According to Trinitarians, God is one Being, not three; yet, He exists in three Persons. Trinitarians point out that the word "Persons" does not mean "Beings"; rather, it means "personal distinctions." Further, the three Persons (or "personal distinctions") are not three "parts" of God, but each is fully God. In summary, the traditional Trinitarian position is that the Father, Son and Holy spirit are not three Gods or three parts of God; they are three personal distinctions within the one Being known as God.

       Both Protestant and Catholic theologians agree that the Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity. The Concise Dictionary of the Christian Tradition states: "The NT has a skeleton of the doctrine for the Trinity... The early church, not the apostles, however, clothed the skeleton. The results are to be found in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds" (p. 385). Interestingly, the Protestants, who insist that the Bible is the sole source of divine revelation (unlike Catholics, who believe that the church's teaching authority is essential to the correct interpretation of Scripture) defend the "clothing" as if it were the "skeleton." One wonders why more Protestants do not seriously consider converting to Catholicism.

       Though most Protestant and Catholic theologians agree that the New Testament "has a skeleton of the doctrine of the Trinity," a closer examination of the scriptural revelation regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit leaves the doctrine of the Trinity not only without its clothing, but a few bones short of a full skeleton.

       Interestingly, Trinitarians have for centuries used both Scripture and reason in combating such heretical notions as Monarchianism, which teaches that God is a single Personage who appears in three "offices," or "modes"— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Tertullian (160-220), the famous apologist and "Father of Latin theology," used reason when he accused the Monarchians of having "crucified the Father" by their claim that the Father and Son are the same Person. The present-day counterparts of Tertullian reason similarly. They argue that it makes no sense to say that the Son prayed to Himself, or ascended to Himself, or sits at His own right hand, or is Mediator between His people and Himself, or that the Holy Spirit descended upon Himself at the baptism of Jesus.

       Trinitarians are right in using to combat such nonsensical doctrines as Monarchianism. If, then, the use of reason is acceptable in discerning doctrinal truth, are we not to use the same power of reason in analyzing Trinitarian dogma? For instance, if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three personal distinctions interacting within the one Being known as God, is it reasonable to say, as Trinitarians do, that each of the three personal distinctions is not a part of God?

       Where is the logic is saying that God is a single individual with multiple Personalities. If that is true, then perhaps we can best understand God by comparing Him with a person suffering from multiple-personality disorder (not that God is suffering from a disorder, of course). But is this the way the Bible presents God? Should we understand the biblical descriptions of Jesus Christ sitting at His Father's right hand as a "human way" of understanding the functions of two "personal distinctions" interacting within one Being who is not composed of "parts"? Or should we accept the more natural understanding of one Being existing side-by-side, and in perfect unity, with another Being?

       All the arguments over words such as "being" and "person" are arguments of semantices, probably contribute more to confusion than enlightenment. Notice the dictionary definition of "being": "[1] Existence, as opposed to nonexistence. [2] Essential nature; substance: His whole being is musical. [3] A living thing. [4] A human individual; person" (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary). Does Jesus Christ exist? Is He a living thing? an individual? a Person? If so, then He is a Being. The fact that He died—yes, He was truly dead, completely unconscious—and was raised from the state of death by His Father leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that the Father and the Son are two distinct Beings.

       Though attempts to understand the unity of the Father and the Son have led to disputes and discussions over the meeting of such terms as "person," "being," "substance," "essence," and so forth, the writers of the New Testament never attempted to define such terms. No doubt, they assumed their readers would accept the most natural meaning of their descriptions of the relationship between the Father and the Son. When they wrote of Jesus praying to the Father, or of His ascension to the Father, or of His sitting at the Father's right hand, they were obviously thinking in terms of two Persons—in the sense of two Beings—working in full cooperation.

