Marvin,
Have not been involved in the conversation completely but you confused me.
Post #648
Post #662
Post #668
Why did you go through at least 2 posts explaining that generation is birth? only to say that generation is not birth?
I did not do that.
What I did do was go through at least 2 posts explaining that the invisible generation of our natural life and our natural public birth are not the same thing - not even close. Life in the natural example given by our Lord doesn't start at birth or when a baby shows a certain amount of potential or any other such thing - no matter what the people at Planned Parenthood try to convince us of.
Then I said that neither are regeneration and the new birth the same things.
The Lord gave us a very pointed and detailed example that was easy to understand when He explained to Nicodemus that a person must have a radical paradigm shift in his life if they are to function in the Kingdom of God.
Nicodemus apparently misunderstood the facts that natural men are spiritually dead and that they needed to be regenerated in order that they could enter into the Kingdom of God under the Lordship of the Holy Spirit of God.
Whatever else spiritual life entails - all theologians have agreed that to be spiritually alive is to be united again with the Holy Spirit. Those not united with Him are dead and need that connection that was severed in the fall of Adam.
(Jesus said, "Let the dead bury their dead.")
Nicodemus was so misunderstanding the birth illustration, that Jesus gave him another parallel illustration to show him how these things worked. He linked the idea of the need for spiritual life to be infused again in all men and the idea of the new birth - to the activities of the wind (the wind being a type of the Holy Spirit in the scriptures).
He told him in this illustration that the Wind (the Holy Spirit) worked in ways which we could not really see much less fully understand. We can see the results of the activities of the wind or the Spirit. But they are only the results of it or His work. The results are not actually the wind in the natural world or the Holy Spirit who is working inwardly in the spiritual application.
He was teaching Nicodemus that the required new birth would be the visible result of the Holy Spirit's secret work. It is very similar in both of the illustrations from the natural world that He taught to Nicodemus.
This is not only what is directly taught in the scriptures here and elsewhere. This is illustrated many times - very notably in what Jesus told Peter concerning his confession of Christ. No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit- at least not from the heart. It must be taught to them by the Father who's Spirit is working in the person prior to their confession. Also the story of Lydia illustrates this Bible truth in a very straight forward example. The Lord opened her heart in order that she could respond to the gospel when it was preached to her.
These concepts should not surprise us in light of what the scriptures say about the abysmal condition of natural men in and of themselves. No natural man seeks God. No natural man can come to Jesus. No natural man can understand in a truly heartfelt way and apply to their own life the Spiritual truths embodied in the gospel and the Word of God in general.
What is necessary is a "new creation" - a creation wherein the Holy Spirit now resides as He did in the case of the first Adam who had the breath of "lives" breathed into his breathing places when he was first created.
I have belabored these things (at least in a rough partial form) because people don't seem to understand where Reformed thinking comes from.
It would appear that many think that Reformed theologians have made up their doctrines out of whole cloth because they are evil false teachers and want to make up false doctrines in order to teach wrongly.
The truth, however, is that Reformed theologians have these and many other scriptures and concepts (like the golden chain or salvation for instance) which they have attempted as best they are able to place in a systematic order so that we can believe correctly and not just be led around by our emotions as some appear to be.
Often times Reformed theologians go too far in their systematic methods and use false logic themselves to teach these things. So called "limited atonement" is a good example of their logic taking certain scriptures too far and winding up muddying the waters and teaching falsehoods themselves. They are not (as is the other side often) letting their emotions hold sway. They are instead IMO letting merely human logic hold sway when writing their theologies. Limited atonement as it is often taught (and very prominently here in this section of the forum) is a perfect example of human logic being taken too far.
I know that I get pretty long winded. But it's just that there are so many misunderstanding involved in these debates. The sloppy and slip shod ideas that most have about what it means to be born again is a perfect example.
Quick cursory posts just don't do the subject justice IMO.
The whole idea from my perspective is not to teach these things in the depth that would be done in a class or in a systematic theology paper on the subject.
I would settle for just tweaking the noble spirit of some Berean enough that he would at least investigate where the other side gets it's ideas. Those Bereans hopefully will come from the full on Calvinist side of things and from the emotionally charge opposition as well.
