Born of the word?

In this post I'm going to respond to somebody who thinks everyone who dies before the age of reason is damned:

If it were enough be regenerated to be saved then the gospel was useless, the sacrifice of Christ would have been in vain. God could save those he wanted by simply regenerating them by sending the Holy Spirit.

i) That misses the point. This doesn't involve a universal principle, as if it must be the same for everyone regardless, but whether what's necessary under normal circumstances is necessary under abnormal circumstances. 

Keep in mind that the content of faith is subject to progressive revelation and redemption. So it's not the same at all times and places. 

ii) It hardly renders the atonement in vain. God only regenerates the redeemed. 

iii) To take a comparison, ancient Israel had military conscription (Num 1:2-3,45). Yet there were exemptions (Deut 20:5-8; 24:5).

Notice, though, that there's no stated exemption for men who are blind, quadriplegics, or hemophiliacs. Does that mean blind men, quadriplegics, and hemophiliacs are not exempt? If they don't enlist, are they draft dodgers? Are they derelict in their duty? Have they broken God's law?

The silence of Scripture on possible exceptions doesn't mean there are no possible exceptions. It would make the Bible far too long to list every conceivable exception to commands and prohibitions. The Bible typically deals with commonplace sins, crimes, and duties rather than exotic cases or remote hypotheticals. 

Biblical commands and prohibitions have an implied context. In this case, able-bodied men. The command is inapplicable to blind men, quadriplegics, and hemophiliacs. It doesn't envision that situation. It doesn't address the question of whether brains-in-vats are mandated to engage in hand-to-hand combat. 

My arguments for regeneration by the word:

John 3:3-8 (water here means the Word of God)

No, in context, water is a figure of speech for the action of the Holy Spirit. Vv6-8 are epexegetical of v5, and explicate "water" as a metaphor for spiritual renewal. Cf. 7:37-39. 

Eph. 5:25-26

That's a corporate metaphor for the consecration of the church as God's people, accomplished by the atonement of Christ, proclaimed in the gospel (e.g. Eph 1:13).

1 Peter 1:23-25

i) In v23 he attributes birth to the word, but in v3 he attributes birth to the Resurrection. So Peter is using birth as a flexible metaphor. 

ii) Birth can be a corporate metaphor for the "birth" of the Church (or Israel), rather than an individual metaphor.

iii) Is the imagery agricultural or procreative? In v24, the imagery is explicitly agricultural. That suggests the seminal imagery in v23 is agricultural (sowing, planting) rather than reproductive (birthing, begetting, conceiving). If so, that's a different metaphor than rebirth. 

It's possible that Peter uses mixed metaphors. If so, that should warn us not to press or isolate the imagery. Rather, Peter's language is impressionistic. 

James 1:18

There are roughly three possible interpretations:

1. It refers to regeneration. However:

i) It mentions birth rather than rebirth.

ii) Firstfuits and the implanted word (v21) are agricultural rather than reproductive metaphors. That might have its background in the agricultural parables of Jesus (Mt 13:18-43).

iii) It mentions the Father giving birth, which is oxymoronic. In terms of figurative consistency, regeneration is a masculine metaphor. A male impregnating a female. 

2. It refers to God as Creator. That dovetails with the allusions to Gen 1 in the preceding verse:

i) God made the "lights" (sun, moon, stars).

ii) God made the world by commanding the world into existence. 

iii) God's creative word is a good gift–the benedictory refrain in Gen 1 ("and it was good").

iv) The Torah as divine light (Ps 119:105,130).

3. If refers to God's adoption of Israel:

i) James opens his letter with Diaspora language (1:1)

ii) Israel as Yahweh's firstborn (Exod 4:22)

iii) Israel as firstfruits (Jer 2:3)

iv) Yahweh birthing/begetting Israel (Deut 32:18). That's the background for the oxymoron in Jas 1:18.

v) The Torah as God's true word (Ps 118/119:43,142,151, LXX; Mal 2:6, LXX). 

vii) The Exodus as a new creation motif.

Who's the audience for his letter? Messianic Jews? Gentiles converts? A mixed audience? He might be evoking OT redemptive categories to depict the church as the new Israel or extension/continuation of ancient Israel. We should also make allowance for mixed metaphors.

John 6:63

Does it denote spiritual rebirth? A flashback to Jn 3:3-8? 

No. In context, it refers to the resurrection of the body. Jesus will raise the saints (6:39-40,44,51) at his word/command (5:21,25; 11:43-44). So the reference is eschatological. Not to regeneration but the endtime resurrection of the just.