Fanciful Ideas

       To Trinitarians, this concept of "personal distinctions" within one Being had led to some fanciful explanations of how the Father and the Son exist as one God. Roman Catholic theologians, and some Protestants as well, "explain" that the Father is "God Knowing" and the Son is "God Known." Since God has always existed, there was never a time when He did not know Himself. His knowledge of Himself—His self-image—is so perfect that it is a Person. Thus, "God Knowing" is the Father who knows Himself; "God Known" (also called the "Living Idea") is the Son who is known of the Father. Therefore, "God Known" (the Son) is "eternally begotten" of "God Knowing" (the Father).

       Further, "God Knowing" and "God Known" love each other with a love so perfect that it too a Person—the Holy Spirit. Thus, each of the three Persons are "co-equal" and "co-eternal"—that is, they are identically and exactly the same eternal Being.

       If the idea of "God Knowing" and "God Known" is logical, then let's carry the idea to its logical conclusion. First, since "God Known" is in every sense equal to "God Knowing," then doesn't it seem reasonable that He (the "personal distinction" called "God Known") would have perfect knowledge of Himself? And wouldn't this perfect knowledge of Himself "eternally produce" yet another Person? And wouldn't that Person love the other three with a love s o perfect that three other Persons would "eternally emerge"? With all the self-knowledge and shared love, God cannot be "one God in three Persons," but one God in an infinite number of Persons"—not a Trinity, but an Infinity.

       Obviously, all the speculations about "God Knowing" and "God Known" are nothing more than fanciful ideas begotten of creed-oriented imaginations. No such ideas are taught, or even implied, in Scripture. Rather, Scripture presents the Father and the Son as two distinct individuals, each with all the attributes of Being.

Fear of Labels

       All agree that the Bible clearly teaches that "God is one." But does this rule out the possibility that more that\n one Person, or Being, may rightfully be called "God"? To many Trinitarians, the belief that God is more than one Being is Polytheism (though some Trinitarians do use the word "Beings" when speaking of the Father and the Son). Apparently, it was fear of being labeled "Polytheists," along with the threat of such heretical ideas as Arianism, Monarchianism, Docetism, and other "isms," that led theologians to the elaborate formulations which allowed God to remain one Being while retaining His multi-personal attributes.

       But let's not fear labels. If the Bible describes the Father and Son as two Beings, then let's accept it—labels notwithstanding.

       In Scripture, God is presented not as a Being with multiple Personalities, but as a Family of divine Beings, which is another way of saying that "God" is a kind of Being, as "man" is a kind of a being. By understanding this, we can easily see how God can exist as more than one Person, while remaining faithful to the biblical assertion that "God is one"

God as a Family

       As we have seen, the Hebrew word Elohim, translated "God" in our English versions of the Old Testament, is a plural noun and is sometimes used with plural verbs and pronouns. Many of our critics point out that the word never means "family," and conclude that the idea of a "God Family" is unscriptural.

       True, the word Elohim, technically, does not mean "family"—and it certainly does not mean "Trinity"!—but the fact that it is plural and is sometimes used with plural verbs and pronouns allows for the possibility of a family relationship within the Godhead. Moreover, the fact that the word does not mean "family" by no means suggest that God is not a Family. In fact, many Trinitarians, Catholic and Protestant alike, believe and teach that God is a Family.

       Many Trinitarians recognize that the words "Father" and "Son" are not mere metaphors, but are descriptions of the relationship between God and the Word, and enable the Christian to understand how he is to relate to God. The terms themselves certainly suggest the God is a Family (the subject of the Holy Spirit will be discussed in the next chapter). But these terms are not only the scriptural evidence that God is a Family.

       John 1:18 states: "No man hath seen God [the Father] at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." The NASB may be more accurate in its translation of this verse: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He explained Him." This verse shows that the Father and the Son is God. But more than that, it shows that they are a Family. The Greek word translated "only begotten" is monogenees, which is a compound of monos ("alone") and genos ("stock, kind, race, family"). John 1:18, then, tells us that Christ is of the same Family as God the Father. Christ is of the God-kind. He alone (monos) is of the same Family (genos) as God the Father. (Where does this leave the Holy Spirit?)

