Talk:Regeneration (theology)

Regeneration summary

Disputing the section being neutral. Since it isn't under the title "Evangelical," it sort of negates the entire purpose of the rest of the article, which is to discuss this theological and spiritual concept from differing viewpoints and denominational heritages, not from one biased perspective. The fact that regeneration is clearly associated with "putting faith in Christ" here ("Putting faith in Christ means that you trust him with your life, leaving your past ways of life behind, hence the term rebirth. What happens when you are reborn?") as opposed to baptismal regeneration shows how this section is anti-sacramental, and evangelical in nature.

It would not be widely accepted that regeneration is "how an individual is able to become one with Christ," which makes regeneration appear as the means to forgiveness of sins, and confuses regeneration with justification. Regeneration is the act of the Holy Spirit creating a newness of one's heart. Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Lutherans would maintain that the key to union with Christ is baptism, which can include infants, and Arminian Evangelicals, Methodists, and Pentecostals would say conscious faith, but only certain evangelicals would stipulate that the key to union with Christ is regeneration. Many of the above mentioned Christians, especially those with sacramental leanings, would disagree with statements such as "The next thing that happens to a person who undergoes regeneration through Christ is that they become a part of the body of Christ." Again, most of the church would say baptism and/or faith is what confirms someone as part of the community of God, not regeneration. Communion is the sacrament and outward sign of that spiritual identity.

To offer a differing point of view, here is Bishop Tom Wright: "Since what is true of the Messiah is true of his people (see above), all those who are ‘in the Messiah’ by baptism and faith have his death and resurrection reckoned to them so that when God looks at them he sees Calvary and Easter – and so that when they look at themselves they must learn to see those events as well, and to live accordingly. This being-in-Christ, indwelt by the Spirit, is the means by which the PRESENT declaration of ‘in the right’ truly anticipates the future one (Romans 8 etc)."

Here we see union with Christ being defined in terms of baptism and faith.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.174.176 (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 

12.197.217.226 (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.174.176 (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 

Rebirth

I changed "spiritual rebirth" to "spiritual birth". The "re" of regeneration and the "again" of "born again" is in reference to our natural birth. In regeneration, we are spiritually born, not reborn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TFOTMWWNBP (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A google shows this is relatively common (cf. also born again). Can you supply a reliable source for this definition? --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The source is the plain language of John 3:5-8. In the New King James version: Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Regeneration is being born (not reborn) of the Spirit. Spiritual birth, not rebirth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TFOTMWWNBP (talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

First, your argument as stated is based on original research, which is verboten here. Second, I think the existing text is a fair reading of the text: Jesus is saying you must be reborn (i.e., born again) and that rebirth is spiritual in nature -- hence "spiritual rebirth." Google confirms this is a common reading. Which reliable source advocates your position? --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an ambiguity in the phrase. I.E. 'Spiritual' modifies 'rebirth', but ambiguity may make it sound like there's a natural birth, a spiritual birth, then a spiritual rebirth. The Bible doesn't use "spiritual rebirth"; rather we see "born again" (rebirth), and separately, "born from above" ("spiritual" birth). >GK gennathei anothen. (Should we crack open some Bible commentaries?) Washi (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a passing thought on this discussion. I'm not sure a quote from the Bible, constitutes original research and I think over the past 2,000 years or so, it has managed to establish itself as a reliable source. I don't want to get into a debate in this forum on the authenticity of the Bible, but certainly it is as "source worthy" as any of the other sources accepted by Wikipedia. To, in effect, suggest that the Bible is an opinion book on par as the op/ed portion of a daily news paper may be, at best, a bit intellectually disingenuous. Just my two cents on the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftshore (talk • contribs) 15:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger of Born again (Christianity) into Regeneration (theology)

