# The Word in 1 Peter 1:23-25



## fralo4truth (Jan 20, 2010)

Hi friends, I was wondering if I could get your help with something. I am acquainted with several individuals who are dead against evangelism and the use of the gospel in the regeneration of souls. When it comes to 1 Peter 1:23-25 the interpretation they envoke is making the 'word' here to be Christ, the Word of God. It is by Jesus, the word, that we are born again, and not the preached word. It is in this manner that they are allowed to escape the 'means' form of regeneration, ignore evangelism, and keep their hyper-calvinistic framework intact.

Admittedly, Jesus is referred to in the scriptures as the Word of God. But here in this place I strongly feel that this has reference to the preached or written word.

Could you brethren help me out here, or recommend a great exegesis of this passage which supports the means form of regeneration which I think the text is clearly teaching?

Thanks brethren.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 20, 2010)

I would point him to James 1:18


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 20, 2010)

1 Peter 1:22-25 22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, 23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word [*λογος*] of God which lives and abides forever, 24 because "All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, 25 But the word [*ρημα*] of the LORD endures forever." Now this is the word [*ρημα*] which by the gospel was preached to you.



> Thayer’s Greek Lexicon says of *ρημα*:
> 
> 1.	properly, that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, i. e. a. any sound produced by the voice and having a definite meaning:
> 
> 2. the subject matter of speech, thing spoken of, thing


----------



## fralo4truth (Jan 22, 2010)

Thanks for your responses brethren. I have noticed that whenever Jesus is being referred to by the word, it is always capitalized. Could one make an argument that nowhere does it specifically mean Jesus when it is lowercased?


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Jan 22, 2010)

I'm sorry.. but is Romans 10 not in their bibles? 

"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."  Especially in this instance, there can be no argument that the "word of Christ" and "Christ" himself are different. Unless they believe you can "hear" Jesus audibly? Which would probably make them charasmatics . Or perhaps I'm just not understanding their argument to well. (Perhaps because it makes absolutely no sense  LOL)


----------



## fralo4truth (Jan 22, 2010)

Simply_Nikki said:


> I'm sorry.. but is Romans 10 not in their bibles?
> 
> "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."  Especially in this instance, there can be no argument that the "word of Christ" and "Christ" himself are different. Unless they believe you can "hear" Jesus audibly? Which would probably make them charasmatics . Or perhaps I'm just not understanding their argument to well. (Perhaps because it makes absolutely no sense  LOL)


 
Welcome to the world of Hyper-Calvinism where the idea is, that during regeneration, the voice of Christ is spoken directly to the sinner (not in an audible form of course) and not through the gospel. Appeal is often made to the fact Christ used no such medium to raise Lazarus from the tomb, and that he didn't go through the voice of the preacher. Also, reference will be made to John 6:45 in which it is recorded that all the children of God 'will be taught of God', an expression which they take as meaning that God speaks directly unto them and not through gospel means.

Unfortunately, these texts do not necessarily deny the use of means. After all, it was the _spoken word_of Christ that was uttered to Lazarus. And John 6:45 does not explicitly declare if this teaching of God occurs through means or not. Looking at the text as it stands alone, both are possible.

I would make your head hurt if I told you their take on Rom. 10.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 22, 2010)

fralo4truth said:


> Thanks for your responses brethren. I have noticed that whenever Jesus is being referred to by the word, it is always capitalized. Could one make an argument that nowhere does it specifically mean Jesus when it is lowercased?


 
I wouldn't make such an argument as you want to from any English translation... whether the word Word is capitalized or not is really irrelevant, because in the end that's an interpretive decision the translators made. 

What I *would* most certainly do, though, is go to the Greek as Bob did in post #3. What is said to be preached there is absolutely NOT to be confused with "The Word", i.e. Jesus Christ, as the greek word τὸ ῥῆμα is NOT the one used to refer to Christ, ὁ λόγος. Given this, I can't see HOW 1 Peter 2:22-25 could ever be used against evangelism via the preached gospel.

Of course it's not the only evidence for such use of the Word. 

What do your friends do with the preached gospel, a la Rom. 15:20, 2 Cor. 11:7, Galatians 1:8-11, 4:13, etc.? Are they expecting to claim that these and all other instances are not instances wherein the word is proclaimed anew to new hearers?


----------



## fralo4truth (Jan 23, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> fralo4truth said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your responses brethren. I have noticed that whenever Jesus is being referred to by the word, it is always capitalized. Could one make an argument that nowhere does it specifically mean Jesus when it is lowercased?
> ...