       We can best understand God by understanding scriptural descriptions of man. In the Hebrews Scriptures, the word Adam, usually translated "man," means "mankind." It is used both of individuals (iirespective of gender) and of mankind collectively. Both Adam (the first male) and Eve (the first female) were Adam Thus, we are correct in saying, "In the Garden was Eve, and Eve was with Adam, and Eve was Adam." Eve was not the individual being known as "Adam" (her husband), but she was Adam in that she was of the Adam-kind. Similarly, the "Word" (John 1:1) was not the individual person know as "God" (the Father), but He was God in that He was of the God-kind.

       The book of Genesis speaks of Adam and Eve, or Adam and "the woman." Yet, the woman, Eve, was also Adam. In the same way, the New Testament speaks of God and Jesus. This may leave the impression that Jesus is other than God, but once we understand that "God," like Adam, is a kind of Being, we can understand why the New Testament speaks of God (meaning God the Father) and Jesus. Just as the first man, Adam, was head (or father) of the human family (or Adam-kind), so God (the Father) is the Head of the God Family (or the Elohim-kind). And just as the composite unity called Adam was composed of Adam and Eve, so the composite unity called "God" is composed of God and the Word.

       Moreover, God and the Word (the Father and the Son) are of the same substance in much the same way that Adam and Eve were of the same substance. Speaking of the woman, Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh... Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:23,24). Through marriage, two persons come together as "one flesh." This is composite unity, which is the way we should understand the unity (or "oneness") of the Father and the Son.

       In a sense, there in only one Adam. That is, man is one kind; there is only one family of beings known as man. When God made Adam (both male and female), it may be said that He made all of us, for we were all "in Adam," as it were. By understanding the oneness of man, we can understand the oneness of God. Like man, God is one Family, but not one Person, or Being.

       Of course, we recognize that the Father and the Son are united in a way that we, with our finite human minds, cannot fully comprehend. They are one in Spirit, which is the essence of their Being (see the discussion on the Holy spirit in Chapter 4); nevertheless, they are presented in Scripture as two distinct Beings. One became a man , while the other did not; one prayed to the other; one died on the torture stake, while the other did not; one was dead for three days and three nights, while the other lived; one was raised from the state of death by the other; one ascended to the other; one sits at the other's right hand; one is the Intercessor between man and the other,; one will return to this earth and establish His Kingdom here, and will ultimately deliver His Kingdom to unto the other.

Subordination of the Son

       According to Trinitarian dogma, the Father and the Son are "co-equal"—that is, one is no greater that the other. In the sense that both are of the same kind, or family, that is true. But functionally, the Father is greater than the Son. Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Paul wrote: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man [i.e., her husband]; and the head of Christ is God" (I Corinthians 11:3). This does not mean that Christ needs a "boss" to tell Him what to do; it simply means that the two Persons of the God Family, though equal in divinity, are different functionally.

       While the Athanasian Creed states that the Son is "Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood"—a statement subject to differing interpretations—scriptural evidence suggests that God and the Word have always differed functionally, and that God was the Head of Christ even before the latter came to this earth as a human being.

       The New Testament describes the Father as the "invisible God" whose form no man has seen and whose voice no man has heard. Yet, the Old Testament declares that God has been seem and heard on several occasions. The most logical explanation for this is that the two Persons of the God Family have always differed functionally. Thus, God (the Father) has always been the Head of Christ.

The Messenger of God

      The apostle John wrote: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him" (John 1:18). In his first epistle, John wrote, "No man hath seen God at any time" (I John 4:12). Paul said that Christ dwells "in the light [meaning in the Father's presence] which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see" (I Timothy 6:16). Christ said, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He [Christ Himself] which is of God, He hath seen the Father" (John 6:46). He said further, "Y have neither heard His [the Father's] voice at any time, nor seen His shape" (John 5:37).

