Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death

[Bill Taylor]

Please tell me, though, if you can the answer to my question: How is one regenerated if one was not dead in the first place? Thanks for your patience.  izzy   I will do that, Izzy, as best I can, but I would like to first address something else you said, and then use that as a segue into a discussion of regeneration and what it means to be "born again." You wrote that you were not confused at all until you got into this conversation and that I seem to take the simple and make it confusing. I am sorry that you feel that way, and I assure you that I am not trying to complicate things that are intrinsically simple. I also know that I am not as good a communicator as I want to be and ought to be, and so I keep trying to better my skills in that area and admit in the meantime my deficiencies.   There is a proverb which says that one story sounds true until it is challenged by another (Pro 18.17). I think that is what's happening here. You have heard and used this language of spiritual death and regeneration and born again for a very long time, and since so many Christians hold beliefs similar to the ones you hold, yours have pretty much stood unchallenged; hence they seemed simple and self evident to you. Then some guy comes along and speaks to these terms from a different vantage point and suddenly it seems that he has complicated and confused the issues. Well, on the one hand, I have complicated matters: I am working from one set of presuppositions and you another. My thoughts don't easily fit in your box. In order for you to understand me, you are required to think out of the box. And that is always difficult to say the least. But as long as you attempt to fit my thoughts into your paradigm, they will seem complex and confused. And so you may never make sense of them. You may not even want to. But on the other hand, they are not complicated or confusing to me. And this because they are my thoughts; they fit comfortably within my working paradigm.   It seems to me that the thing that matters most to you, is this: which "story" best addresses biblical issues? That is a good place to be and it is certainly an important consideration from my paradigm as well. I happen to think, however, with my background and interest in matters of theological and historical significance, that I am probably a little better equipped to consider these issues from a broader context, than perhaps you are or some of the others may be. This is not a criticism of you or the things which matter to you, but neither is it an apology on my part. I am who I am because God has designed me this way. It is important to me to be able to give consistent, cogent answers where others have failed. And I think in many instances I am able to do this. God has graced me with an ability to take multiple positions into consideration and then work them toward a synthesis, which addressees both the positives and the negatives of the various positions. I think this is part of what it means to be gifted a "teacher."    As it pertains to the question of "regeneration" and being "born again," the church, and especially the "rivalist" church in America since the early 19th c., has done much to shift the emphasis of these terms away from their biblical root and source in Jesus Christ, to the activities of individual believers. With this shift has developed a whole new and biblically foreign way of speaking about matters pertaining to salvation. Much stress has been placed on the "new birth" as an immediate life-changing religious experience. David touched upon this in his discussion with you in regards to "the sinners prayer" and the vacancy of that practice in the New Testament witness.   The language of "regeneration" is a great case in point. Contemporary Christians use this term to speak of the "conversion experience" and what happens in that event, as if it were often used in the NT in this same capacity; when in actual fact the term is used only twice and neither time in reference to conversion or "born again" experiences. The truth is, the NT does not use the term, as modern evangelicals do, for that which goes on in the "heart" of new converts. It speaks only in terms of the great and vicarious regeneration which took place in Jesus Christ in his resurrection, as something which God alone in the Holy Spirit through Christ did for humanity, and it speaks to the last day when the twelve will sit in judgment over Israel, and when all things shall be made new and rewards granted to those who have forsaken all to follow Christ. Yet we are accustomed to using this term in an entirely different way -- in a way that I would suggest has minimal if any referential correspondence to our conversion experience.   Now let's talk about "born again" and what that means in the context in which it was used. The same word that is translated as "again" in John 3.3 and 3.7, is used also in John 3.31. But in 3.31 it is translated not as "again" but as "from above": "He who comes from above is above all ..." I believe that this is how John's word needs to be understood in verses 3 and 7, and this even though Nicodemus misinterprets Jesus' use of the word. How could Nicodemus make this mistake? In the Greek this word can mean several things; it can mean "from the beginning"; or "from the first"; or "from above"; or "anew" or "again." Nicodemus understood Jesus to be saying that he needed to be born "again"; therefore his question about returning a second time to his mother's womb. But Jesus was not speaking of being born a second time; he was speaking about being born "from above"; hence his reply that it takes both a physical birth and a birth of the Spirit to be one who is "born from above."    