The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this section. The result was keep. --Knobbly (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Proposed article to be merged Born again (Christianity) Target article Regeneration (theology) Wikipedia naming conventions state that adjectives should redirect to nouns. Regeneration is the theological concept, while "born again" is a descriptor of those who have undergone regeneration (in the same way that "regenerated" is a descriptor rather than a concept). Born again (Christianity) should be merged into this article. Neelix (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC) No. No one I've ever heard of publicly talks about or uses the word "regeneration." Whereas, countless people talk about being "born again" as Christians, or "born-again Christians," or "born again in Christ." There definitely needs to be an article on Born-again Christians, so those not of that persuasion can understand exactly what their beliefs and tenets are. "Spiritual regeneration" can occur in any faith and any denomination -- Catholic, Jewish, Theosophical, Hindu, Buddhist, Sufi, Muslim, etc. "Born again" is, on the other hand, generally only applied these days to born-again Christians, to the point where the term is avoided when someone is NOT a Christian. If anything warrants changing, it's that "Born again (Christianity)" could possibly be renamed "Born again Christian." Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC) No. I agree with Softlavender. This article is about the doctrine of regeneration, which exists in every Christian theological system in some form and not all of these qualify as born-again Christianity (e.g., Roman Catholicism). And I'm a member of the mergist Wikipedians. :-) --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC) No. To move this topic into "regeneration" theology would be a disservice to the general application that the term "Born Again" Christianity has. This is a general term that crosses denominationaly boundries and so should have a stand along topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.102.254 (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC) No. The previous three posters are correct in that the entry on "Born Again" should not be merged into the entry on "Regeneration." Based on the comments linking the concept of regeneration with Calvinism, it would seem to me that if a merge needs to occur, perhaps "Regeneration" would be better merged into "Born Again" as it seems to be a more specifically defined sub-category of the Born Again principle that applies to virtually all Protestant Christian denominations. Additionally, in order to be compliant with Wikipedia naming conventions, I agree with Softlavender that "Born Again" should be renamed "Born Again Christians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.139.30 (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Yes. Being spiritually born means being given a new life in Christ: Jeremiah's "heart of flesh", being under God's grace, being saved; salvation. Since salvation is equated with being born again, then regeneration is exactly the theological concept for that state. Frankly, if any person trusts in Christ -- if Jesus is her Lord -- then she is regenerated, or a believer, or a Christian, or born again, or saved, regardless of which term, if any, she uses to define her new position. It is upon the definition of salvation that the churches tend to differ, and that discussion usually depends on the ordinances. The "born again" person would argue that any who does not trust in Christ is not regenerate; in other words, the argument is not over nomenclature but over what salvation is. I quote the statement of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention: A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. (IV. Salvation). Among their supporting versus includes John 3:3-21,36. Washi (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC) No. A BIG NO. If we regard to someone as being regenerated,we need to put this, and likewise be faithful WITH what the biblical perspective meant. The bible long ago had written this, and Jesus so has said this (JOHN 3:3), probably in order to deter from anyone adding a new experssion (Calvinisim, Catholic, etc etc.). And, to be exact in what LORD JESUS CHRIST SAID, and in BEING FAITHFUL TO WHAT THE BIBLE, HIS WORD, SAYS: (Let us look at what the Bible has to say, shall we?) John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever BELIEVES in him SHALL not perish but HAVE ETERNAL LIFE." Jesus has given us salvation. It is so freely given, then we are only required to BELIEVE IN HIM to accept this free gift and be saved from eternal dustruction. He did not even force this on us(thus many fall to hell) From this point of believing in him, we are are SAVED. Romans 3:23-25 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and (we) are JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE through the redemption that came by CHRIST JESUS. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through FAITH IN HIS BLOOD." Acts 16:30: "He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Acts 16:31: "They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." No human offering or human works are enough to/or can save us from our own sins. And so, the verses above explains that WE are JUSTIFIED(and thus saved) FREELY by beliving in Jesus Christ who, by His Blood was the lone sacrifce more than enough, and more than every human offering/sacrifice, to atone for our sins and gave us redemtion. And being free from sin---> gives us Renewal. And by accepting Jesus christ, we allow his perfect love, character, and holiness to be in our daily lives. This therefore, is the relationship in JESUS CHRIST Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. It is refreshing to know that God has given us the free gift of salvation and allows us to be guided and to walk in Christ Jesus. (But remember, we are in very corruptible bodies, and we err, so we must always repent, read his holy word, and live according to his perfect will, the FAITH IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST IS NOT A LICENSE TO SIN!) So, to those who believe in Jesus Christ that are cleansed from their sins and learn to walk and live in Christ--> ARE RENEWED 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (This gift is so freely given to us undeservingly on our part. However this is not an quick or instant spiritual miracle, it is a long process of change in character. It is a process that involves a lifetime of getting to know him and breaking down your character slowly, bit by bit according to His Will. It is a "walk." That is why we must always get to know him more, by reading the Bible more. And, by feeding ourselves with the Word of God, we grow in spiritual maturity, over time.) Finally, this renewal in 2 Cor 5:17 is given a name by Christ Jesus himself: JOHN 3:3 says "Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Jesus himself has said it, and His words are true and sovereign. That the only way to the kingdom of God is by, through Christ Jesus, Be BORN AGAIN!! And thus Jesus names those people: BORN AGAIN! (in Him) So to conclude, Born Again is not only in its own unique kind of Christianity, IT IS THE TRUE CHRISTIANITY, which is derived from the words of Jesus himself. The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this section. ni con trididomit lis mien des cratus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.235.234 (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Calvinism and Reformed Theology Calvin did NOT teach baptismal regeneration. "It is now clear how false the doctrine is which some long ago taught, and others still persist in, that by baptism we are exempted and set free from original sin, and from the corruption which was propagated by Adam to all his posterity, and that we are restored to the same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam would have had if he had maintained the integrity in which he was created." http://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xvi.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.216.194 (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)