       Yet , the Old Testament records many instances when God was both seen heard, Adam and Eve conversed with God in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8-29). Apparently, God appeared to them in the likeness of a man. Cain heard the voice of God (Genesis 4:9-15), and apparently saw Him (verse 16). God spoke with Noah (Genesis 7:1-4), appeared to and spoke with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 17:1; 18:1-33; 26:2-5; 32:30; Exodus 6:3), appeared to and spoke with Moses (Exodus 3:14,15). Moses, with three priests and seventy of the elders of Israel, "saw the God of Israel," and "did eat and drink" in His presence (Exodus 24:9-11).

       Obviously, the Person who appeared to and spoke with the ancients is not the same Person whose shape no man has seen and whose voice no man has heard. The One who appeared to the ancients was the Spokesman for the Invisible God. He was the "Word," or Spokesman, who was with God (the Father) and was God. He was God's Messenger, and He was of the same Kind, or Family, as the One who sent Him.

       The word "angel" means "messenger." In this sense, the preexistent Christ was "the Angel of the LORD." The "angel of the LORD" spoke with Hagar, promised, "I will multiply thy seed exceedingly..." (genesis 16:10), and Hagar "called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me..." (verse 13). Notice that the Angel (Messenger) promised that He would multiply Hagar's descendants, and Hagar called Him "LORD" and "God." Apparently, the Angel of the LORD was both God and the Messenger of God.

       When God appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, He appeared as a man with two other men with Him. (Genesis 18:1,2). The two with Him were the two angels who were sent to Sodom (Genesis 19:1) to warn Lot and his family of the coming destruction of the city. Later, after Lot had fled from the city, "the LORD [Yahweh] rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD [Yahweh] out of heaven. While the construction of this verse does not demand it, it seems to suggest that Yahweh on earth brought down fire from Yahweh in heaven—thus, two Persons called "Yahweh." If this interpretation is correct, then it is obvious that the "Yahweh" who had appeared to Abraham and revealed that He was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah was the Angel (Messenger, or Spokesman) of the "Yahweh" in heaven.

       The "angel of God" who appeared to Jacob in a dream said, "I am the God of Bethel..." (Genesis 31:11,13), and the "angel of the LORD" who appeared to Moses in a burning bush said, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Exodus 3:2,6). The Angel was both God and Messenger of God. He must have been divine Logos, or Spokesman, who served as the visible representative of the One He later called "my Father." He must have been the One who later came as the "Messenger of the Covenant" (Malachite 3:1), the Messiah, "the Apostle [One sent] and High Priest [Mediator] of our profession, Christ Jesus" (Hebrews 3:1).

        He was not one of the created angels "sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14); He was God's special Angel, "the Angel of His presence" (Isaiah 63:9), who had a right to the divine names and titles. Concerning the name "Jehovah" (or Yahweh), Smith observes: "The name is never applied to a false god, nor to any other being except one, the ANGEL-JEHOVAH ["Angel of the LORD"], who is thereby marked as one with God, and who appears again in the New Covenant as 'God manifested in the flesh'" (William Smith, L.L.D., A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 220).

       The implication in all the above references to the preexistent Christ's activities on this earth is that He has always been (functionally) subordinate to the Father. From the beginning of human history, He has acted as Mediator between God and man—and He continues in that office to this very day. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8).

       When God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26), God (the Father) was speaking to the Word (the Son). But why man? What was God's purpose for making man?

Can Man Become God?

       The writer of the Book of Hebrews was quoting from the eighth Psalm, which speaks of the creation account of Genesis, when he stated: "Thou [God] hast put all things in subjection under his [man's] feet. For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him" (Hebrews 2:8). The Psalmist was referring to the "dominion" God gave to man (Genesis 1:26,28).

       Both Psalm 8 and the Genesis account seem to say that man already has all the "dominion" he will ever had. But the writer of Hebrew pointed out that the dominion promised to man has yet to be realized in the fullest sense. Notice the latter part of Hebrews 2:8: "But now we see not yet all things put under him."