How does this Spirit birth take place? Well, first of all (and this is the main thrust of the passage), Jesus is the only one who was uniquely born "from above." Nicodemus needed to get that point. He had come to Jesus saying that it was obvious that he had "come from God." Yet it was the Jews, and the Pharisees in particular (Nicodemus being one himself), who were having great difficulties believing that Jesus could actually be the Christ, in particular the Son of God. They accused him of blasphemy and even tried to stone him for making this claim. In the exchange with Nicodemus, Jesus is stressing the point that he did in fact "come from God"; that he himself is the one who was born both of flesh and the Spirit, and as such this "Son of Man" (a title with Messianic overtones) was the only one who could fit the bill as having come from God. In fact Jesus even stated that he was present "in heaven," at the very time of his discussion with Nicodemus (3.13).   Secondly, Jesus also said to Nicodemus not to marvel that "You all must be born from above" (3.7; the second person pronoun is plural). This confused Nicodemus who questioned how that could be (3.9), a question to which Jesus did not give a direct answer; this because that was tertiary to his main intent. Rather than answer him directly, Jesus chastised him for his earthly point of view, and chose instead to speak not of heavenly things but of his pending death, and why he had been sent into the world, for the inclusion of others in eternal life through belief in him. The evidence that mine is the correct interpretation of Jesus' intent, that he sought to establish himself in Nicodemus' mind as the one who had been "born from above," is confirmed in John's summary statement: "He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all" (Joh 3.31).   And so, if we can gather anything through this exchange, we ought to conclude that this "born again" phenomenon is not nearly so clear cut and simple as we have been taught to believe. Jesus does not say exactly how it is that the "all" were to be born from above. Those questions are addressed more clearly in the epistles, those of Paul especially. Paul speaks explicitly to the fact that it was "together with Christ" that his readers were "quickened" out of death. As you know, I believe these references to death to be metaphorical of his readers' lost condition in trespasses and sin and their inability to remedy the situation, and not to a literal spiritual death. It was by their inclusion in Christ in his death (see 2Cor 5.14) that they were able to share in newness of life in his resurrection. It was in the resurrection that they had been "born from above." Just as Jesus had been raised to life by the Holy Spirit, the first-born from the dead, so too had they been "born" of the Spirit in him. Jesus had taken their corrupt humanity in his Incarnation; there he sanctified it, cleansed it, justified it, and redeemed it, giving it new birth in his death and resurrection. In other words, their new birth is what had taken place in the resurrection of Jesus Christ himself, so that when Paul spoke of their quickening, he was referring to the "regeneration" of humanity (cf. Tit 3.4-7) brought about by Jesus in and through himself on their behalf.   How were they "regenerated" if they were not dead in the first place? They were dead, Izzy, in the depravity of their fallen condition. They could do nothing of themselves to address the fact that they were doomed. In that disparaging state Christ came and took upon himself their curse, humanity's curse, ultimately defeating it at the cross and in resurrection. When he rose again, he arose victorious over everything which had served to destroy humanity: sin, death, the devil, flesh, even God's Law. Now on the other side of all of that, he reigns in life eternal, without the possibility of falling captive ever again to the tyrants.    We too were raised in his resurrection. Paul tells us that Christ re-gathered all things (Eph 1.10) and that in him all things have their being or ontological status (Col 1.17); and it was together with him that we were quickened (Eph 2.5; Col 2.13). Indeed, we may know that everything which happened to Christ in his humanity, happened for us in ours. When he rose again from the dead, we rose with him in newness of life. This is what is pictured in Baptism. It is not just your spirit that is baptized -- dead, buried, and resurrected -- it is your whole person, your entire self. The Izzy that you see when you look in the mirror is yet full of corruption, but the real Izzy, the ontological you, has been raised out of death, quickened with life and hid with Christ in God, waiting to be revealed on the last day.     Izzy, I hope this was helpful, not in so much that I think it will change your mind, but in order that you might be able to better understand where I am coming from. Thanks for being patient with me. I know this was long but I felt it important to first establish a basis before my answer.   May God richly bless you,   Bill