Agreed. I just find it very compelling that Christ is referred to as the Word (capitalized) exactly seven times in the New Testament! That's a nice number.



toddpedlar said:


> What I *would* most certainly do, though, is go to the Greek as Bob did in post #3. What is said to be preached there is absolutely NOT to be confused with "The Word", i.e. Jesus Christ, as the greek word τὸ ῥῆμα is NOT the one used to refer to Christ, ὁ λόγος. Given this, I can't see HOW 1 Peter 2:22-25 could ever be used against evangelism via the preached gospel.
> 
> Of course it's not the only evidence for such use of the Word.
> 
> What do your friends do with the preached gospel, a la Rom. 15:20, 2 Cor. 11:7, Galatians 1:8-11, 4:13, etc.? Are they expecting to claim that these and all other instances are not instances wherein the word is proclaimed anew to new hearers?



Such verses as these you've cited are not a problem. It is only those texts in which the word of God is mentioned in connection with the new birth such as 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Cor. 4:15, Rom. 1:16, etc. which they explain away into some odd translation.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 23, 2010)

fralo4truth said:


> Hi friends, I was wondering if I could get your help with something. I am acquainted with several individuals who are dead against evangelism and the use of the gospel in the regeneration of souls. When it comes to 1 Peter 1:23-25 the interpretation they envoke is making the 'word' here to be Christ, the Word of God. It is by Jesus, the word, that we are born again, and not the preached word. It is in this manner that they are allowed to escape the 'means' form of regeneration, ignore evangelism, and keep their hyper-calvinistic framework intact.
> 
> Admittedly, Jesus is referred to in the scriptures as the Word of God. But here in this place I strongly feel that this has reference to the preached or written word.
> 
> ...


 
Being a PB as you are, you will definitely be surrounded by 'anti means' regenerationists. I will state that all ''AMR's" are not anti envangelism, in fact, people like Gowens, CC Morris, all the way back to Trott and Beebe were pro proclamation to all. Yet, they make sure that one understands the bare word itself does not regenerate. Without the power of the Spirit, it is futile. Where they are a tad off is to say God can never use the preaching of the word with the Spirit regenerating at the same time. They avoided the one ditch of Gospel regeneration alone and fell into the other ditch of a hollow log regeneration. Where the 'lag time' between regeneration and conversion could last a life time. A person who is regenerate will worship a block of wood for a long period of time. I think Gowens, Trott and Beebe balanced this extremely well. AS far as 1 Peter is concerned, the word is the instrument which the Spirit moves, not the cause of regeneration in and of itself.

Even Pink speaks of this anti means Quickening of the soul by the Spirit, which precedes the word.


----------



## fralo4truth (Jan 23, 2010)

Amazing Grace said:


> fralo4truth said:
> 
> 
> > Hi friends, I was wondering if I could get your help with something. I am acquainted with several individuals who are dead against evangelism and the use of the gospel in the regeneration of souls. When it comes to 1 Peter 1:23-25 the interpretation they envoke is making the 'word' here to be Christ, the Word of God. It is by Jesus, the word, that we are born again, and not the preached word. It is in this manner that they are allowed to escape the 'means' form of regeneration, ignore evangelism, and keep their hyper-calvinistic framework intact.
> ...


 
Thank you Elder. Your critique hit the nail right on the head. But I would even go a step further and say that there are many who will not only claim a long period of time exists between regeneration and conversion, but that conversion doesn't even happen at all in some! It definitely becomes a hollow-log form of regeneration in which the principle of holiness is removed and placed out into the distant future somewhere where the individual may or may not attain into it. Consequently, it allows for the existence of regenerate unbelievers and rebels, classes of men unknown to the scriptures.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 23, 2010)

fralo4truth said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > fralo4truth said:
> ...



It's also a meaningless number. The ESV has it this way five times, while the KJV has it seven. I suspect you could find a translation that has it six times... 



> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > What I *would* most certainly do, though, is go to the Greek as Bob did in post #3. What is said to be preached there is absolutely NOT to be confused with "The Word", i.e. Jesus Christ, as the greek word τὸ ῥῆμα is NOT the one used to refer to Christ, ὁ λόγος. Given this, I can't see HOW 1 Peter 2:22-25 could ever be used against evangelism via the preached gospel.
> ...


 
My point, though, is that the word used in 1 Peter 1:25, that which was preached to them who believed, is specifically NOT Christ, and demonstrably so, because the Greek word is not logos. Those who argue that where you find the word "word" in the English in 1 Peter 1:25 somehow refers to Christ, rather than to the written word of God, are badly mistaken. Any doctrine that is said to be drawn from a particular turn of English phrase but which does not hold up when the original languages are examined, must be rejected. This is one of those (which is obviously wrong for other reasons, but blatantly clear here if one actually looks at what Scripture says).


----------



## Der Pilger (Jan 29, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> I would point him to James 1:18


 
I think you're right about that. In that verse, the word "logos" is used in the dative case (LOGWi, λόγῳ), and if I'm not mistaken, it is used instrumentally.


----------