       The writer of Hebrews recognized that Psalm 8 and Genesis account carry eschatological meaning—that is, they pertain to "the world to come" (Hebrews 2:5). Thus, man will not have dominion over the earth in the fullest sense until Christ returns and establishes His Kingdom here.

       Recognizing the eschatological significance of the creation account, then, let's consider what God said when He determined to make man: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them" (Genesis 1:26,27).

       Just as man does not not yet have dominion over the earth in the fullest sense, man has yet, in the fullest sense, to be made in the image and after the likeness of God.

       Listen to the words of the apostle John: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when He [Christ] shall appear [at the second Coming], we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is" (I John 3:2). Notice that the "sons of God"—true Christians—will be like Christ when He appears. They will be change from mortal to immortal (I Corinthians 15:51-54), and the words of Genesis 1:26 ("Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...") will be fulfilled in the fullest sense.

       Peter, writing of the gifts of God bestows upon those He calls, stated: "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust" (II Peter 1:4). If God's people—those I whom the Spirit of God dwells—are now "partakers of the divine nature," what shall they be when they are made like Christ?

       Paul said that true Christians "are being transformed into His [Christ's] likeness with ever-increasing glory" (II Corinthians 3:18, NIV), and the writer of the book Hebrews said that God the Father chastens His children "that we might be partakers of His holiness" (Hebrews 12:10). If God's people are now being transformed into Christ's likeness, and are now partakers of God's holiness, what shall they be when they rise to meet the returning Christ?

       Speaking of the resurrection of the saints, Paul wrote: "And as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall [at the return of Christ] also bear the image of the heavenly" (I Corinthians 15:49). All of God's people bear the image of "the first man Adam" (verse 45) but at the return of Christ, they shall bear the image of "the last Adam" (Christ). They will be made in His image, and after His likeness. In other words, the saints will enter into the immortal Family of God!

       Notice: "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father [an expression denoting a very close, intimate relationship—a family relationship]. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:15,16).

       Paul went on to say: "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He [the Son] might be the firstborn among many brethren" (verse 29). If the Son, who is God, is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), what shall the saints be when they are "conformed to the image of the Son"?

       Put it all together:

       1. God is a Family, presently consisting of God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son.

       2. The saints are the children of God, and have the privilege of calling God their Father.

       3. The saints are the heirs of God and joint-hiers with Jesus Christ.

       4. The saints are Christ's brethren, and He is the Firstborn among them.

       5. The saints will be made like Christ at His coming.

       These facts leave us with one indisputable conclusion: Man can become God! God (in the Person of Jesus Christ) became man so that man might become God. God is expanding His divine Family; He is reproducing Himself. You can be born into the very Family of God!

You Must be Born Again!

       As we saw in Chapter 2, John's Gospel emphasizes the divinity of Christ more than any other Gospel accounts. The Jews of Christ's time believed the Messiah would be a descendant of David who would, through a bloody revolt, overthrow their Roman oppressors and restore the Kingdom unto Israel. John, however, wanted his readers to understand that the Messiah was much more that the son of David, and that the Messiah's Kingdom is not merely the restoration of Israel national greatness.

       John described Christ as the preexistent Logos who came down from heaven, and emphasized the future, "other-worldly" nature of the Kingdom of God. Jesus said to Pilate: "My Kingdom is not of this world: if my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my Kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36). John wanted his readers to understand that the Jewish concept of Messiah and His Kingdom was inaccurate. Rather than lead a bloody revolt against the Romans, the Messiah would leave this world, come again, receive His followers unto Himself, and then establish His Kingdom on this earth (John 14:1-3).

       The Jews' misunderstanding of the nature of the Messiah and His Kingdom is underscored in John's account of Jesus' meeting with a learned rabbi named Nicodemus. Like many other Jews, Nicodemus knew, or at least suspected, that Jesus was the Messiah, but like the other Jews, he held erroneous beliefs about the Messiah and His Kingdom.

