the last several months I have heard this over and over again.
Patience, Kevin, patience.
Amen, Milly - and be passionate about the same Lord.
I liked this ...
Edwards argues that there is a true God Who reveals true truth about Himself and Who makes us able to receive that truth.
... because Jesus is the True Truth and this is the heart of the gospel ... or maybe it is because I like the name Edwards :)
Post a Comment