Hi Steve,
This question is in reference to my other question on the baptism of the Spirit in http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=57
I was reading your answer and remembered a verse that talked about regeneration which I looked up.
Titus 3:4-7 (NKJV)
But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
It seems that there is only one verse in the NT that talks about regeneration. (There is also Matthew 19:28, but from the context, appears to be referring to a particular time frame rather than the act of regeneration.)
My questions:
1. What does "regeneration" mean?
2. This next question assumes that regeneration means conversion (from your reply in the other topic). It appears from these verses that conversion/regeneration comes from the Holy Spirit being poured out on us. Is this pouring out of the Holy Spirit referring to the Holy Spirit baptism?
3. Also is it possible that the conversion episode could be twofold, i.e. firstly, a person confesses Christ as Lord (as the human part of the process and the initiating event), followed by the divine part which is the giving of the Holy Spirit. This could also explain the events in Acts 8, where the Samaritans first believed but did not possess the Holy Spirit till Peter came to them and also, in Acts 19, where Paul baptises them in water and then later baptises them in the Spirit (so that they can then possess the Spirit). What I mean is this: can we initiate the salvation process by confessing/believing that Christ is Lord, and not possess the Holy Spirit till we are actually baptised in the Spirit?
Is Spirit Baptism a part of Regeneration?
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
Is Spirit Baptism a part of Regeneration?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Grace and peace,
Benjamin Ho
Benjamin Ho
Benjamin,
These are very perceptive questions, and I can only answer them according to my limited insight into this matter, though I would not think it appropriate to be dogmatic.
First, though regeneration is not a word used very often in scripture, its meaning would seem to justify taking it as synonymous with what is elsewhere referred to by expressions like "born again", "begotten again," "becoming sons of God," "passing from death to life", "being raised up together [from death] with Christ," "receiving eternal life", etc. That is, it would speak of the transition from being dead in sin to becoming alive in Christ.
Second, yes, this is effected by the Holy Spirit, and occurs because of the coming of the Holy Spirit into the life of the one who repents and believes. Is this the same thing as the "baptism in the Holy Spirit"? I would have no objection to making this identification, as many others do, except that I do not necessarily see the equasion in scripture.
It is correct, as you observed, that the passage in Titus mentions regeneration in the same sentence with the Holy Spirit being "poured out on us." Paul says that we have been regenerated by the "renewing of the Holy Spirit," but mentions the Spirit being poured out in a separate clause, which could possibly be referring to a separate benefit. I would agree that the latter expression is to be identified with the baptism in the Spirit, but it is not obvious to me that Paul is saying that the one event (being renewed by the Holy Spirit) was effected by the other (the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon us). It could be that this is the case. On the other hand, if Paul and Titus, and most of the Christians they knew, had experienced both regeneration and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, even if these two events were not considered to be identical or simultaneous, the verse could as well have been worded as it is, I think.
Your third question would get the hackles up on a Calvinist, who would argue that no one could possibly repent and believe in Christ unless and until the the Holy Spirit had already regenerated him. However, I can't rule out your suggestion entirely, except that it seems to imply that a person can repent and believe, and for a while afterward still not belong to Christ. I confess that I find this difficult—since "if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Rom.8:9). I am under the impression that repentance and faith bring us into new life through the Holy Spirit and into God's family, though the more dynamic power of the Holy Spirit may, for reasons unknown to me, be witheld in some cases until a later point in the believer's life.
I am sure there is room in the family for more than one opinion about this.
These are very perceptive questions, and I can only answer them according to my limited insight into this matter, though I would not think it appropriate to be dogmatic.
First, though regeneration is not a word used very often in scripture, its meaning would seem to justify taking it as synonymous with what is elsewhere referred to by expressions like "born again", "begotten again," "becoming sons of God," "passing from death to life", "being raised up together [from death] with Christ," "receiving eternal life", etc. That is, it would speak of the transition from being dead in sin to becoming alive in Christ.