       When Nicodemus came to Jesus, he acknowledge that Jesus was "a teacher come from God" (John 3:2)—suggesting that Nicodemus suspected Jesus was the Messiah whose coming the Jews anticipated—and undoubtedly wanted to know when He [Jesus] would lead in overthrowing the Romans and restoring the kingdom to Israel.

       Jesus' reply shows that He knew what was in Nicodemus' mind: "Verily, verily. I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God" (verse 3). Jesus was telling Nicodemus that the traditional Jewish concept of the Kingdom of God was inaccurate. It was not to be established through warfare, and man could not enter into it by bathing his sword with Roman blood.

       During the conversation, Jesus made another startling statement: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, But He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (verse 13; note: John probably added the phrase "which is in heaven"). Just as Nicodemus did not understand the true nature of the Kingdom of God, he did not understand the true nature of the Messiah. He though of the Messiah as the "son of David," but Jesus pointed out that the Messiah is more than the son of David—He is the Son of God who had come down from heaven and who would ascend to heaven before coming again to establish His Kingdom (compare John 14:1-3).

       Jesus went on to say: "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world: but that the world through Him might be saved" (John 3:17). While a comparative few are now saved through belief in the Son of God, the salvation of the world is reserved for the future, when the Messiah establishes His Kingdom here.

       With this understanding, let's notice what Jesus said about being "born again."

       When Jesus explained that a man must be "born again" in order to see the Kingdom of God, Nicodemus asked: "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Jesus replied: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit [probably, "water" is a synonym of "the Spirit," just as "spirit" is a synonym of "life" in John 6:63. The phrase could be understood this way: "of water, that is, the Spirit"], he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh [ordinary human birth—the kind of birth Nicodemus had in mind]; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (verses 4,5). Just as a human being who is born into this world is flesh, a person who is "born of the Spirit" is spirit.

       Paul, contrasting the present "natural body" with the future "spiritual body" (I Corinthians 15:44), wrote: "As is the earthly, such are they also that are earthly: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall [at the return of Christ] also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God..." (verses 48-50).

       Paul was not contrasting "spiritual mindedness" with lust-filled "carnal mindedness," as some contend. He was contrasting the mortal body of the present with the immortal, spiritual body the saints will acquire at the return of Christ. He was responding to the question: "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" (verse 35).

       Jesus was speaking of the same thing when He said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which born of the Spirit is spirit."

       Jesus went on to say: "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeh, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8). When the saints are made "like Christ," they will be able to appear and disappear at will, just as Christ did after His resurrection. (Luke 24:31-37; Acts 9:3-7).

       However, many argue that the phrase "born again" refers to the "regeneration" repentant believers experience upon accepting Christ. They point out that the word translated "born" (in John 3) is used elsewhere to describe conversion associated with baptism and receiving of the Holy Spirit. The second is eschatological regeneration, which is the conversion the saints will experience at the Second Coming. The Greek word gennao (usually translated "born" or "begotten" in the New Testament) applies t both kinds of regeneration. When Jesus said, "that which is born [gennao] of the Spirit is spirit," He was obviously speaking of the second kind of generation.

       Jesus Himself is the "firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), which means He is preeminent among His brethren, who will also be "born" from the state of death as He was. When that day arrives, the "image of the earthly" will be transformed into the "image of the heavenly."

       But before the final and ultimate regeneration can be experienced, it is necessary that one experience the first kind of regeneration. With baptism and the laying on of hands, the repentant believer receives the Holy Spirit, which transforms him into a "new creature" in Christ (II Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15). Thus begins the process of change, conversion, regeneration. As Paul said, "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into likeness with ever-increasing glory..." (II Corinthians 3:18, NIV).

       When Christ appears, the glory of God will be manifested in the saints in a way too wonderful for the imagination. In that day, the saints will be born again—born into the God Family.