Tom,

I have no time nor desire to visit yet another discussion where you have gotten yourself involved! giggle And, I don't have Peter Master's book you mentioned, so I can't reference that either so as to make comment on what he allegedly wrote. But what I can tell you about the use of the word "regeneration" is that it is true that the older Reformers did sometimes give regeneration a broader meaning than what we do today. At times they saw regeneration as including conversion, while we restrict it to that "making alive" of the soul that must precede conversion. If one understands the intention of the author, then I see no problem nor contradiction. Personally, I believe the Scripture's definition of regeneration to be that which is commonly recognized and used today; i.e., in a narrow sense of the Spirit's bringing forth the new birth.

As for Murray being credited for being the one who is responsible for using regeneration in the narrow sense, I seriously doubt the verity of that statement. Many theologians and preachers long before Murray used regeneration in the narrower sense. Methinks someone has their history a bit skewed. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rolleyes.gif" alt="rolleyes" title="rolleyes[/img]

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]