Second, yes, this is effected by the Holy Spirit, and occurs because of the coming of the Holy Spirit into the life of the one who repents and believes. Is this the same thing as the "baptism in the Holy Spirit"? I would have no objection to making this identification, as many others do, except that I do not necessarily see the equasion in scripture.
It is correct, as you observed, that the passage in Titus mentions regeneration in the same sentence with the Holy Spirit being "poured out on us." Paul says that we have been regenerated by the "renewing of the Holy Spirit," but mentions the Spirit being poured out in a separate clause, which could possibly be referring to a separate benefit. I would agree that the latter expression is to be identified with the baptism in the Spirit, but it is not obvious to me that Paul is saying that the one event (being renewed by the Holy Spirit) was effected by the other (the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon us). It could be that this is the case. On the other hand, if Paul and Titus, and most of the Christians they knew, had experienced both regeneration and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, even if these two events were not considered to be identical or simultaneous, the verse could as well have been worded as it is, I think.
Your third question would get the hackles up on a Calvinist, who would argue that no one could possibly repent and believe in Christ unless and until the the Holy Spirit had already regenerated him. However, I can't rule out your suggestion entirely, except that it seems to imply that a person can repent and believe, and for a while afterward still not belong to Christ. I confess that I find this difficult—since "if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Rom.8:9). I am under the impression that repentance and faith bring us into new life through the Holy Spirit and into God's family, though the more dynamic power of the Holy Spirit may, for reasons unknown to me, be witheld in some cases until a later point in the believer's life.
I am sure there is room in the family for more than one opinion about this.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
Dear Steve,
Thanks for your candidness. I'm struggling to understand this concept of indwelling (assuming that indwelling refers to the Spirit's presence in us when we are converted) and baptism of the Spirit. Previously I took them as a single event till I heard your teaching that they were two separate events. Trouble is I find it hard to explain this concept using scripture to my small group members even though they believe that these are two separate events (their reasoning comes more from their personal experiences). I'm starting to wonder whether I should just be pragmatic and experience the experience myself (so to speak) rather than trying to work out the Scripture and semantics behind the baptism of the Spirit.
Anyway, I just wanted to discuss John 20:22. This is one of the verses that is sometimes used in support of the two separate events of indwelling and baptism/filling. This is the incident where Christ (after His resurrection) breathes on the apostles to impart on them the Holy Spirit. This obviously is a separate event from the actual baptism of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in Acts 2. However, I don't see how John 20:22 has to do with the indwelling of the Spirit at the time of conversion because the context from John 20:21-23 suggests that Jesus is commissioning His disciples rather than confirming their salvation. It almost seems like a prequel to the events in Acts 2. So my question is: what exactly is John 20:21-23 referring to?
My other question is: are we just dealing with the problem of semantics here? Assuming that a believer can get multiple fillings at different times in his life, it appears that some Christians use the phrase "baptised in the Spirit" to refer to the first time the Spirit indwells a person and refer to the empowerings by the Spirit as "fillings", while other Christians use "baptised in the Spirit" to refer to the very first empowering/filling by the Spirit.
Thirdly, how do the Calvinists understand the baptism of the Spirit? If they believe that the Holy Spirit has to regenerate a person before he can believe, then it would seem that they would have to regard the Spirit baptism as separate from the conversion process. Unless of course they mean that a person has to be baptised in the Spirit before he can believe?
Thanks for taking your time to help me work through this issue.
Thanks for your candidness. I'm struggling to understand this concept of indwelling (assuming that indwelling refers to the Spirit's presence in us when we are converted) and baptism of the Spirit. Previously I took them as a single event till I heard your teaching that they were two separate events. Trouble is I find it hard to explain this concept using scripture to my small group members even though they believe that these are two separate events (their reasoning comes more from their personal experiences). I'm starting to wonder whether I should just be pragmatic and experience the experience myself (so to speak) rather than trying to work out the Scripture and semantics behind the baptism of the Spirit.
