Christians have debated this topic for centuries and this article will not change anyone's mind.
I hope however it will cause you to think through the text and believe the text of Scripture how God has given it to us through the pen of human writers without imposing theological concepts or adjectivally bound terms upon the text.
Before hitting extensive word studies I would like to consider several test cases. They are common historical scenarios in the Biblical text for daily Bible readers. Probably even from a Sunday School lesson.
For purposes of this shore article I will take up the third chapter of the gospel of John. This article is only summarizing the primary arguments used from this text. The scenario is a Pharisee named Nicodemus coming to have a conversation with Jesus at night (John 3:1-2).
I would like to suggest that Christ's conversation with Nicodemus has two elements. First, the theological concept of the "new birth" (vv. 3-8) and faith (vv. 9-21). Second, I don't have time to discuss all the details here (you would probably get bored and stop reading) so I'll hit some of the main points to help in this issue.
Concerning regeneration, first, notice the parallel Jesus makes between verses three and five.
(v. 3) Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(v. 5) Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
As you read people's notes and comments see what parallel they make between the two verses. Do they refer to one event (hendiadys, fancy word,"two nouns linked with conjuncton"), two events, perhaps even some including water baptism or spiritual baptism.
Second, is the focus on inability to actually give physical birth to yourself or any other kind of birth. Notice Nicodemus took him literally (v. 4).
Verses 2, 3, 5, and 8 are used to show that the new birth is incapable by human beings. This is absolutely true. This birth is caused by the Holy Spirit, "born of the Spirit" (vv. 6, 8). The spirit when it is at work cannot be seen but you can witness its presence "thou hearest the sound thereof" (v. 8).
Third and finally, both these clauses contain the verb "is." The verb actually occurred in the past (perfect tense) and this verb has results which continue on into the future. Included in this is the idea that the verb is (passive) meaning the subject of the verb was acted upon. For example, the ball has been thrown. The ball did not throw itself. Someone else threw the ball. Note the verb tense in relation "is born of the flesh" (perfect tense) also.
If the viewing of text stopped here one would walk away thinking man has no responsibility at all. I would agree with you. In fact based on the clauses and verbs mentioned man is not able to do anything in this "born again" idea. Again, we are in hardy agreement. However the context does not stop here at verse eight. There is another side to this that I find often missing which is to be addressed in the next article "faith/believing" Funny thing is that the multiple sides of this debate see these facts too!
However the emphasis becomes important as it touches on other doctrines such as sanctification (progressive especially), perseverance/preservation, and theology proper to name a few.
Questions to ponder:
1. If the new birth is done/accomplished by God, when in your life did it happen? eternity past?
2. For those who believe the theological concept (regeneration/effectual calling) has to occur prior to human responsibility, what actual exegetical-basis is the found in John 3? (Please note: the question is not whether you believe divine sovereignty and human responsibility are both true nor is the question whether you believe the Bible teaches regeneration/effectual calling).
3. Depending on how you answer #1 and #2, would you be willing to say the order of priority is based on a previously determined theology? (Note: the question is not whether systematic theology is okay).
4. Is it possible to admit both are true (paradox), without knowing exactly when or how they fit together? (Yes other texts found in other contexts will be addressed in time).
Hope this helps some. Comments encouraged especially if including extra grammatical points enforcing the idea of divine sovereignty in the new birth.
No comments:
Post a Comment