Anyway, I just wanted to discuss John 20:22. This is one of the verses that is sometimes used in support of the two separate events of indwelling and baptism/filling. This is the incident where Christ (after His resurrection) breathes on the apostles to impart on them the Holy Spirit. This obviously is a separate event from the actual baptism of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in Acts 2. However, I don't see how John 20:22 has to do with the indwelling of the Spirit at the time of conversion because the context from John 20:21-23 suggests that Jesus is commissioning His disciples rather than confirming their salvation. It almost seems like a prequel to the events in Acts 2. So my question is: what exactly is John 20:21-23 referring to?
My other question is: are we just dealing with the problem of semantics here? Assuming that a believer can get multiple fillings at different times in his life, it appears that some Christians use the phrase "baptised in the Spirit" to refer to the first time the Spirit indwells a person and refer to the empowerings by the Spirit as "fillings", while other Christians use "baptised in the Spirit" to refer to the very first empowering/filling by the Spirit.
Thirdly, how do the Calvinists understand the baptism of the Spirit? If they believe that the Holy Spirit has to regenerate a person before he can believe, then it would seem that they would have to regard the Spirit baptism as separate from the conversion process. Unless of course they mean that a person has to be baptised in the Spirit before he can believe?
Thanks for taking your time to help me work through this issue.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Grace and peace,
Benjamin Ho
Benjamin Ho
Hi Benjamin,
Sorry to take so long in getting back to you. Sometimes I get a lot of questions coming in at once, and I like to give each one as much attention as I think it deserves. Some of them are quite time-consuming for me to answer.
You raised an excellent question in your latest post:
"are we just dealing with the problem of semantics here? Assuming that a believer can get multiple fillings at different times in his life, it appears that some Christians use the phrase "baptised in the Spirit" to refer to the first time the Spirit indwells a person and refer to the empowerings by the Spirit as "fillings", while other Christians use "baptised in the Spirit" to refer to the very first empowering/filling by the Spirit."
I confess that I have often considered this very possibility myself! If all believers agree that the Holy Spirit comes into the Christian at conversion, but also that being "filled" with the Spirit is not automatic, and may need to happen repeatedly in the believer's life, it seems to make little difference which experience we label as "the baptism in the Holy Spirit." I have my opinion, but I don't know what harm would be done by someone applying the label differently.
It must be acknowledged that people who are already converted are nonetheless exhorted to be "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Eph.5:18). If all Christians, whether Pentecostal, charismatic or evangelical seek to be filled with the Spirit from Day-One and every day of their Christian lives, the name they give to the experience is secondary in importance.
The only problem I would have is with people who assume, merely by virtue of their having received the Spirit at conversion, that there is nothing more to be sopught in this area. It is very easy to be spiritually complacent—especially if we are assuming that our experience is normative, and that people who urge us to seek (or who claim to possess) more of the power of the Holy Spirit than we now have are annoying at best, and elitist at worst.
Those who say that every Christian is as filled with the Spirit at conversion as he/she can ever be may discourage other Christians from desiring more from God's reality than they already possess. Such people sometimes complain that the Pentecostal view (i.e., that there is a second work of the Spirit to be sought) divides the Body of Christ into "haves" and "have-nots," and, thus, creates an "elite class" of Christians who profess to have the "second work."
In response to this, I would say that those who have sought and obtained something more in their Christian lives than what they had previously experienced hardly need to deny this truth for fear of sounding like elitists. There definitely are, in the realm of spiritual endowments, "haves" and "have-nots." The person who has a gift of teaching, but not a gift of leading (like myself) would rightly be regarded as a "have-not" vis-a-vis someone who has the gift of leading. Our experiences are not identical, and we needn't pretend that we all have precisely the same spiritual advantages.
But even when a spiritual advantage (e.g., fullness of the Spirit) is indeed available to all Christians, it is entirely possible to speak of "haves" and "have-nots" in the Body of Christ. With reference to wisdom, for example, (which is a spiritual advantage) we are told to ask God for it, and warned that we will not receive it if we do not ask in faith (James 1:5-7). Thus the asking or not asking may make the difference between being a "have" or a "have-not" in this particular matter. James makes it clear that, with reference to things that God may wish for all Christians to possess, some, for the lack of the asking, might remain "have-nots"—"You have not, because you ask not" (James 4:2)
Anyway, I am not as stuck on terminology as I am on insisting of the reality. There definitely is more power available than many Christians have experienced in their walk with God (Luke 24:49/Acts 1:8).
Blessings!
In Jesus,
Steve
P.S. With reference to how Calvinists view this matter, I suppose we can leave it up to one of them to write in and inform us.
Sorry to take so long in getting back to you. Sometimes I get a lot of questions coming in at once, and I like to give each one as much attention as I think it deserves. Some of them are quite time-consuming for me to answer.
You raised an excellent question in your latest post:
"are we just dealing with the problem of semantics here? Assuming that a believer can get multiple fillings at different times in his life, it appears that some Christians use the phrase "baptised in the Spirit" to refer to the first time the Spirit indwells a person and refer to the empowerings by the Spirit as "fillings", while other Christians use "baptised in the Spirit" to refer to the very first empowering/filling by the Spirit."
I confess that I have often considered this very possibility myself! If all believers agree that the Holy Spirit comes into the Christian at conversion, but also that being "filled" with the Spirit is not automatic, and may need to happen repeatedly in the believer's life, it seems to make little difference which experience we label as "the baptism in the Holy Spirit." I have my opinion, but I don't know what harm would be done by someone applying the label differently.
It must be acknowledged that people who are already converted are nonetheless exhorted to be "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Eph.5:18). If all Christians, whether Pentecostal, charismatic or evangelical seek to be filled with the Spirit from Day-One and every day of their Christian lives, the name they give to the experience is secondary in importance.
The only problem I would have is with people who assume, merely by virtue of their having received the Spirit at conversion, that there is nothing more to be sopught in this area. It is very easy to be spiritually complacent—especially if we are assuming that our experience is normative, and that people who urge us to seek (or who claim to possess) more of the power of the Holy Spirit than we now have are annoying at best, and elitist at worst.
Those who say that every Christian is as filled with the Spirit at conversion as he/she can ever be may discourage other Christians from desiring more from God's reality than they already possess. Such people sometimes complain that the Pentecostal view (i.e., that there is a second work of the Spirit to be sought) divides the Body of Christ into "haves" and "have-nots," and, thus, creates an "elite class" of Christians who profess to have the "second work."
In response to this, I would say that those who have sought and obtained something more in their Christian lives than what they had previously experienced hardly need to deny this truth for fear of sounding like elitists. There definitely are, in the realm of spiritual endowments, "haves" and "have-nots." The person who has a gift of teaching, but not a gift of leading (like myself) would rightly be regarded as a "have-not" vis-a-vis someone who has the gift of leading. Our experiences are not identical, and we needn't pretend that we all have precisely the same spiritual advantages.
But even when a spiritual advantage (e.g., fullness of the Spirit) is indeed available to all Christians, it is entirely possible to speak of "haves" and "have-nots" in the Body of Christ. With reference to wisdom, for example, (which is a spiritual advantage) we are told to ask God for it, and warned that we will not receive it if we do not ask in faith (James 1:5-7). Thus the asking or not asking may make the difference between being a "have" or a "have-not" in this particular matter. James makes it clear that, with reference to things that God may wish for all Christians to possess, some, for the lack of the asking, might remain "have-nots"—"You have not, because you ask not" (James 4:2)
Anyway, I am not as stuck on terminology as I am on insisting of the reality. There definitely is more power available than many Christians have experienced in their walk with God (Luke 24:49/Acts 1:8).
Blessings!
In Jesus,
Steve
P.S. With reference to how Calvinists view this matter, I suppose we can leave it up to one of them to write in and inform us.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: