Regeneration--Faith

[joelkaki]

Does regeneration precede faith or does faith precede regeneration? I specifically want to see Biblical evidence for the latter. I believe the former, and I have some very important evidence I would like to present for it, but first I want to see who believes the latter. If you believe the latter, beware, I will attempt my very best to show the difficulties I see with that, but I would still like to see evidence for it.

This is kind of an informal challenge to those who hold the latter.


Joel

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

My feeling is that the scriptures are somewhat ambiguous, although I've heard decent arguments for both sides. The question itself carries a lot of theological freight, and was probably generated in the wake of historical doctrinal disputes. It is often stated that, temporally speaking, regeneration and faith are simultaneous, but the logical order necessitates that regeneration comes first, in keeping with Calvinistic stances upon monergism, "tulip,"and the unregerate being spiritually "dead." IMHO, the position that regeneration logically preceeds faith owes more to Calvinist systematics than to conclusive exegesis. I think that the exegetical debate itself ends in stalemate, but I'll be interested to see how this thread progresses.

[joelkaki]

I will soon give my exegetical reasons for believing that regeneration must precede faith. I will wait for a few more responses first, though.

Joel

[Ishmael]

:yipee:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

[Ishmael]

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :rant: :cheers: :cheers:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

:angel: :cheers: :angel: :cheers: :angel: :cheers: :angel:

[Ishmael]

:bonk: :yipee: :bonk: :yipee: :bonk: :cheers:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

:argh: :rofl: :whip:

[Ishmael]

:bawl: :o :p :hrm: :idea: :kiss:

[GrayPilgrim]

:huh:

[Ishmael]

:argh: :argh: ;) :bawl: :angel:

[GrayPilgrim]

pereynol:
My feeling is that the scriptures are somewhat ambiguous, although I've heard decent arguments for both sides. The question itself carries a lot of theological freight, and was probably generated in the wake of historical doctrinal disputes. It is often stated that, temporally speaking, regeneration and faith are simultaneous, but the logical order necessitates that regeneration comes first, in keeping with Calvinistic stances upon monergism, "tulip,"and the unregerate being spiritually "dead." IMHO, the position that regeneration logically preceeds faith owes more to Calvinist systematics than to conclusive exegesis. I think that the exegetical debate itself ends in stalemate, but I'll be interested to see how this thread progresses.

Furthermore, in many discussions I have found that Arminians define regeneration differently, therefore it might be helpful to define what you mean by regeneration so that you are speaking past any Arminains who reply.

[joelkaki]

I guess I'll go ahead and make my point:

Those who say that faith precedes regeneration must essentially say this:

1. When we respond in faith to the gospel, we are no longer dead in our sins.
2. Faith precedes regeneration.

The first one has to be true of those who affirm the latter, for how when you believe in the gospel, you are no longer dead in sin. You are a new creation in Christ. I don't think anybody disputes that. But here is the problem with affirming those two things:

Ephesians 2:1--"And you he made alive, when you were dead in trespasses and sins."

God makes us alive, WHILE WE ARE STILL DEAD IN SINS! God regenerates us while we are still spiritually dead. If faith precedes regeneration, then he regenerates us after we are no longer dead in sin, for you cannot respond in faith and still be dead in sin. See the problem? God regenerates us while we are still dead, not after we are alive and have faith. We must conclude that regeneration precedes faith.

Joel

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Here's something I posted formerly on another site dealing with this issue:

The Dead Are Walking

"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."

So says Ephesians 2:1-2. Many times, one hears the argument made from Calvinist quarters that the unregenerate simply cannot exert themselves to saving faith because they as dead as a "corpse." Therefore, one must conceive of regeneration as logically (not temporally) preceeding faith within the ordo salutis.

Yet, is this argument sound? If we question what is meant by being "dead," particularly being "dead as a corpse," some interesting questions surface. "Death" functions as the controlling metaphor upon which the entire argument rests, but exactly what kind of assumptions are being made about the character of "being dead like a corpse?"

To conceive that the "death" in which the unbeliever exists ought to be defined as "having the volitional powers of a corpse" may well be a mistaken assumption. Yet, this may be precisely the unexamined assumption beneath what appears to be a fairly formidable bit of argumentation.

While this assumption about death might mesh fairly well with Lutheranism, Calvin inveighed against "soul sleep" early on, having clearly rejected the doctrine in his Psychopannychia. And soul sleep is perhaps functionally akin to seeing death as "having the volitional powers of a corpse." It is often asserted that a dead person cannot believe, not even under the synergistic influence of prevenient grace, solely it seems, on the strength of the fact that s/he is "dead." And the dead cannot exert faith, because obviously, they are just like corpses. Corpses cannot believe or act, therefore the dead cannot either.

Corpses aside, are dead human beings aware of anything? Do they possess sentience or volition subsequent to their demise? Or are they as corpses in some sense? Does Calvin's rejection of soul sleep have any bearing whatever upon the conception of the dead as "having the volitional powers of a corpse?" Could it be that Calvin's rejection of soul sleep actually spoils the metaphor concerning the supposed volitional impotence of the dead? And can "death," as the controlling metaphor behind this argument, really function as the base upon which the conclusions about the ordo salutis rest? Further, is foundationalism a renegade ingedient in the overall mix?

Though there remain various other aspects to these questions, and no theological position stands or collapses as a result of how one answers, these things may well be worth considering.

PS: I am not asking these questions for polemical purposes. Neither am I a die-hard defender of either side. I'm really interested in getting some feedback.

[joelkaki]

Interesting post, I'll have to get back on it. However, apart from the ordo salutis, I think I demonstrated that regeneration must precede faith, not from a definition of dead(though I agree with Total Depravity), but from the evidence of Scripture.

Joel

[Nathan]

Does Calvin's rejection of soul sleep have any bearing whatever upon the conception of the dead as "having the volitional powers of a corpse?" Could it be that Calvin's rejection of soul sleep actually spoils the metaphor concerning the supposed volitional impotence of the dead?

I don't think so.

I'm a Calvinist and I consider soul sleep to be quite a non-issue.

"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."

You can break down the meaning of "dead in trespasses and sin" if you like, and most likely create an alternative way of looking( a loophole if you will) at it that won't logically support the position of redemption before faith.
However, I think you can find a loophole, maybe even a halfway reasonable one, in anything if you set your mind to it. I believe that's just the way the world and language was set up. In doing so, you may inadvertently distort or destroy the truth these simple words attempt to convey.
Peace,
Nathan

[Arminian]

joe,


Ephesians 2:1--"And you he made alive, when you were dead in trespasses and sins."

God makes us alive, WHILE WE ARE STILL DEAD IN SINS! God regenerates us while we are still spiritually dead. If faith precedes regeneration, then he regenerates us after we are no longer dead in sin, for you cannot respond in faith and still be dead in sin. See the problem? God regenerates us while we are still dead, not after we are alive and have faith. We must conclude that regeneration precedes faith.

That is certainly a popular proof-text for Calvinists, and it certainly was also for me at one time. The issue of context needs to be addressed, however.

In Paul's books, he is almost always addressing the issue of circumcision because there was a tendency for the Jews to see their "flesh" (again, circumcision) as a badge of being justified. In Ephesians Paul said that we were "made alive" while we were yet sinners. The issue being addressed, again, is the relationship between circumcision and justification. The Jews viewed those outside the nation as "yet sinners," as Galatians 2:13 demonstrates:

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners'..."

A close examination of Ephesians will show that the issue is the same as Galatians, but that will have to wait. Right now we need to look at the word you translate as "made alive." Paul said that we were made alive while we were yet sinners and while we were dead, yet he didn't say at what point faith enters into the picture. The reason for that is that the issue for Paul here is not the metaphysics involved in conversion, but the unity of both Jew and Gentile in the entity we call "the Church." Paul's intent was to show that becoming a Jew was not the reason anyone was made alive.

So how does faith fit into the scenario with relation to being "made alive" when conversion takes place? The anatomy of conversion is described in Colossians and Galatians. First, in Colossians 2:13 Paul uses the word in question again:

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

This verse alone leaves the role of being "made alive" just as ambiguous as the Ephesians verse does. The context, however, will clear things up. Here are the surrounding verses:

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Here it becomes clear that Paul believes that the "circumcision done by Christ" is "through your faith in the power of God." That circumcision is the "circumcision of the heart" which Paul associates with the reception of the Spirit. For Paul, the Spirit brings life.

The reception of the Spirit is the result of faith and is the mark of covenant members after Christ came. It took the cross to make this possible.

Prior to the cross, both Jew and Gentile were dead in their sins. The Jews, however, had the law as a supervising tutor, to provide a sacrificial covering for sin until the arrival of Messiah to whom the law pointed. Again, the law could not give life, so Christ had to come, as Paul says in Gal. 3:21-22:

For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Prior to Christ's arrival all were dead in their sins. The Spirit had not come to impart life. Those who trusted God were not going to hell, yet life had not yet been imparted and they awaited Messiah to bring the life: the circumcision of the Spirit upon the heart.

So now we know the answer to Paul's question as to how the Galatians received the Spirit/were "made alive":

I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?

Of course, they were made alive by believing what they heard!

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I thought this one may deserve revisitation....

[Reader]

joelkaki:


Ephesians 2:1--"And you he made alive, when you were dead in trespasses and sins."

God makes us alive, WHILE WE ARE STILL DEAD IN SINS! God regenerates us while we are still spiritually dead. If faith precedes regeneration, then he regenerates us after we are no longer dead in sin, for you cannot respond in faith and still be dead in sin. See the problem? God regenerates us while we are still dead, not after we are alive and have faith. We must conclude that regeneration precedes faith.

Joel


You are absolutely correct and faithful to the Scriptures.

Have a pearl or two . . .

[Reader]

Arminian:


Of course, they were made alive by believing what they heard!


God created the first man, Adam, from the dust, and breathed life into Him from His own Being. (Genesis 2:7)

What came first to Adam?

Life or walking with God?

God creates "sons of God" out of sinners, by Christ's justification of their souls. He breathes new spiritual life into them via His Holy Spirit come from His Son, who is a "life-giving spirit." (I Cor. 15:45)

What comes first to the born-again Christian?

Life or walking with God?

Life must precede bodily and spiritual function.

Naming the animals was a bodily function and having faith to believe and repent of sins is a spiritual function.

Both the beginning of Adam and the beginning of the "sons of God" are creative acts of God giving life to mere dust.

"For He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust." Psalm 103:14

". . Without Me, you can do nothing." John 15:5b

[Capt Mercury]

joelkaki,

You asked for some scriptures and rationale for faith preceding regeneration. I must say that I'm surprised not to see comments on elkuw in John 6:44.

We agree that no one can come to Jesus or believe on Him without God working beforehand in their lives. People are so bogged-down by their sin and refusal to believe that unless God draws them, they are hopeless. But this drawing of God is not limited to a (relatively) few, selected people. Jesus also said a little later in John's gospel, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die. (John 12:32).

We are also told that the Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

Again in 1st John 2:2 we read, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." So I see no biblical basis for the L ("limited atonement").

Calvin himself did not believe it - that was the result of a disciple of his, Beza. It came about at the Westminster Assembly which met between 1643 and 1651 and eventually resulted in the TULIP principles - in reaction to Arminianism's 5 Remonstrances. And since we do not see everyone coming to faith in Christ, it is clear that our faith must precede our regeneration.

Now what about the famous "no one can come to Me except the Father "drag" him scripture, John 6:44? It is often pointed out that the Greek word for "draw" typically used here (elkush - Aorist active subjunctive 3/S of elkuw - "to draw, attract; drag [of coercion]; haul in; draw [of swords]") means "to drag."

This is a critical verse for Calvinist theology. It is interesting that non-reformed persons such as Walvoord, Billy Graham and Arminians also say that man is "totally depraved." But they also insist that faith precedes regeneration. A very important distinction. You see, along with Calvinists, they agree that man is not capable of believing in Christ apart from God’s drawing. I agree with this also - it IS biblical, IMO. So what's the distinction?

What it all comes down to, IMO, is how we define "total depravity." IMO a totally depraved human being is incapable of making a moral choice on his own. But I would prefer to refer to this as some sort of "divine enablement," while Calvinists call this divine work in the seeker "regeneration." Arminians may not go as far as I do here.

Big difference.

Calvinists insist that the seeker is "born again" or "regenerated" BEFORE he believes in Christ's work for him on the cross. They switch the order because of the demands of the TULIP, not based on scripture alone, IMO. Their "systematic theology" demands it.

So then, it comes down to this critical point that finds its apparent support in this verse, John 6:44. Does God, in fact, draw or entreat men to come to Himself, as Jn 6:44 appears to teach, or does God actually drag them by force into the kingdom? And why would anyone insist on such a theology anyway? Because it makes it ALL of God and NONE of man's effort. In a Calvinist's viewpoint, this magnifies God, lifts up the grace of God. Calvinists such as RC Sproul argue that God drags men into His kingdom actually against their will. The key for him is this verse, John 6:44 and (elkuw / elkw). He interprets it to mean "to drag, force, or coerce." His support seems biblical when we first look at the lexicons for this Greek word.

The verb elkw occurs only twice in the NT (Jas 2:6 and Acts 21:30). In both cases believers are being dragged against their will into court. The same is true of elkuw in its only use outside of John (Acts 16:19 where Paul and Silas are dragged before the authorities).

So you can see why someone might conclude that the use of elkuw in Jn 6:44 also means to "drag" in the sense of force - against someone's will. But this is an exegetical fallacy known as "illegitimate totality transfer" as I've heard it described by Zane Hodges, though I don't think he originated the expression. What it means is that just because a word or expression in a certain context means "such-n-such" does NOT mean that is what it MUST mean in a different context, or as used by a different author. So because elkuw means "drag against one’s will" in James and Acts, that does not require it to have the same meaning in John 6:44. We need to look at the entire lexical spectrum of its meaning. We also need to focus on how John typically uses the word and in the particular context. So then, uses of έλκυω in John's writings, particularly his gospel are far more important than how it is used in James and Acts.

John uses elkuw 3 other times in his gospel:

John 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (elkuw) all men to Myself."
At 1st this appears to be saying much the same as 6:44. But this analogy was used by John earlier in chap. 3 to refer to the bronze snake that was lifted up for the children of Israel in the wilderness so that men could come to it and once seeing it not die of the snake bites. It was symbolic then of Christ being raised up on a cross to die for our sin and be the source for our salvation, as it is here.

When they asked him about what he meant, Jesus answered, "For a little while longer the light is among you. Walk while you have the light, that darkness may not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the light, in order that you may become sons of light." here He makes it clear that people have a choice. That they can look to Him and choose to "believe in the light." There is not the slightest indication of being dragged to that light. And since this says much the same thing as John 6:44, this should be a clue that Jesus likely meant it in the same manner in 6:44 - to draw, not to drag.

John 18:10 Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew (elkuw) it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus.
Since the sword is inanimate, it won't tell us much since a sword can't resist or be "wooed" into coming out of the scabbard, can it? So IMO it isn't relevant. The only way that Peter could get that sword out would be to "drag" it out, and that was obviously how elkuw was used there.

John 21:6 And He said to them, "Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch." So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in (elkuw) because of the great number of fish.
Again, this won't tell us much because a net of fish won't resist it's being dragged in, and you again can't "woo" that net to come ashore, unless you're Aladdin. So it's not relevant.

So we find that only one of the other uses of elkuw in John help us to determine how John uses it in the instance of 6:44 - John 12:32. And that would seem to indicate a "drawing," rather than a "dragging" when you consider the context.

So we are forced to search the Greek lexicons for their view. Here's perhaps the top recognized lexicon:

Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., (BGAD) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
elkuw
1. to drag, draw something as a sword or to haul a net. pull or tug someone back and forth, mistreat someone.

fig. of the pull on man’s inner life. To draw, attract as in John 6:44.

2. to flow along, as of a river.


OK, it's not very conclusive, though it does recommend the use of "draw" or "attract" for John 6:44.

But perhaps the most respected interpretive one of all is Kittel. Happen to have one on my shelf. Following is a quote by Dr. Dave Anderson regarding what Kittel had to say on this. The entire article can be found at:

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000ii/Anderson.htm


Dave Anderson article:
Sproul appeals to an article in Kittel to support his understanding that the word means “to compel by irresistible superiority.”[47] We are not sure if this conclusion was a hasty reading on Sproul’s part or not, but the article concludes just the opposite in regard to Jn 6:44. Albrecht Oepke[48] refers to two readings from 4 Maccabees (BD: apocrypha) and one from Jer 31:3 (BD: Greek septuagint) to establish that in a familial context or a lover context elkuw means “to woo” or “to draw with love.” In Jeremiah it is God the Lover drawing His Love, Israel, with His lovingkindness, and in Macc 14:13 and 15:11 it is a Jewish mother as she watches her seven sons martyred for their faith. In both cases the verb is used in connection with strong cords of love drawing the beloved to the one loving. Once again we see that context is king. Jn 6:44 speaks of people coming to Jesus only if His Father draws them. This is not a hostile context. It is the familial context, a context of love.

Why is this so important? Because love precludes force. Does any groom wish to drag, force, or coerce his bride to the altar? I think not. He may have sovereignly initiated the relationship, but then a period of courting and wooing took place in which the future groom persuaded his future bride of his many virtues.

We conclude that “divine persuasion” is exactly what the Bible depicts as the divine enablement necessary for a totally fallen being to believe in Christ for salvation. This is not synergism. God initiates the relationship, and God is the Persuader, the Wooer. Man is the responder. His ultimate faith is passive. He is a receptor, a receiver (Jn 1:12) of a divine gift. As Roy Aldrich argued long ago, receiving a gift can never be construed to be a meritorious work.[49] And never is this “divine persuasion” called “regeneration” in the Bible.

Lastly, what is the context for John 6:44? Well, later in the chapter we read, And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." So "granting" someone to come to the Father is certainly not the same as "dragging" someone before the Father, as you would drag someone before a judge! Context is king. And the context for John 6:44 is clear, IMO.

So it makes much more sense that God, whom we are told in John 3:16 was motivated by His love for the entire world, would lovingly entice, woo, draw unbelievers to Himself. Can an unbeliever seek God unless God works in him to be responsive? No, IMO the scripture is clear about that, and most Christians agree on this. But to refer to it as "dragging" by force as you would drag a net full of fish is ridiculous, IMO. And that explains why nearly every single translation translates elkuw in John 6:44 and 12:32 as "draw," while translating it as "drag" when not dealing with people elsewhere in John. God does not force people to come to Him. He works in their lives to cause that to happen, but we cannot remove the free will of the individual. Without such a free will, how can we truly respond in love to someone? This does not diminish either the sovereignty or the grace of God, IMO - it rather strengthens it. Because God is able to work in the lives of individuals without literally "forcing them."

Anyway, that's how I see it. I too have thought through on this and have some more things to post, but I'm going to wait on that a bit. (See, you can teach an old dog new tricks... "Rover, sit, Rover... Rov... Bad dog!")

[Reader]

Capt Mercury:

joelkaki,

People are so bogged-down by their sin and refusal to believe that unless God draws them, they are hopeless.


"Bogged-down?" "hopeless?"

Not Godly language.

Sin does not "bog down," . . .it kills.




But this drawing of God is not limited to a (relatively) few, selected people. Jesus also said a little later in John's gospel, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die. (John 12:32).

Keep reading in John 12, and you will see in vss 38-40 the quotations taken from Isaiah 6:9&10, that without a doubt teach that the belief in the Gospel and salvation from the Christ being "lifted up," is withheld from many, by the soveriegn will and control of God.




We are also told that the Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

The words of Peter are addressed to elect believers, and not to the world at large. You are taking this promise out of context. God is not willing that any of His elect children should perish, which corresponds perfectly to the promise of Jesus to the Father, that He would lose none of them the Father gave Him. (John 17:12, 6;39)

(Accurate doctrine must take all Scripture into account, and you are eliminating a lot of Scripture in your remarks.)




Again in 1st John 2:2 we read, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." So I see no biblical basis for the L ("limited atonement").

"Whole world" refers to Gentiles as well as Jews. Not the world universal. Are you a "universalist?"




Calvin himself did not believe it

Wrong.


- that was the result of a disciple of his, Beza.

Correct. Beza believed and taught Limited Atonement, as did Calvin, because both were faithful to Scripture.


It came about at the Westminster Assembly which met between 1643 and 1651 and eventually resulted in the TULIP principles - in reaction to Arminianism's 5 Remonstrances. And since we do not see everyone coming to faith in Christ, it is clear that our faith must precede our regeneration.

Limited Atonement was taught by Jesus Christ as recorded in John 17:12.






What it all comes down to, IMO, is how we define "total depravity." IMO a totally depraved human being is incapable of making a moral choice on his own. But I would prefer to refer to this as some sort of "divine enablement," while Calvinists call this divine work in the seeker "regeneration." Arminians may not go as far as I do here.

Another prime example of semi-Pelagianism . . .out of the horse's mouth.



Calvinists insist that the seeker is "born again" or "regenerated" BEFORE he believes in Christ's work for him on the cross. They switch the order because of the demands of the TULIP, not based on scripture alone, IMO. Their "systematic theology" demands it.

Wrong. Very wrong.

A person must be alive, before they can function or believe anything.




So then, it comes down to this critical point that finds its apparent support in this verse, John 6:44. Does God, in fact, draw or entreat men to come to Himself, as Jn 6:44 appears to teach, or does God actually drag them by force into the kingdom?


Pure nonsense. God does not force; He changes. God changes the heart to love, which changes the mind to love, which changes the will to obey, which changes human actions.

No force. No spiritual "rape." Just grace restoring humanity to its best.


And why would anyone insist on such a theology anyway?

Because it is taught in the Word of God. It is biblical. It is truth.



Because it makes it ALL of God and NONE of man's effort. In a Calvinist's viewpoint, this magnifies God, lifts up the grace of God.

Amen! And a thousand amens!






John 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (elkuw) all men to Myself."
At 1st this appears to be saying much the same as 6:44. But this analogy was used by John earlier in chap. 3 to refer to the bronze snake that was lifted up for the children of Israel in the wilderness so that men could come to it and once seeing it not die of the snake bites. It was symbolic then of Christ being raised up on a cross to die for our sin and be the source for our salvation, as it is here.

When they asked him about what he meant, Jesus answered, "For a little while longer the light is among you. Walk while you have the light, that darkness may not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the light, in order that you may become sons of light." here He makes it clear that people have a choice. That they can look to Him and choose to "believe in the light."

Not according to the portion of John 12 you omit. Verses 38-40 distinctly teach that God controls who will believe in the Christ lifted up, and who will be prevented from believing unto salvation.


God does not force people to come to Him. He works in their lives to cause that to happen, but we cannot remove the free will of the individual. Without such a free will, how can we truly respond in love to someone? This does not diminish either the sovereignty or the grace of God, IMO - it rather strengthens it. Because God is able to work in the lives of individuals without literally "forcing them."

The will of man is held in bondage to Satan because of the fear of death, and because of spiritual death caused by sin. The will of man is only restored to its capacity to choose good, by the grace of God. Only Christians, by the gift of faith and belief in the Word, Gospel, and truths of God, find freedom to choose to obey God, to live according to God's will, and to walk in the good works He has prepared for them.

"Therefore, if the Son MAKES you free, you shall be free indeed." John 8:36

There is no freedom of the will prior to this release and rescue. Only after regeneration and conversion by God's Holy Spirit, is the will of man again free to willfully submit to God's sovereign will and righteousness.

[joelkaki]

Capt. Mercury, I'm afraid I started this thread quite some time ago, and I do not have time at the moment to respond to what you have written, but I will say something about one part of your post:


Calvinists insist that the seeker is "born again" or "regenerated" BEFORE he believes in Christ's work for him on the cross. They switch the order because of the demands of the TULIP, not based on scripture alone, IMO. Their "systematic theology" demands it.

I have heard this said so many times. If I got paid a nickel for every time I've heard it come from an Arminian's mouth, I'd be a millionaire by now (and I haven't even been alive that long). Apparently, you are not aware of the rich Reformed tradition of being dedicated to sola scriptura. I do not care one bit whether it is a TULIP or a TUILP or TUIP or TUP, I really don't care as long as it is faithful to Scripture. But in my personal study of Scripture, pondering these things, reading both sides, studying both sides, seeking to believe what the Lord would have me believe, I have come to the conclusion that TULIP is consistent with Scripture, and indeed is the only accurate way to understand salvation. I most certainly do not affirm that regeneration precedes faith because I have some great affection for TULIPs, but because I believe God's Word teaches it. And many, many Calvinists hold it for the exact same reason. Granted, some hold to it just cuz daddy did, but I think that would not be the majority (nor is that a problem relegated only to Calvinism). So please, if you want to argue against Calvinism, and present what you believe Scripture to teach, I don't have a problem with that, and am glad of it, for it stretches me in my understanding of Scripture, but don't use the , in essence, ad hominem argument that I and other calvinists don't really care what Scripture teaches, but just want a pretty flower with 5 petals.

Joel

[brett]

Hey Capt. I really appreciated your indepth explanation of "drawing." It's answered many of the questions I've had. I'll give you some pearls as soon as I figure out how. :highfive: I posted some questions on this very word in Theology 101 back in October, a thread called "the meaning of drawing". I got a whole bunch of views, no replies. :noid: There's a few more questions still unanswered, but their off topic. If you care to take a look, it's in Theology 101 about 3 layers back.

[brett]

GrayPilgrim:
Furthermore, in many discussions I have found that Arminians define regeneration differently, therefore it might be helpful to define what you mean by regeneration so that you are speaking past any Arminians who reply.

I definitely second this motion. However it’s my understanding that arminians and calvinists are pretty much in agreement on regeneration, apart from the logical chronology.

Some specific questions for those on both sides of this issue:
When does the Holy Spirit indwell? Before or after faith?
Also, where does salvation fit it. Does salvation cause regeneration or does regeneration cause salvation? Or are they synonymous?
Romans 10:9-10 seems to offer a pretty good case that belief at least precedes salvation.

Rom. 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


pereynol:
PS: I am not asking these questions for polemical purposes. Neither am I a die-hard defender of either side. I'm really interested in getting some feedback.


pereynol:
My feeling is that the scriptures are somewhat ambiguous, although I've heard decent arguments for both sides. .... IMHO, the position that regeneration logically precedes faith owes more to Calvinist systematics than to conclusive exegesis. I think that the exegetical debate itself ends in stalemate, but I'll be interested to see how this thread progresses.

Pereynol, in fairness, don’t you think arminians have the same motives for believing that faith comes first? But it’s interesting that you say you’re not a die-hard defender of it. The truth is, I’m not either. I wonder if we share the same concerns. The arminian position (as represented by those I’ve talked to on this board, which I’m sure is mainstream) seems to really have some shortcomings in this area. This is one reason I’m reluctant to call myself an arminian. I’m definitely not a calvinist and see major problems with their approach, but I don’t think arminians (if I’m understanding them) have this one down either.

Arminians agree with calvinists on Total Depravity (or inability), right? So how does a totally unable man choose christ. The obvious answer is prevenient grace (PG). Ok fine, what exactly does PG do? The biblical metaphors describing man’s inherited condition are “blindness”, “deafness”, and “death.” If those conditions aren’t cured, how do they hear that they might believe? I guess the question I’m asking is this: Do men choose Christ from a state of Total Inability? Isn't that an oxymoron? There must be some transitional step missing from the arminian scheme. TD in some way has to be eliminated before faith is possible. You can’t be unable and able at the same time. You can’t hear a call and respond while deaf. But I've heard arminians on this board say the men actually believe while still in a state of total depravity. I won't mention any initials, but his name was sheepdog. :ahem:

I’m no expert on arminianism as I’ve been in calvinistic to moderately calvinistic churches my whole christian life. I have my opinions on this issue, but I'm still open. What am I not grasping here?

[Capt Mercury]

Yesterday @ 05:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=324042#post324042)
joelkaki:

Capt. Mercury, I'm afraid I started this thread quite some time ago, and I do not have time at the moment to respond to what you have written, but I will say something about one part of your post:

<where is it? - sure wish that they included nested quotes.>

I have heard this said so many times. If I got paid a nickel for every time I've heard <snip ...> So please, if you want to argue against Calvinism, and present what you believe Scripture to teach, I don't have a problem with that, and am glad of it, for it stretches me in my understanding of Scripture, but don't use the , in essence, ad hominem argument that I and other calvinists don't really care what Scripture teaches, but just want a pretty flower with 5 petals.

Joel
Joel,

Sorry about taking so long to respond. I did try to respond twice yesterday when I readthis, but apparently they're having a lot of trouble with the DB servers. I sent an email on it requesting an answer but haven't heard back yet.

FYI, I appreciate your gracious response. I guess I've learned that not everyone is like that. I'll not respond to anymore of Reader's posts. I hate to leave his response to my last post as is, but I won't get caught up in that style of interacting.

Now FYI what I meant was that IMO Calvinists tend to be strong in their undertsanding of sytematic theology. IMO that can tend to cause one to see the local passages thru glasses of bias. IOW, I know that forme I have to work at times to see something from another's perspective when his exegesis of a passage results in theology that differs with my own. And seeing scripture in the light of the entire biblical record IS important.

But I didn't mean that you just wanted a nice TULIP. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't care what scripture teaches. OK, had to pull up that thread on another window since TW doesn't allow you to see thethread in the process of posting. Here it is:


Cap:
Calvinists insist that the seeker is "born again" or "regenerated" BEFORE he believes in Christ's work for him on the cross. They switch the order because of the demands of the TULIP, not based on scripture alone, IMO. Their "systematic theology" demands it.

IOW, if someone tries to base the Ordo Salutis on scripture it would be very difficult to prove it on that basis alone. The reasoning often used is that since a person cannot even respond until he's regenerated, that MUST occur first. It comes from a theology that views total depravity more extremely than I do. That was my point.

Thx again for your graciousness. Gotta go. Hopefully this will post this time!

Cap

[Reader]

brett:



Some specific questions for those on both sides of this issue:
When does the Holy Spirit indwell?
Before or after faith?

Before faith.

"Jesus answered and said to him, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" John 3:3

Until a dead man is resurrected, he has no senses or function. Lazarus was rotting when Jesus called his name and commanded he live again. Only after receiving the power and life from Christ, did Lazarus obey Jesus and walk away from death.

This was a literal and bodily resurrection, but it has spiritual significance and teaches us the process of being born again by the Holy Spirit in regeneration.

The sinner, dead in trespasses, is called to life by the Holy Spirit, given new life, a new heart, new spiritual senses and capacities, so that when he hears the Gospel (Word of God) proclaimed, he is gifted with faith to believe and repent of sins. Only the regenerated sinner has spiritual "eyes" and "ears" to hear and comprehend the Gospel truths.

I am sure there are instances when the Spirit regenerates a sinner and gifts with faith to respond to the Gospel, almost simultaneously. The miracle of God creating new happens in the same event, and at the same time. However, in order for a sinner to believe in the forgiveness of God and to turn away from sins, there must be spiritual life to do so.




Also, where does salvation fit it. Does salvation cause regeneration or does regeneration cause salvation? Or are they synonymous?

"Salvation" describes the entire process of God saving sinners from sin, death, and the devil. "Salvation" includes eternal election, atonement of sins, justification before the Father, removal of sins, resurrection of Christ from the grave (victory over sin, death, and the devil), the calling of the Holy Spirit and drawing of the sinner to the Christ, regeneration, conversion, sanctification unto holiness, receiving faith to believe and repent, enduring to the end of earthly life, the soul abiding in Christ after physical death, the second resurrection and reuniting of body and soul in glory. All of that is "salvation."

"Regeneration" is the spiritual resurrection Christians experience in their lifetimes on this earth. Regeneration is when they are brought out of darkness, and into the light, to "see" and understand the things of God and to believe they have been forgiven their sins (justified). But before that regeneration, and after that regeneration, God does much work on the Christian's behalf to provide everlasting salvation.




Romans 10:9-10 seems to offer a pretty good case that belief at least precedes salvation.

Rom. 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Confession of Christ is not the ~means~ of finding salvation; it is the ~evidence~ of salvation. When a sinner confesses Christ from his heart, he is confessing belief in the resurrection power of God, that has also resurrected him to new life. Unfortunately, many people confess faith in Jesus Christ, without comprehending or even applying the bodily resurrection of Jesus to their own lives. This is because they have not experienced spiritual resurrection (regeneration) of their souls. They talk about these doctrines, without really "seeing" them.

That is why James warned that if one professes faith, they must show the works of God. The spiritual "good works" of God, that has created a "new man." A new spiritual man who produces the fruit of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit who indwells each and every regenerated sinner, working within them to will and to do of God's good pleasure. (Phil. 2:13)

If a person confesses Christ with his lips, but his heart is not renewed by the Spirit, he is still dead in his sins, and he has deceived himself. (Romans 8:9)

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? . . .thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:14, 16




Arminians agree with calvinists on Total Depravity (or inability), right?


They may say they do, but in reality, I do not believe most really understand the depths of total depravity. I say this, because it is the opinion of many Arminians (and Roman Catholics, Orthodox, etc.), that faith is latent in the human being, and when man chooses, he can exercise that faith to believe in God. Faith is a virtuous work; thus, they believe there is enough virtue left in humankind since the fall, to do this good work and participate in working their own salvation. I believe this to be a fallacy, as well as a works-righteousness gospel.

When one carefully studies what the Bible says about the depravity of mankind, one comes to understand that there is nothing good or virtuous in fallen man at all. There is no latent attributes inherent to the corrupted human nature that can conjure up faith in God. That is why the Scripture says that all men are "dead" in their trespasses. (Eph. 2:1,5) "The wages of sin is death . ." Romans 6:23

Depravity means the human nature, body, and soul is completely non-functional and without access to God. The only remedy from the depraved condition, is to be made over again; recreated as a new man; given a new nature, and reconciled unto God's favor. This comes only by the grace and power of God. Faith to believe must come from Jesus Christ, because the ability to believe and repent does not reside in men, but only in Him.

He alone was perfectly faithful to God, and truly able to conquer sin, death, and the devil, for He is sinless and Divine by nature.

He was full of grace (God's favor). That grace, His faith, and His righteousness have all been given to those the Father gave to Him.

This grace is more than mere enabling or aids given to men.

This grace changes men. It alters their status and standing with God. Permanently. Instead of being dead, Christians are made to life. Instead of existing in darkness, they are led into the light. Once orphans, they are adopted as "sons of God" to live in God's royal family and live forever in His kingdom.

"For He made Him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." II Corinthians 5:21

Amazing grace!

[joelkaki]

Today @ 10:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326193#post326193)
Capt Mercury:


Joel,

Sorry about taking so long to respond. I did try to respond twice yesterday when I readthis, but apparently they're having a lot of trouble with the DB servers. I sent an email on it requesting an answer but haven't heard back yet.

No problem about the response time. It's not like you're supposed to meet a deadline or something.



FYI, I appreciate your gracious response. I guess I've learned that not everyone is like that.

Thanks. I also appreciate your response to my response. It's nice not to get blasted every time you say something like some people on this board do to me on this issue.



I'll not respond to anymore of Reader's posts. I hate to leave his response to my last post as is, but I won't get caught up in that style of interacting.

Now FYI what I meant was that IMO Calvinists tend to be strong in their undertsanding of sytematic theology. IMO that can tend to cause one to see the local passages thru glasses of bias. IOW, I know that forme I have to work at times to see something from another's perspective when his exegesis of a passage results in theology that differs with my own. And seeing scripture in the light of the entire biblical record IS important.

True, Calvinists are strong on systematic theology. But I don't believe Calvinists to be alone in this area. And yes, should you not truly seek to rightly divide the word of truth, it could cause you to see things through glasses of bias. But this is what my Reformed Hebrew professor said one time: "First we must strive to become good exegetes; then good biblical theologians, then good systematicians, then homileticians." I believe that is what you will find if you look (again, generally, there are bad apples in every bunch) at those who are truly dedicated to Reformed theology. No less emphasized than the petals of the TULIP are the 5 Solas, which incidentally, the same Hebrew professor above mentioned that his favorite sola usually isn't listed. I can't remember the Latin, but the translation is "The Cross alone is my theology."
However, as to seeing things through galsses, I do not think Arminians and others escape from that in any way. We all have presuppositions--that's just life. The point is, those presuppositions cannot come before Scripture. And honestly, I have seen presuppositions come before Scripture in just as many of the Arminians I run across as I do Calvinists.



But I didn't mean that you just wanted a nice TULIP. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't care what scripture teaches. OK, had to pull up that thread on another window since TW doesn't allow you to see thethread in the process of posting. Here it is:

IOW, if someone tries to base the Ordo Salutis on scripture it would be very difficult to prove it on that basis alone. The reasoning often used is that since a person cannot even respond until he's regenerated, that MUST occur first. It comes from a theology that views total depravity more extremely than I do. That was my point.

Well, I will have to disagree here. One important point here is that systematic theology is important, WHEN it is based on Scripture. And so I do not have a problem with showing that the other points in TULIP logically, systematically, and necessarily flow from T, or whatever, as long as it is all based on Scripture. And, not so incidentally, I believe that TULIP is. I believe it with all my heart. As Charles Spurgeon said [not exact quote--can't remember]: The theology that has today become known as Calvinism is the gospel.
NOTE: By saying that, I do not mean that someone who is not a Calvinist doesn't believe in the gospel, and therefore is not saved or anything like that. But notice the important progression in TULIP--it is the plan of redemption beautifully represented as I believe it to be unfolded in Scripture: TOTAL DEPRAVITY: Man is sinful, in dire need of salvation, but cannot do it himself, and will suffer the consequences of sin. UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION: God chose to not allow every man to die in his sin, but unconditionally chose to save Him through the Seed of the Woman. LIMITED ATONEMENT: Christ came to give himself, that God's plan determined in eternity past to save men would be accomplished through his shed blood; men can now be saved, because Christ took their punishment. IRRESISTIBLE GRACE: God, at the right time in a person's life, calls him by His Spirit to make the work of Christ effective in his life to totally change him, and allow him to have living faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. PERSEVERENCE OF THE SAINTS: (I prefer to call PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS). God will not allow those whom he has chosen, died for, and called to suffer the punishment He has saved them from. He will preserve them through faith in His Son, and bring them to glory.

Please answer this question honestly: Do you not see that in some way at least, this is the message of man's salvation as presented in the Bible? If you don't, I won't condemn you for it, because God's Spirit does not lead everyone to the same truths at the same time, thus I may never come to your beliefs, nor you to mine, but do you not feel that this is the essential message of the gospel?

[Sorry for that extremely long bit of pouring from my heart, but hey, sometimes I just can't help it.]

So, my point? Simply this. I believe in Calvinism simply because I believe it is what the Bible teaches, and not only that, I believe it to be an ordered and accurate understanding of the Biblical material that shows all glory to be to God Almighty.



Thx again for your graciousness. Gotta go. Hopefully this will post this time!

Cap

No problem again, and thanks for yours as well.

Joel

[brett]

Joel,

I think this thread is going to be somewhat confusing without a definition for “regeneration.” I have a feeling there’s going to be disagreement even within camps. Reader for example believes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is pre-faith. I’m wondering if you agree. I don’t think most calvinists would but I could be wrong.


brett:
Some specific questions for those on both sides of this issue:
When does the Holy Spirit indwell? Before or after faith?


Reader:
Before faith.

I’ve heard many calvinists refer to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as one of the components of regeneration. In light of the scriptures I can’t buy into this. In fact I’d like to go through a list of events that can not possibly be apart of calvinistic regeneration because the scriptures describes them all as post faith.

Righteousness is post faith

Rom. 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.

Phil. 3:9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith

Propitiation by blood is post faith

Rom. 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness...

Justification is post faith

Rom. 3:30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

Gal. 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.

The promise of the Holy Spirit is post faith:

Gal. 3:14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The sealing of the Holy Spirit is post faith

Eph. 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

The sonship of the believer is post faith

Gal. 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Salvation is post faith

Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

2Tim. 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Rom. 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

The indwelling of Christ in the heart is post faith

Eph. 3:17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love,

All of these events are off the table as components for calvinistic pre-faith regeneration: Righteousness, propitiation, justification, the promise of the Spirit, the sealing of the Spirit, sonship of the believer, salvation, and Christ’s indwelling of the believers heart.

So what’s left? Can you site an authoritative source for the calvinist definition of regeneration?

One other point. In the context of salvation, “regeneration” only occurs once in the N.T. and that is in Titus 3:5 (I’m aware of the Matthew passage but that’s not dealing with soteriology).

Titus 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

According to Galatians and Ephesians (quoted above) the Spirit is received after faith. Paul here is speaking of the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. If these two events are indeed the same event, or components of the same event then your view is in trouble (IMHO). Jaltus, in a previous thread, claimed that a greek reading of this passage makes it very likely that these are restatements of the same event. If that’s true, the idea of regeneration preceding faith is biblically impossible. However, I’m still open the the idea that the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit are two different events separated by time.

But as you can see, the term “regeneration” really needs to be defined, before we can adequately discuss what precedes what. (btw an arminian definition would be welcomed as well, for comparison)

Sincerely,
Brett

[Reader]

brett:



But as you can see, the term “regeneration” really needs to be defined, before we can adequately discuss what precedes what. (btw an arminian definition would be welcomed as well, for comparison)

Sincerely,
Brett

I believe regeneration to be the "first resurrection." The soul of the sinner being brought from death, to new spiritual life, by the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit. (Rev. 20:5&6)

Life is regenerated in the sinner who was dead in trespasses and sins. The regeneration not only brings new life, but restoration (cleansing). Just as rotting Lazarus walked out of his grave, so the sinner is raised to new life by the power of God's Spirit.

This new spiritual life is necessary in order to "see" or comprehend the teachings of the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

A natural man does not have a spiritual heart, eyes, or ears to understand the things of the Spirit. It is only through the presence of God's Spirit working regeneration and conversion to life, that a sinner grasps the Gospel message and finds faith to believe.

"God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. . .Even so, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received . .the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God." I Cor. 2:10-12

First the Spirit, bringing life and new spiritual senses, then the hearing of the Gospel with faithful ears and then the realization, acknowledgement, and confession of Christ's justification of our souls.

Faith does not raise the dead. Corpses cannot exercise all these fruits of faith. It is the ~call~ from God that effectually raises dead sinners to life and results in their walking away from death.

The resurrection power of God raises (regenerates) men to life and then gifts them with faith to (walk) anew in the Spirit, believing in the Christ and repenting of sins.

[Arminian]

Reader,

I said:


That is certainly a popular proof-text for Calvinists, and it certainly was also for me at one time. The issue of context needs to be addressed, however.

In Paul's books, he is almost always addressing the issue of circumcision because there was a tendency for the Jews to see their "flesh" (again, circumcision) as a badge of being justified. In Ephesians Paul said that we were "made alive" while we were yet sinners. The issue being addressed, again, is the relationship between circumcision and justification. The Jews viewed those outside the nation as "yet sinners," as Galatians 2:13 demonstrates:

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners'..."

A close examination of Ephesians will show that the issue is the same as Galatians, but that will have to wait. Right now we need to look at the word you translate as "made alive." Paul said that we were made alive while we were yet sinners and while we were dead, yet he didn't say at what point faith enters into the picture. The reason for that is that the issue for Paul here is not the metaphysics involved in conversion, but the unity of both Jew and Gentile in the entity we call "the Church." Paul's intent was to show that becoming a Jew was not the reason anyone was made alive.

So how does faith fit into the scenario with relation to being "made alive" when conversion takes place? The anatomy of conversion is described in Colossians and Galatians. First, in Colossians 2:13 Paul uses the word in question again:

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

This verse alone leaves the role of being "made alive" just as ambiguous as the Ephesians verse does. The context, however, will clear things up. Here are the surrounding verses:

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Here it becomes clear that Paul believes that the "circumcision done by Christ" is "through your faith in the power of God." That circumcision is the "circumcision of the heart" which Paul associates with the reception of the Spirit. For Paul, the Spirit brings life.

The reception of the Spirit is the result of faith and is the mark of covenant members after Christ came. It took the cross to make this possible.

Prior to the cross, both Jew and Gentile were dead in their sins. The Jews, however, had the law as a supervising tutor, to provide a sacrificial covering for sin until the arrival of Messiah to whom the law pointed. Again, the law could not give life, so Christ had to come, as Paul says in Gal. 3:21-22:

For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Prior to Christ's arrival all were dead in their sins. The Spirit had not come to impart life. Those who trusted God were not going to hell, yet life had not yet been imparted and they awaited Messiah to bring the life: the circumcision of the Spirit upon the heart.

So now we know the answer to Paul's question as to how the Galatians received the Spirit/were "made alive":

I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?

Of course, they were made alive by believing what they heard!

Your reply:


God created the first man, Adam, from the dust, and breathed life into Him from His own Being. (Genesis 2:7)

What came first to Adam?

Life or walking with God?

God creates "sons of God" out of sinners, by Christ's justification of their souls. He breathes new spiritual life into them via His Holy Spirit come from His Son, who is a "life-giving spirit." (I Cor. 15:45)

What comes first to the born-again Christian?

Life or walking with God?

Life must precede bodily and spiritual function.

Naming the animals was a bodily function and having faith to believe and repent of sins is a spiritual function.

Both the beginning of Adam and the beginning of the "sons of God" are creative acts of God giving life to mere dust.

"For He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust." Psalm 103:14

". . Without Me, you can do nothing." John 15:5b

Besides not directly addressing what I said, your questions and comments were too cryptic. You may want to address the text, but I suspect not.

[adam.naranjo]

I just want to post a note, and let you all know that, in my view, everyone needs to ask themselves whether our post-enlightenment, individualistic, existential, paradigm is reading the Scripture correctly regarding this issue. What I mean is this. There are many -- and the number is growing -- theologians who are embracing a more hebraic paradigm when reading the New Testament (especially). We (I agree with them), like Israel, are seeing the N.T. discussion of Regeneration, and being 'Born-again', as well as many other "salvific" phrases, as referring to the people of God as a whole -- the community who was regenerated with the coming of the New Covenant, the Spirit, etc. This community is obviously made up of individuals, however, not all individuals in the Church, or Covenant community, are elect -- however, at the same time, the community itself IS elect -- and at the same time, certain members are elect (the remnant which will remain to faithfull to the end by God's chosing, and will stand before God in the day of judgment). This "eschatological view" of the Church, found as far back as Augustine, is highly covenantal, and solves the whole Calvinist/arminian debate -- it undertands different senses of election, and takes into account our inabilities in the modern thought paradigm. The fact is, Calvinists have not been correct in some instances of proof texting, because, in recent history, they have read scirpture in a non-covenantal way. (The funny thing is that Calvin often said things that modern Calvinists cannot harmonize with there post-enlightenment, individualistic thinking) At the same time, arminians have done the same thing for the same reason. Due to an inability to think outside of the modern paradigm they have assumed that some individual can become "born again", and be "saved" -- actually saved -- and then lose that "salvation". As if "salvation" even works that way -- like a pill. As if Salvation can be defined in a platonic sense, decontextualized from other themes in scriture.

In one sense, when one breaks covenant with God they have lost the positional salvation that was promised them by virtue of being a covenant community member. At the same time, they were never elect as individuals according Paul in Romans -- who undoubtedly is speaking individualisticly. (Of course I realize there would be debate on this issue) However, I believe Paul is speaking with regard to 'eschatological' election during the time of a coming judgment ending the old covenant age. Only the remnant is elect to stand before God in Judgment, and the members of the remnant are elect. Those Israelites could not be taken from God's hand, not because they were faithfull, but because they were chosen, and thus they were faithfull -- and in their faithfullness they work out their salvation. There is a positional promise in the covenant, there is an election of the remnant as individuals, and there is also an election of the people of God as a community. The promise is extended to the community, but reserved for the remnant.

The best way I can think of to describe the range of conception in some passages is to describe them as follows: (This is not exhaustive)

There is a meta-salvific nature in some passages. In other words they step back from the observable ordo and speak of God behind the scenes in the work of saving His people both as a community and as individuals.

Some passages, many in the N.T., speak of the visible ordo -- what we see. These are the passages that arminians focus on.

There are also many passages that are communal and are often taken as individualistic. These are covenantal in my view, and many of them are simply speaking of a fulfillment of what the O.T. looked forward to with regard to God's regeneration of israel in the N.T.

-----
His Sheep here His voice, and no one can snatch them out of His hand.

"The secret things belong to the Lord, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children forever"

I'm just going to stop there, and point people to:

"'Reformed' is Not Enough" - Douglas Wilson, a series in Mp3 Format. (http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=420&1=437&2=-1)

"The Federal Vision" - a Pastors Conference dealing honestly with Covenant, Community, Election, etc., (http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=431&1=432&2=-1)

"Reformed is Not Enough" - Book, online in PDF (http://www.christkirk.com/Literature/ReformedIsNotEnough.pdf)

"Election, Corporate and Individual" - Mark Horne (http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/election.htm)

For more articles on Soteriology form a "High-Covenant"/"New Perspective" view point. (http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/cat_soteriology.htm)


---
Adam

P.S. (I'm a calvinist)

[Reader]

adam.naranjo:

We (I agree with them), like Israel, are seeing the N.T. discussion of Regeneration, and being 'Born-again', as well as many other "salvific" phrases, as referring to the people of God as a whole -- the community who was regenerated with the coming of the New Covenant, the Spirit, etc. This community is obviously made up of individuals, however, not all individuals in the Church, or Covenant community, are elect -- however, at the same time, the community itself IS elect

This is because the doctrines of justification, sanctification, election, regeneration, and conversion are being muddied on purpose by false teachers.

There is no such thing as "community election." Election, by its divine nature is particular.

The "covenant community" is sanctified by God as a corporate whole (as was the nation of Israel, by example), but only a remnant within that "covenant community" named as the Elect of God unto salvation.

It is biblical terminology that is being ignored and abused.

Covenant = sanctification and/or salvation
Election = Covenant sanctification unto salvation

Can you see the difference?

The entire nation of Israel was sanctified by God under Covenant, but only a remnant of that community were saved and regenerated to new life under Covenant.

[TedO]

If a person is dead before salvation (meaning being spiritually like a corpse) - then what is it exactly that passes from death to life? Is is just our flesh (sarx) that is saved? Or our soul? Or our heart? If our heart is the essence that God created that he is saving - what does it mean that it is dead? If it is unable to even respond to God's calling - is there anything there to save? Or is there literally no connection between who we were prior to salvation and who we are after salvation?

Can man make a darkness so dark that God's light can't illuminate it?

[Reader]

TedO:

If a person is dead before salvation (meaning being spiritually like a corpse) - then what is it exactly that passes from death to life? Is is just our flesh (sarx) that is saved? Or our soul? Or our heart?


The entire person is dead in his sins, thus the entire person (body, soul, mind) passes from death to life at regeneration.




If our heart is the essence that God created that he is saving - what does it mean that it is dead?


The "heart" is the seat of affections within the person (body, soul, and mind).

The natural heart hates God and is cursed with enmity against God and fellow man. It is wicked and evil. It is hard a stone. It is without love, faith, or integrity, but enslaved to serve Satan, sin, lusts and lies. The heart is the center and source of sin, for out of the heart, "proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man." Mark 7:21-23

The heart motivates the entire person, for what comes from the heart affects the mind, and what affects the mind, affects the will, and the will man either serves Satan or the righteousness of God. Thus all actions of the entire man (body, soul, mind) are manifestations of the state and condition of the heart.




If it is unable to even respond to God's calling - is there anything there to save?

Scripture does not use language speaking of "saving" the heart; Scripture speaks of God ~changing~ the heart, which consists of spiritual resurrection to new life (regeneration), cleansing (justification), implantation of love for God, His Law, and all men (conversion of motivations), to serve as God's members of righteousness (sanctification).

The heart is the motivator of the person. When enslaved to sin, the heart is motivated to only do evil and is unable to do the good things of God. When enslaved to Jesus Christ, the heart is motivated to love, repent, believe, seek holiness and peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, joy, self-control, etc. (You will recognize these resultant actions to be the fruits of the Holy Spirit, who abides within the heart of regenerated man. Galatians 5:22-25)


Or is there literally no connection between who we were prior to salvation and who we are after salvation?

We are the same person, brought from death to new spiritual life, which will eventually become everlasting life in glory.




Can man make a darkness so dark that God's light can't illuminate it?

God controls darkness, and only God will dispel darkness. There is nothing the Lord cannot do. The question is, what does the Lord God WILL to do.

It is God's will to translate many persons from darkness to light through His grace.

It is also God's will to leave many persons in deserved darkness as just punishment for their love of darkness and sin.

"And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men LOVED (with the heart) darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed." John 3:19&20

[Arminian]

adam,


I'm a calvinist

And a very thoughtful one, at that!

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 03:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=330231#post330231)
adam.naranjo:

I just want to post a note, and let you all know that, in my view, everyone needs to ask themselves whether our post-enlightenment, individualistic, existential, paradigm is reading the Scripture correctly regarding this issue. What I mean is this. There are many -- and the number is growing -- theologians who are embracing a more hebraic paradigm when reading the New Testament (especially). We (I agree with them), like Israel, are seeing the N.T. discussion of Regeneration, and being 'Born-again', as well as many other &quot;salvific&quot; phrases, as referring to the people of God as a whole -- the community who was regenerated with the coming of the New Covenant, the Spirit, etc. This community is obviously made up of individuals, however, not all individuals in the Church, or Covenant community, are elect -- however, at the same time, the community itself IS elect -- and at the same time, certain members are elect (the remnant which will remain to faithfull to the end by God's chosing, and will stand before God in the day of judgment). This &quot;eschatological view&quot; of the Church, found as far back as Augustine, is highly covenantal, and solves the whole Calvinist/arminian debate -- it undertands different senses of election, and takes into account our inabilities in the modern thought paradigm. The fact is, Calvinists have not been correct in some instances of proof texting, because, in recent history, they have read scirpture in a non-covenantal way. (The funny thing is that Calvin often said things that modern Calvinists cannot harmonize with there post-enlightenment, individualistic thinking) At the same time, arminians have done the same thing for the same reason. Due to an inability to think outside of the modern paradigm they have assumed that some individual can become &quot;born again&quot;, and be &quot;saved&quot; -- actually saved -- and then lose that &quot;salvation&quot;. As if &quot;salvation&quot; even works that way -- like a pill. As if Salvation can be defined in a platonic sense, decontextualized from other themes in scriture.

In one sense, when one breaks covenant with God they have lost the positional salvation that was promised them by virtue of being a covenant community member. At the same time, they were never elect as individuals according Paul in Romans -- who undoubtedly is speaking individualisticly. (Of course I realize there would be debate on this issue) However, I believe Paul is speaking with regard to 'eschatological' election during the time of a coming judgment ending the old covenant age. Only the remnant is elect to stand before God in Judgment, and the members of the remnant are elect. Those Israelites could not be taken from God's hand, not because they were faithfull, but because they were chosen, and thus they were faithfull -- and in their faithfullness they work out their salvation. There is a positional promise in the covenant, there is an election of the remnant as individuals, and there is also an election of the people of God as a community. The promise is extended to the community, but reserved for the remnant.

The best way I can think of to describe the range of conception in some passages is to describe them as follows: (This is not exhaustive)

There is a meta-salvific nature in some passages. In other words they step back from the observable ordo and speak of God behind the scenes in the work of saving His people both as a community and as individuals.

Some passages, many in the N.T., speak of the visible ordo -- what we see. These are the passages that arminians focus on.

There are also many passages that are communal and are often taken as individualistic. These are covenantal in my view, and many of them are simply speaking of a fulfillment of what the O.T. looked forward to with regard to God's regeneration of israel in the N.T.

-----
His Sheep here His voice, and no one can snatch them out of His hand.

&quot;The secret things belong to the Lord, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children forever&quot;

I'm just going to stop there, and point people to:

&quot;'Reformed' is Not Enough&quot; - Douglas Wilson, a series in Mp3 Format. (http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=420&amp;1=437&amp;2=-1)

&quot;The Federal Vision&quot; - a Pastors Conference dealing honestly with Covenant, Community, Election, etc., (http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=431&amp;1=432&amp;2=-1)

&quot;Reformed is Not Enough&quot; - Book, online in PDF (http://www.christkirk.com/Literature/ReformedIsNotEnough.pdf)

&quot;Election, Corporate and Individual&quot; - Mark Horne (http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/election.htm)

For more articles on Soteriology form a &quot;High-Covenant&quot;/&quot;New Perspective&quot; view point. (http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/cat_soteriology.htm)


---
Adam

P.S. (I'm a calvinist)

Thats my homie! :thumb: :grin: Nice post Adam, I have been listening to the Doug Wilson stuff and I think it is great. Next up Richard Hays Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul

Blake

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 03:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=331624#post331624)
Arminian:

adam,



And a very thoughtful one, at that!

Arminian,

What do you think of Peter Stuhlmacher? Also I was curious if there are any good books that give a overall summary of the New Perspective.

Blake

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 01:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=330191#post330191)
Arminian:

Reader,

I said:



Your reply:



Besides not directly addressing what I said, your questions and comments were too cryptic. You may want to address the text, but I suspect not.

I fet this reply coming a long time ago. :teeth:

Blake

[brett]

Reader:
I believe regeneration to be the "first resurrection." The soul of the sinner being brought from death, to new spiritual life, by the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit. (Rev. 20:5&6)

Life is regenerated in the sinner who was dead in trespasses and sins. The regeneration not only brings new life, but restoration (cleansing). Just as rotting Lazarus walked out of his grave, so the sinner is raised to new life by the power of God's Spirit.

This new spiritual life is necessary in order to "see" or comprehend the teachings of the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

I don’t think this has biblical support either.

First, the Bible is clear that righteousness comes through faith and therefore is after faith.

Phil. 3:9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,

Second, the Bible is clear that the spirit is alive through righteousness and therefore is after righteousness.

Rom. 8:10 And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

So if righteousness comes after faith and spiritual life comes after righteousness, then spiritual life comes after faith.

Here are some more scriptures that indicate also that “life” comes after faith.

Here, Paul indicates that life comes after the gospel and that the gospel actually causes life.

2Tim. 1:10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

You’ve indicated that it must precede the gospel in order that the gospel might be understood.

This passage indicates that life follows repentance (the changing of the mind).

Acts 11:18 And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”

I’m not sure how you define repentance, but I believe it occurs simultaneously with faith. This is in contrast to what you've implied, namely that life leads to repentance. After all, how can a dead man repent??

This verse indicates that life is the result of believing.

John 20:31 but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

As does this passage.

John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Christ indicates here that life is the result of coming to Him.

John 5:39 “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life.

You’ve indicated that you must have life to come to Christ.

I thinks it’s fair to say that “life” can now be added to the long list of things that occur after faith, and I think it’s fair to say that "life" is not a component of regeneration, if indeed regeneration is before faith.

[Reader]

brett:



First, the Bible is clear that righteousness comes through faith and therefore is after faith.

Righteousness comes through justification and Godly imputation.

Jesus Christ justified us on the cross, by suffering the wrath of God for our sins, and then exchanged our sins for His righteousness:

"For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." II Corinthians 5:21

Thus, our righteousness was achieved by Christ's faithfulness, not ours.

As the verse you quoted clearly states:

Phil. 3:9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,


Second, the Bible is clear that the spirit is alive through righteousness and therefore is after righteousness.

Rom. 8:10 And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

Whose spirit is this? Is it not the Holy Spirit that brings us to life, and then permanently indwells our beings to insure us everlasting life?

Christians function according to God's Spirit. Christ is "in us" via His Spirit. The life of a Christian is the life of Christ. (Romans 8:4-11)

We remain in earthly bodies, that are subject to sin. We are instructed to not only reckon them dead, but to consider them crucified with Christ. Why? So that we might be newly alive with Christ by identifying with His resurrection.

We do not live because of "righteousness," but because Christ raised Himself from the grave and overcame death. We live only because the same power that resurrected Him to life, also resurrects us to life. That power is ~God's~ Holy Spirit.

Righteousness follows. God imputes Christ's righteousness to us as a result and reward of Christ's faithfulness, suffering, death, and resurrection.


So if righteousness comes after faith and spiritual life comes after righteousness, then spiritual life comes after faith.

I say that life comes first due to Christ's resurrection to life. Then He sends the Holy Spirit to call the sons of God out of the world, to new life. The Holy Spirit applies that life to the sinner, with His presence and indwelling. That is regeneration. Faith follows, which gives the sinner conscious recognition of forgiveness (justification, imputed righteousness), a love of God, repentance, and a new willingness to walk according to God's righteous Law and will.

What is required to live and manifest faith and righteousness? A new heart. God must first change the human heart before there is life and the fruits of new spiritual life.




Here, Paul indicates that life comes after the gospel and that the gospel actually causes life.

2Tim. 1:10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

Where does this Scripture add any conditions? Where does it say that none of this applies to sinners until they conjure up faith to believe it? This Scripture does not say ~anything~ about the sinner. This is all about Jesus Christ and what He has done. He has abolished death and demonstrated immortality through the power of His resurrection, and sent the "light" of this divine work into the world through the Gospel proclaimed.

This is a declaration of truth. Not a conditional requirement of any kind.



You’ve indicated that it must precede the gospel in order that the gospel might be understood.

Indeed, for that is what Jesus taught Nicodemus. He explained to Nicodemus that one must be "born again" in order to "see" the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

Also read Paul's teachings in I Corinthians Chapter Two, where he explains the necessity of the Spirit for men to understand the things of God. Men cannot exercise faith and believe the Gospel, if they cannot grasp or understand it! The Spirit of God indwelling (regeneration) is required for men to be able to "see" the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)


Until there is a resurrection to spiritual life (worked by the Holy Spirit), the sinner has no spiritual eyes or ears to hear or "see" (comprehend) the Gospel message. If and when a soul has been called by God, drawn to the Son, regenerated to new life, and his heart has been changed to love God and His Words anew, then when that soul hears the Gospel, he will believe through the gift of faith, and repent of his sins, and be saved.


This passage indicates that life follows repentance (the changing of the mind).

Acts 11:18 And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”

The mind cannot be changed until the heart if changed. The heart (affections) control the mind and will. Repentance is evidence of saving faith. And faith is evidence of salvation. And salvation is being translated by the power of God from death to everlasting life.

So the order is:

1. Tranlation from death to life
2. Gifted with faith to believe
3. Granting of repentance
4. Walking in this new life


I’m not sure how you define repentance, but I believe it occurs simultaneously with faith.

Faith and repentance can occur simultaneously, but both are also progressive and continual. And both are fruits of a changed heart. The hard, wicked heart of man, must first be changed by God's Spirit, before belief and repentance will manifest.

The heart (affections, loves) of a man rule his mind, his mind rules his will, and his will rules his actions. Before righteous actions of faith and repentance manifest themselves in the life of a Christian, the will must be subjected to God, the mind must center on Christ, and the heart must be changed and restored to love God.

You are proposing a reverse order. You are saying that a man must act in belief and turn away from sin, which requires a free will, a mind that understands the things of God, and a heart that loves God, in order to find salvation. That is impossible.

The human heart must first be changed. Man, dead in his trespasses and sins is at enmity against God. There is no love of God in his heart. His mind and will are not free, but in bondage to Satan.

We are back to the error of Pelagius . . .He taught that man's heart was unaffected by sin, and that there resides virtue and love of God in man to believe. Man can find salvation apart from God's working. Life exists within man, despite Adam's actions. Man can find righteousness with this existing life, virtue, and affections towards His maker.

That is a proven heresy, and yet here we are today, still hearing the same, old, false gospel that supposedly man's faith brings life and righteousness.

No.

Only by God's grace and powerful workings of His Spirit, is man restored to life, gifted with faith, granted repentance, to love God anew.

"We love God, because He first loved us." I John 4:19


This is in contrast to what you've implied, namely that life leads to repentance. After all, how can a dead man repent??

That is my point, friend. Dead men cannot repent or love or believe or wiggle a finger. Spiritually dead men cannot repent or love or believe, either.

First must come a resurrection.

Then, and only then, does the spiritually dead man walk away from death, and believe in His Master who frees him from bondage and calls him to serve righteousness.


This verse indicates that life is the result of believing.

John 20:31 but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

As does this passage.

John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Christ indicates here that life is the result of coming to Him.

No argument. This is so. These are the visible signs of life. These are the manifestations of faith.

What I am reminding you of, is the ~invisible~ workings of God that brought all this about. Before the sinner manifests visible manifestations of faith, there was an invisible change in his heart.

"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:7&8






John 5:39 “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life.

You’ve indicated that you must have life to come to Christ.

Yes. This is an excellent passage to demonstrate my point.

Persons can hear the Scriptures and the Gospel message, and remain unwilling to come to Christ for life. They remain dead.

Why? If supposedly hearing the Gospel brings life, why do these remain unbelieving and dead in their sins?

Jesus answers in this very context, in verse 42:

". . You do not have the love of God in you."

Their hearts were unchanged. They were still at enmity with God. They still hated God, which prevented them from believing what God says.

God must do the first work in a man, before the man can believe what he hears.




I thinks it’s fair to say that “life” can now be added to the long list of things that occur after faith, and I think it’s fair to say that "life" is not a component of regeneration, if indeed regeneration is before faith.

New spiritual life is manifested and proven by faith.

But that faith must be from God; not from man; else the profession of faith remains as dead as the confessor who remains in his sins.

The faith that produces the fruit of the Holy Spirit, gives evidence of the presence and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and within one with that Godly faith is a new heart that loves God.

And a soul that has his heart changed to love God, has been resurrected to new life in Christ Jesus. They were raised with Him from death to life. (Ephesians 2:1,5)

Only because the Father willed them to live, the Son prepared them to live, and the Holy Spirit regenerated them to life.

"For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will." John 5:21

I persist in arguing this with you, only because I believe it is so important. I believe it to be serious error, to think that men can exercise faith in order to find life. That gives the sinner credit for finding life. That deceives the sinner into believing that the possibility to believe exists within his heart and mind.

This is a falsehood.

The sinner's heart and mind are against God. There is no inherent faith or ability to turn away from sins. The sinner is trapped in his own corrupted nature, and cannot escape by any efforts or action on his own.

By necessity, as Jesus taught, a man must be born again.

God must first love and first act in grace, to change the heart and mind of the sinner, before the sinner can choose to believe and repent of sins.

This gives God the glory for salvation, rather than man.

This is salvation that comes by grace, and not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8&9)

[Arminian]

Blake,


What do you think of Peter Stuhlmacher?

a. His name means "chair maker" in German.

b. I only know of one book that he has out on the issue, but I don't own it. It seemed pretty "dumbed down" when I looked at it. I didn't see anything new in it. The funny thing is, the conclusions of NP exegesis don't require NP, so I find a lot of those books uninteresting, and I read them for other related or unrelated insights and controversy.


Also I was curious if there are any good books that give a overall summary of the New Perspective.

Each author has their own "flavor," so I'm reluctant to say that there is one book with an "overall summary." What books do you presently own?

(A great book is coming out next year. I can't say anything more about it.)

[Capt Mercury]

12-05-2003 @ 02:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327064#post327064)
joelkaki:
<snip>
Well, I will have to disagree here. One important point here is that systematic theology is important, WHEN it is based on Scripture. And so I do not have a problem with showing that the other points in TULIP logically, systematically, and necessarily flow from T, or whatever, as long as it is all based on Scripture. And, not so incidentally, I believe that TULIP is. I believe it with all my heart. As Charles Spurgeon said [not exact quote--can't remember]: The theology that has today become known as Calvinism is the gospel.
NOTE: By saying that, I do not mean that someone who is not a Calvinist doesn't believe in the gospel, and therefore is not saved or anything like that. But notice the important progression in TULIP--it is the plan of redemption beautifully represented as I believe it to be unfolded in Scripture: TOTAL DEPRAVITY: Man is sinful, in dire need of salvation, but cannot do it himself, and will suffer the consequences of sin. UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION: God chose to not allow every man to die in his sin, but unconditionally chose to save Him through the Seed of the Woman. LIMITED ATONEMENT: Christ came to give himself, that God's plan determined in eternity past to save men would be accomplished through his shed blood; men can now be saved, because Christ took their punishment. IRRESISTIBLE GRACE: God, at the right time in a person's life, calls him by His Spirit to make the work of Christ effective in his life to totally change him, and allow him to have living faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. PERSEVERENCE OF THE SAINTS: (I prefer to call PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS). God will not allow those whom he has chosen, died for, and called to suffer the punishment He has saved them from. He will preserve them through faith in His Son, and bring them to glory.

Please answer this question honestly: Do you not see that in some way at least, this is the message of man's salvation as presented in the Bible? If you don't, I won't condemn you for it, because God's Spirit does not lead everyone to the same truths at the same time, thus I may never come to your beliefs, nor you to mine, but do you not feel that this is the essential message of the gospel?

[Sorry for that extremely long bit of pouring from my heart, but hey, sometimes I just can't help it.]

So, my point? Simply this. I believe in Calvinism simply because I believe it is what the Bible teaches, and not only that, I believe it to be an ordered and accurate understanding of the Biblical material that shows all glory to be to God Almighty.

No problem again, and thanks for yours as well.

Joel Joel,

Haven't been hanging around here much & so I just noticed this. Hey, I LOVE your pouring out of your heart. I may just do the same myself. I also love the part about the TULIP being essentially the gospel! And that is exactly where I come from on this issue. So I'm going to be paying close attention to how you express your understanding of TULIP points in the future. Thx much - that was great, it really was. And that is precisely why I am so concerned about these pts of the TULIP and the 5 remstrances of the Arminians.

Now, permit me to pour out my heart regarding the use of metanoia in scripture. You see, as I'm sure you are well aware, there are a variety of viewpoints on precisely what it means and how it is used in the NT.

I believe we will all agree that its root meaning is "to change the mind." (of the verbal form, metanoew, of course).

But there are many views of just HOW it is used in the NT. One thing that I do see as very curious is the fact that metanoia and metanoew are not used a single time in John. I won't rehash this, but it certainly gives one cause to pause.

I am reading Luke's gospel and then telling my children the story these days at bedtime this Christmas season. I know that I will get through it (story fashion, with time for comments... not a study, FYI) well before Christmas, & I expect to finish Luke before Christmas actually. I am at about chapter 7 right now, but as I was reading about John the Baptizer's ministry, which precedes Jesus' ministry in all 4 gospels, of course, and ushers it in, I asked myself why he was baptizing people w/ a baptism of repentance and what his role was. It helped me to crystallize some things.

So I thought that I'd share some thoughts I had about repentance, the gospel and how it relates to Jesus' ministry starting:

John the Baptizer was sent to prepare the way for the Messiah. John the Baptizer's gospel was a gospel of repentance. Specifically what did he do in Luke? He would ask people of different professions to stop doing this or that, among other things. I asked myself how this was related to the gospel.

As I see it, metanoia is usually related to sin in the NT. Not always, and at times it certainly appears to be a synonym for "faith" as well.

Now we have all experienced sharing the gospel with someone who, though perhaps very respectful, just wasn't quite ready to respond to the gospel. It just didn't make sense to them, or they felt no great need. They thought that their life was basically as goodas the next fellow's. Obviously, the Holy Spirit had not yet prepared their heart to respond to the gospel.

A key thing to remember about "repentance" which we often don't think about is that the root idea is centered in the mind... the heart. What we are talking about here is not a plea to "turn from sin" as often it is expressed, though that is usually the result. But instead the plea is to change your mind about something... often sin as used in the NT... but not always. Sometimes it is used to mean precisely "to change the mind." Sometimes (not very often, true) it is used as a synonym for faith, as I said before. But we should not just assume either of these in general. But what we do need to keep at the front of our mind is that repentance has to do with the MIND. We often focus on the sin. We're missing the boat when we do that.

Now, when we change our mind or an attitude about sin, or perhaps a particular sinful habit we have, what would be the logical result? Well, we would turn from that sinful habit, wouldn't we? But we have to be sure not to put the cart before the horse. The Spirit moves us regarding some sinful habit in our lives. As a result we are stirred up to do something about it. But it all starts in the mind. That's the key that is often missed here, resulting essentially in a gospel that includes a degree of works along with faith. That is why is is significant to note that the gospel of John does not use either metanoia or metanoew a single time. But it refers to gaining eternal life by believing 95 times or more. "Repentance" is not used at all in John because we are not saved by repenting... we are saved by faith and faith alone. I am not splitting hairs here. If we are not careful we get the gospel all confused.

Here's how I see it... but we need to consider John 16:8 also:

John 16:8 When He (the Holy Spirit) comes, He will convict the world about sin, righteousness, and judgment...

The Spirit convicts us of sin... which causes us to realize that we NEED to be saved... that we are helpless without Christ. This is essentially biblical repentance. As a result, we are ready to respond in faith in Jesus and are saved... justified, etc.. We see in John the Baptist's ministry that his gospel of repentance was meant to prepare the hearts of the Israelites to respond in faith to the Messiah when he appeared on the scene. It was NOT intended to mean that we are saved by repenting, just as the OT law was meant to be a tutor to prepare us for Christ. Those whose hearts were prepared did believe. Many of Jesus' own disciples were originally disciples of John the Baptizer.

And THAT was John the B.'s role - to prepare the Israelites so that when the Messiah appeared on the scene they'd be ready to receive Him as the Messiah. Their hearts had to be made ready. I realize that you will say that their hearts are regenerated first, but I see it as being prepared so that they can respond to the gospel. And not all do respond in faith, though cultivating has been going on. But it explains why he had a gospel of repentance, why he said that he was decrease and Christ must increase, why many of John's disciples became disciples of Jesus...

So we are indeed saved by faith alone. We are NOT saved by believing AND repenting. But if our hearts are not prepared how can we possibly respond to the gospel? Unless God draws us to Himself, we won't of our own efforts seek Him. But when our hearts are prepared we can believe.

One problem is that we sometimes INSIST on seeing some visible means of repentance in the seeker's life. Or we expect them to "commit" to change their life. Oops. We ARE changed by God when we believe the gospel. 2 Corin. 5:17 makes that very clear. It might be good for us to ask ourselves if we REALLY believe that a person is changed by his faith alone? Sometimes I'm convinced that we do not. When God changes us, rebirths us, there will be a change in our actions, true. But we have to be very careful not to go around as fruit inspectors... was that how the believer is supposed to base his assurance of salvation? No. 1 John 5:11-13 makes it clear that we can KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt that we have eternal life. But it is NOT based on a changed life - by our efforts. No, it is based on the fact that we believed in Jesus. If we have the Son we have life. Period.

Here's a couple of humorous analogies of how I see the gospel as sometimes presented:


We have just shared the gospel with someone and they have responded to our claim that salvation is completely free, received by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ. This person, let's call him Jack, has just responded and is excited, receiving our package gladly and with great excitement. Then he gets a knock on the back door. When he goes to answer the door a man is there with another package, asking him to sign for it. "What's this? Jack asks. "It's works... you've got to have works in order to be saved, and you just got saved, right?" Jack answers, "But... I was told that it was free, that I couldn't work for it, that it was a gift - free. I don't get it." "Look," the man answers, "Just please sign on the dotted line or you will lose that salvation gift. If you don't continue to work then you're not really saved.. you've given up your gift. So either sign here or give me back that other package."

scenario two:

We have just shared the gospel with someone and they are ready to respond to our claim that salvation is completely free, received by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ. This person, let's call her Jill, is excited. We are handing out the package to Jill, and she is reaching out with eager hands to receive the free gift of eternal life. Then she hears a knock on the front door. When she goes to answer the door a man is there with another package, asking her to sign for it. "What's this? Jill asks. "It's works... you've got to repent of your sin before you can be receive that other gift and be saved." Jill stutters, then turning to you she asks, "But, but... you told me that it was free, that I couldn't work for it, that it was a gift - free. I don't get it." "That's right. It is free. But look," you answer, "just please sign on the dotted line... if you REALLY are chosen by God to believe then you won't have any problem with this. Perhaps you weren't chosen by Him. If you are REALLY saved you will commit to follow Jesus as Lord. Yes, you are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone."

OK, OK, all kinds of holes in those two analogies I realize. Please don't try to punch holes through those stories. The purpose is to try to make it clear how we often "front-load" the gospel with works or try to "bring it in the back door." We tell people that salvation is free, then we change our tune. There are often strings attached to our gospel presentations.

Yes, we hopefully all share Romans 3:23 and 6:23 or similar verses in trying to make our sin and need for salvation clear when we share the gospel. That's not the point. The point is that Jesus was a gift from His father to us.. .we are reminded of that this Christmas season. Let's make sure that we offer it freely to others. Personally, because of all the baggage that goes along with the English word "repent" I never even mention it in sharing the gospel. I just share those passages in Romans and talk about how we can't earn our way to heaven and that we all have "earned" death. If the Holy Spirit is working in their lives He'll do His job of convicting. I try to keep my job straight... to make the gospel clear. I also never flat out try to convince a person that he has gained eternal life after he responds in faith to the gospel. That's also the job of the Holy Spirit. I share scripture with him, but God has to convince him.

I also can't convince them to believe the gospel in the first place. That's going to happen as a result of God working in their hearts also. I just share the gospel and prayerfully ask God to bring them to Christ. IMO sometimes we throw in repentance and confession etc. IOT try to bring about works in their lives artificially. It's a work of God... He's got to do it. And I can praise the Lord when He actually allows me to be part of the process. We need to remember... it's a miracle. God does it. I don't have to convince them... the Spirit is the One who does that. My job is to share the facts.

This way another good thing happens: the focus is not placed on the sinner and his sin... the focus is placed on Jesus Christ. That's my job... to point them towards Christ. In the OT wilderness experience of the Israelites being bitten by snakes they were to go to the pole on which a brass snake had been "lifted up" so that they could gaze upon it. Then they were "saved." This same analogy was used in John 3 to emulate faith in Christ. Our job? Just to point the sinner to Christ. We don't tell them to turn from their sin first... if he looks to Jesus lifted up on the cross, that WILL happen. But it is a result of regeneration... not the cause of it. And if the Spirit is working in good soil, when he looks to Jesus the light of the gospel will point out hissin to him and he'll truly see his need.

If we place the focus on the sinner he's going to try to polish up the ole apple.. to "turn over a new leaf." So let's just trust God to cause someone to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and then to change their life.

So, what do you think? I thought it might be appropriate to consider this at this Christmas season.

So as you can see I have a real passion about the gospel. I want it to remain completely free. I want it to be received by faith alone. And I do wholeheartedly believe that when someone has simple faith in Christ that he IS changed - forever and permanently. He may struggle with sin, but he cannot lose his status as a son of the King.

Thoughts?

Cap

[lifesharer]

Sorry Joel , i still disagree.
Regeneration is defined BY Jesus as a LITERAL rebirth of your human spirit by the holy Spirit (john 3:6) and is promised to us in Ezekiel 11: 19. Thats exactly what the word MEANS! BUT it is clear that this restoration / rebirth of our spirit does NOT occur until the time of water baptism as is CLEARLY seen in Ro.2: 28-28 + Col. 2: 11-14 and Ro. chapter 6. It is imperative that you grasp the simple clear meaning of Adamic sin "nature" as nothing MORE or LESS than simply: our spirit cut off from God by sin,.... as this is exactly what happened to Adam (where art thou adam God said ). The state of man is that they operate from thier soul and fleshly life and do NOT have a spiritual LIFE as defined as intimate communion with God. ("man does not live by bread alone , but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God".) This means they have a subjective human view on right and wrong and are unable to grasp true holiness. This does NOT mean that man is incapable of doing good things or is UTTERLY depraved as calvanism errantly assumes. But that we cannot have access to total truth or the manifest grasp of Holiness because we lack that intimate communion ( see 1 Cor. 2:9-16). Men have died for one another and greater love has NO man than this as Jesus said . Men and women and children have sacrificed thier lives for others and this is good and just, BUT it is still NOT the fullness that is Christ's!
All you have done is used verses out of context and without a firm grasp of what regeneration IS and when SCRIPTURES state that it is done to us.
Regeneration as taught in Titus 3:5 and clearly in ro. 2: 28-29 and col 2: 11-14 is for the christian NOT the unsaved.
I accepted Christ as a child of 6 or so and did so by simply reading the word of God. yet NO manifestation of regeneration in MY life occured until i was baptised some years later and therein regenerated. THEN i saw spiritual fruit and a hunger for spiritual food, NOT before. I have NO doubt that the Spirit draws me to accept salvation and that this means that God was working on me to hear and to recieve salvation < BUT it is simply errant to misdefine regeneration as what the simple drawing of God's Spirit is.
Lifesharer

[lifesharer]

It is imperative that we grasp the spiritual mechanics of regeneration. It is simple. sin cut off the human spirit from the intimate communion it was created for; cut it off from God. Regeneration RESTORES (the "divinely created nature" ) our spirit so that it can function as God originaly intended it to. (Obviously, our soul is alive as we all think and feel and do, and our flesh is alive; NO man can deny. The " carnal " man is such a one who not having a spiritual life (communion with God), is led soly by thier flesh and soul (old man nature). Much false doctrines come from those who expect thier souls to grasp the things of God in disreguard to 1Cor. 2: 9-16. Intellectualism can be a positive hinderance to true spirituality as much as the fleshly life.
Our MInds ( souls) need to be renewed as much as our spirit and our flesh is slated for crucifixtion until that day when Christ returns. BUt if our spirit is NOT regenerated, what remains but the carnal man?
From the simple plain mechanics of regeneration we can then grasp the answers to many false doctrines which failed to address scriptural precepts correctly.
Lifesharer

[lifesharer]

The scriptures makes it simple , men make it complicated.
Salvation IS a free gift in that God provided it all of it completely , without our help etc etc etc.; not through our works then or later. Eternal salvation is based on a Sincere and Valid belief that Jesus is GOD and will deal with sin, is just and HOLY, and is our JUDGE, and as the entire bible reveals him to be. Scriptures also introduces the idea that a true faith WILL produce works like repentance and others like obeying Jesus. If you do NOT produce such works, it is highly likely that your faith is NOT "true" and your salvation was never valid. Perhaps its HOW we present the gospel as it should be more than just "believe", that'swhat is in error.
Lifesharer

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

I haven't read all the posts, but I would say that regeneration precedes faith:

John 5:24 I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

"He who believes has (past tense) crossed over from death to life."

And in the verses that seem to say the opposite, the verbs are almost always both present tense:

John 20:31 … and that by believing you may have life in his name.

So I don't think the order is given here, our faith sustains our life, "the just will live by faith" may indicate this. And in some instances, I think "eternal life" refers to the future inheritance of the kingdom, not to regeneration, as here:

1 Timothy 1:16 for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.

So this verse does not show an opposite order.

Blessings,
Lee

[Ormly]

"He who believes has (past tense) crossed over from death to life."

The word "believes" connotes an ongoing process--- always present tense.

[lifesharer]

Regeneration is NOT about passing from death to life since we have this through salvation: "translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Light".
Regeneration is about a LITERAL rebirth of our human spirit: enabling us to have intimate personal communion with God again ( John 3:8). Jesus used "Kingdom" in his teaching about being born again (regenerated) simply because it is NOT the same thing as salvation.
The thief on the cross was not regenerated but had full salvation. Because he could not be spiritualy matured in the time he had left to live, he remains a spiritual babe in Christ (hench: "paradise") which is heaven but with NO connotation of KIngdom in it, and not able to participate (enter/ be with Christ) in the " Kingdom" because of that. (john 3:5-6).
Belief is the same thing as faith and it is ongoing, but regeneration as a LITERAL rebirth of our human spirit, and is instant and complete at the time it occurs (ro. 2: 28-29 + Col. 2: 11-14, Ez. 11: 19) All that remains is the souls "renewing" or sanctification or maturing process which conforms it to the " mind of Christ".
So " believes" can be present tense/ ongoing, while the translation from darkness to light (jurisidction / salvation) is in past tense.
Irreguardless: its about not the work we do but the obediance to the leading of the Spirit that counts ( John 3:8) lifesharer

[Ormly]

Regeneration is NOT about passing from death to life since we have this through salvation: "translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Light".
Regeneration is about a LITERAL rebirth of our human spirit: enabling us to have intimate personal communion with God again ( John 3:8). Jesus used "Kingdom" in his teaching about being born again (regenerated) simply because it is NOT the same thing as salvation.
The thief on the cross was not regenerated but had full salvation. Because he could not be spiritualy matured in the time he had left to live, he remains a spiritual babe in Christ (hench: "paradise") which is heaven but with NO connotation of KIngdom in it, and not able to participate (enter/ be with Christ) in the " Kingdom" because of that. (john 3:5-6).
Belief is the same thing as faith and it is ongoing, but regeneration as a LITERAL rebirth of our human spirit, and is instant and complete at the time it occurs (ro. 2: 28-29 + Col. 2: 11-14, Ez. 11: 19) All that remains is the souls "renewing" or sanctification or maturing process which conforms it to the " mind of Christ".
So " believes" can be present tense/ ongoing, while the translation from darkness to light (jurisidction / salvation) is in past tense.
Irreguardless: its about not the work we do but the obediance to the leading of the Spirit that counts ( John 3:8) lifesharer
We are very close to agreement in this. Not much to debate with you except one major issue. Who's faith should we be excercising? Why?

[lifesharer]

IN truth the "faith" we recieved from God is Christ's, for even our own is unfit and weak, unable to do justice to the fullness of God.
Rather faith is what comes to us when God reveals something of HIMSELF to us. I define "faith" as : The sure Knowledge (rather than mere intellectual understanding) of who God IS. This is why regeneration is so key; for by it we have intimate (face to face) communion with God and KNOW his " things "> See 1 Cor. 2:9-16.
lifesharer
And by the way: I have a study on regeneration prepared for those who wish to study it. Just write to me at : lifesharer@yahoo.com and ask for the study on regeneration.

[Ormly]

IN truth the "faith" we recieved from God is Christ's, for even our own is unfit and weak, unable to do justice to the fullness of God.[quote]

Do justice to it??

[QUOTE]Rather faith is what comes to us when God reveals something of HIMSELF to us.But many false leaders reveal something of themselves sufficient for followers to place their faith in. You gotta do better than that.



I define "faith" as : The sure Knowledge (rather than mere intellectual understanding) of who God IS. This is why regeneration is so key; for by it we have intimate (face to face) communion with God and KNOW his " things "> See 1 Cor. 2:9-16.
When one has the faith OF Christ he/she doesn't have to be convinced anylonger about who God is sinceHe/she will be possessing His very Mind..

How do you choose a doctor when you are ill? Do you need to be regenerated? Did the woman with the issue of blood or any those blind people Jesus healed need to be regenerated? Whose faith healed them?

Can you not see there are [2] faiths involved with salvation and regeneration --- ours and His. Everyone has faith; believes. The difficulty is in what or who is it placed? When it is properly placed in Christ He responds by placing His faith in us. A very simple thing encumbered by the baggage of --- "self" that only the "consuming fire of God" can rid us of. That's regeneration. That's faith in action. That is the "work" James speaks of that is pleasing to God.

[lifesharer]

Obviously , once again Ormely:
you failed to grasp the intent or meaning of what i was saying, almost as if your whole subset of concepts have been nurtured from some distant place rather than a judeo/ christian cosmology.
The "unfit" (SEE: 1Thess.3:10), nature of our faith is that we have NONE based on intimate communion with God and therefore cannot " know the things of God" [know Gods character and nature]: 1 Cor. 2:9-16, being without that intimate communion with God until we are regenerated.
Wasn't that a simple idea? How can you not grasp the meaning of the phrase: "unfit to do justice to it" [our human faith]? This is precisely why scriptures states plainly that we are " given the faith of Christ".Ro. 3: 22, Gal. 2: 16,and 3: 22, Phil. 3:9. ETC...
I do NOT " have to do better than that" since what "that" IS,.... you failed to say. BUt if it is as i suspect, you would be wrong again for our "faith" is our comprehension of God in his FAITHFULNESS and TRUTH and LOVE and JUSTICE and POWER and AUTHORITY and WILL and so forth... . ALL these are aspects of WHO GOD IS>! And "in HIM is NO shadow of turning..."
AS you errantly implied this is NOT about our " convincing" but the grasping of the fullness of God which is INFINITE. Our understanding of God is as unlimited as the unlimited God we serve and will continue forever. You have errantly mislabeled this as "convincing" as if its about proof or evidence in an argument; where you got that term from i do not know.
Finaly, JUST because you make up an example of some false leader decieveing people does NOT mean it has any relevance to the subject of "faith" which IS : "...evidence of things NOT SEEN...". I suspect your anology is faulty and without relevance or merit towards what i said.
From all this it would appear youi have not quite grasped the distinction between mere understanding and knowledge of the souls intellect and that: "knowing" of the spirit which is far more real and experiencial than mere intellectualism.
lifesharer.
P.S. I would suggest you take far MORE time to grasp the full significance of what others say before you assume to have the authority or grasp of it to suggest corrections?

[Ormly]

Obviously , once again Ormely:
you failed to grasp the intent or meaning of what i was saying, almost as if your whole subset of concepts have been nurtured from some distant place rather than a judeo/ christian cosmology.
The "unfit" (SEE: 1Thess.3:10), nature of our faith is that we have NONE based on intimate communion with God and therefore cannot " know the things of God" [know Gods character and nature]: 1 Cor. 2:9-16, being without that intimate communion with God until we are regenerated.
Wasn't that a simple idea? How can you not grasp the meaning of the phrase: "unfit to do justice to it" [our human faith]? This is precisely why scriptures states plainly that we are " given the faith of Christ".Ro. 3: 22, Gal. 2: 16,and 3: 22, Phil. 3:9. ETC...
I do NOT " have to do better than that" since what "that" IS,.... you failed to say. BUt if it is as i suspect, you would be wrong again for our "faith" is our comprehension of God in his FAITHFULNESS and TRUTH and LOVE and JUSTICE and POWER and AUTHORITY and WILL and so forth... . ALL these are aspects of WHO GOD IS>! And "in HIM is NO shadow of turning..."
AS you errantly implied this is NOT about our " convincing" but the grasping of the fullness of God which is INFINITE. Our understanding of God is as unlimited as the unlimited God we serve and will continue forever. You have errantly mislabeled this as "convincing" as if its about proof or evidence in an argument; where you got that term from i do not know.
Finaly, JUST because you make up an example of some false leader decieveing people does NOT mean it has any relevance to the subject of "faith" which IS : "...evidence of things NOT SEEN...". I suspect your anology is faulty and without relevance or merit towards what i said.
From all this it would appear youi have not quite grasped the distinction between mere understanding and knowledge of the souls intellect and that: "knowing" of the spirit which is far more real and experiencial than mere intellectualism.
lifesharer.
P.S. I would suggest you take far MORE time to grasp the full significance of what others say before you assume to have the authority or grasp of it to suggest corrections?

Too convoluted for me. I sense from what I can "glean" from your mental confusion about me is that you haven't read much of what I've posted. Perhaps a review for you is in order because I don't intend to address you on anything.

[lifesharer]

perhaps in a few dozen years ormly you will be ready to grasp the simplicty of regeneration and our spirits functions
watch for my book it will guide you into a true understanding of this subject.
lifesharer

[Ormly]

perhaps in a few dozen years ormly you will be ready to grasp the simplicty of regeneration and our spirits functions
watch for my book it will guide you into a true understanding of this subject.
lifesharerRight. Just what we need, another self-help, Christian psychology book. Do you think it will help my Yak shepherd who reveres God out there in the Siberian hinterlands or does he need your book to set him straight?

[lifesharer]

Does regeneration precede faith or does faith precede regeneration? I specifically want to see Biblical evidence for the latter. I believe the former, and I have some very important evidence I would like to present for it, but first I want to see who believes the latter. If you believe the latter, beware, I will attempt my very best to show the difficulties I see with that, but I would still like to see evidence for it.

This is kind of an informal challenge to those who hold the latter.


Joel


Your statement could more properly be framed as : does salvation preceed regeneration or regeneration preceed salvation ( by faith ). This basic calvanist / armenian argument is quite old. It is simply answered By a proper understanding of when and where God regenerates us according to scriptures. Regeneration is defined as : spirit rebirth; a LITERAL rebirth of your spirit by the Holy Spirit ( John 3: 6)
Another name for this concept is : circumcision of the heart , in the spirit (Ro. 2 28-29 and col 2: 11-14) If you read those two verse sets and then read ro.6: 1-11 and ezekiel 11: 19 and Deut 30: 6 you will note that this spirit rebirth by the holy Spirit is done to us at the time we are obediant to be baptised in water. Not that the ritual or the water has any power, but that this is simply where God chose to do this as a fullfillment of his OT type and shadow for this concept of: Israel passing through the red sea. Therefore : if regeneration occurs to us at water baptism then it occurs after salvation, and after we have had faith unto salation. Faith is a product of a revelation of God: who he is and his natiure and essence. God is able to give faith unto salvation to any man, regenerated or not. He is NOT limited By our unregenerated state , or he would not be GOD.
There can be no more argument when you properly understand regeneration and its stated time of occurance according to these verses.
I hope you understand this better now.
lifesharer

[Ormly]

Does regeneration precede faith or does faith precede regeneration? I specifically want to see Biblical evidence for the latter. I believe the former, and I have some very important evidence I would like to present for it, but first I want to see who believes the latter. If you believe the latter, beware, I will attempt my very best to show the difficulties I see with that, but I would still like to see evidence for it.

This is kind of an informal challenge to those who hold the latter.


Joel

God gives no faith to the unregenerate, He gives Himself. Sufficient is the revelation of God in the world for the all unregenerate to make a choice. The reprobate will always go his own way.

Orm

[IncRus]

I guess I'll go ahead and make my point:

Those who say that faith precedes regeneration must essentially say this:

1. When we respond in faith to the gospel, we are no longer dead in our sins.
2. Faith precedes regeneration.

The first one has to be true of those who affirm the latter, for how when you believe in the gospel, you are no longer dead in sin. You are a new creation in Christ. I don't think anybody disputes that. But here is the problem with affirming those two things:

Ephesians 2:1--"And you he made alive, when you were dead in trespasses and sins."

God makes us alive, WHILE WE ARE STILL DEAD IN SINS! God regenerates us while we are still spiritually dead. If faith precedes regeneration, then he regenerates us after we are no longer dead in sin, for you cannot respond in faith and still be dead in sin. See the problem? God regenerates us while we are still dead, not after we are alive and have faith. We must conclude that regeneration precedes faith.

Joel

joelkaki,

Your belief that "regeneration precedes faith" is FALSE because it is based on FALSE assumptions.

1. Your ASSUMPTION that "when you believe in the gospel, you are no longer dead in sin. You are a new creation in Christ" is FALSE.

Regarding the gospel, you have to ask yourself these questions: Is the preacher SENT by God? The Bible teaches that "He who is SENT by God SPEAKS God's words" (John 3:34).

Therefore, if the preacher is NOT sent by God, the gospel you are HEARING is NOT the TRUE gospel and is therefore, NOT "God's power unto salvation for eveyone who believes" (Rom. 1:16). Consequently, you CANNOT be a "new creation" in Christ UNTIL you HEAR and BELIEVE the TRUE gospel of Christ.

You NEED faith in the word to God to BELIEVE this. UNTIL then, you CANNOT be a "new creation in Christ."

2. Your ASSUMPTION that Ephesians 2:1 is addressed to you is FALSE.

Apostle Paul was talking to members of the first-century Church of Christ in Ephesus and UNLESS you are a member of the TRUE Church of Christ in the 21st century, apostle Paul is NOT talking to you.

HOW were the saints in Ephesus (Eph. 1:1) "made alive by God while they were dead in trespasses and sins?" WHAT "gospel of Christ" did they HEAR and BELIEVE in while they were "dead in trespasses and sins?" FROM whom did they HEAR this gospel? WHAT was DONE to these saints in Ephesus AFTER they HEARD the gospel and BELIEVED?

According to apostle Paul, these saints in Ephesus and elsewhere were "QUALIFIED by the Father as PARTAKERS of the INHERITANCE of the saints when He DELIVERED them FROM the power of darkness and TRANSLATED them INTO the kingdom of the Son of His love, IN WHOM there is REDEMPTION through Christ's blood, the FORGIVENESS of sins" (Col. 1:12-14).

HOW were these saints in Ephesus and Colosse (Col. 1:2) DELIVERED from the power of darkness and TRANSLATED into the kingdom of His Son? WHAT is the kingdom of His Son referred to here?

UNTIL you know the answers to these questions, you are STILL "dead in your trespasses and sins." In short, you are NOT yet a "new creation in Christ" and you have NOT been QUALIFIED by God as "partaker of the INHERITANCE of the saints."

You NEED faith in the word to God to BELIEVE this. UNTIL then, you CANNOT be a "new creation in Christ."

One who is NOT a "new creation in Christ" has NOT been "saved THROUGH the washing of REGENERATION and RENEWING of the Holy Spirit through Christ Jesus and has NOT become HEIR according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:5-7).

[IncRus]

Regeneration is NOT about passing from death to life since we have this through salvation: "translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Light".

On the CONTRARY, the Bible says: "...but according to His mercy, He saved us THROUGH the washing of REGENERATION and RENEWING of the Holy Spirit whom He poured out on us abundantly through Christ Jesus" (Titus 3:5-6).

Thus, "regeneration" is passing from death to life. "Regeneration" means to be "born again of water and the Spirit" (John 3:3,5). That means, one must BECOME a "new creation in Christ" (2 Cor. 5:17) and "put on the new man" (Eph. 4:24) in order to SEE and ENTER the kingdom of God.


Jesus used "Kingdom" in his teaching about being born again (regenerated) simply because it is NOT the same thing as salvation.

This statement is simply FALSE! When one "ENTERS the kingdom of God" AFTER having been "born again of water and the Spirit," doesn't this mean one has attained SALVATION? Isn't the kingdom of God in HEAVEN? Can anyone who is NOT saved ENTER heaven?


]The thief on the cross was not regenerated but had full salvation. Because he could not be spiritualy matured in the time he had left to live, he remains a spiritual babe in Christ (hench: "paradise") which is heaven but with NO connotation of KIngdom in it, and not able to participate (enter/ be with Christ) in the " Kingdom" because of that. (john 3:5-6).

This belief is ABSURD! How can the thief be saved when he was NOT "regenerated?" And how can the thief be in heaven if he is NOT inside the kingdom of God? Is there a place in heaven OUISIDE the kingdom of God where "UNREGENERATED" thieves are nurtured like babies?"

The TRUTH is, the thief was and will NOT be saved. Matthew and Mark wrote that BOTH "the robbers (plural) REVILED Jesus (Matt. 27:44; Mark 15:32). And Jesus and the thief were NOT in HEAVEN the day they BOTH died, which Jesus referred to as "today." The TRUTH is, Jesus had NOT ascended to heaven 3 days AFTER he died (John 20:17). And the thief REMAINS in his GRAVE until the heavens DISAPPEAR (Job. 14:10,12).

[IncRus]

This is precisely why scriptures states plainly that we are " given the faith of Christ".Ro. 3: 22, Gal. 2: 16,and 3: 22, Phil. 3:9. ETC...

These scriptures do NO say that "we are GIVEN the faith of Christ." Is this a deliberate attempt at PERVERTING the scriptures to make it fit a pre-conceived belief or simply MISINTERPRETATION of these verses?

[IncRus]

Therefore : if regeneration occurs to us at water baptism then it occurs after salvation, and after we have had faith unto salation. Faith is a product of a revelation of God: who he is and his natiure and essence. God is able to give faith unto salvation to any man, regenerated or not. He is NOT limited By our unregenerated state , or he would not be GOD.


WHAT is "faith unto salvation?" Is there a scripture to support your answer? WHERE can we find in scripture that "faith is a product of a revelation of God: who he is and his nature and essence?" WHERE can we find in scripture that "it is God who GIVES faith unto salvation to any man, regenerated or not?"

Apostle Paul writes that the "gospel of Christ is God's power unto salvation for EVERYONE who BELIEVES, for the Jew first and then for the Greek" (Rom. 1:16). This verse does NOT tell us that the gospel of Christ is God's power unto salvation for everyone "God gives faith to," does it?

[Ormly]

Matthew 9:22 (NASB-U)
But Jesus turning and seeing her said, "Daughter, take courage; your faith has made you well." At once the woman was made well.
Matthew 9:29 (NASB-U)
Then He touched their eyes, saying, "It shall be done to you according to your faith."
Matthew 15:28 (NASB-U)
Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.

Mark 5:34 (NASB-U)
And He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your affliction."


These scriptures do NO say that "we are GIVEN the faith of Christ." Is this a deliberate attempt at PERVERTING the scriptures to make it fit a pre-conceived belief or simply MISINTERPRETATION of these verses?


The "your faith" spoken of here is unto salvation, not rebirth/regeneration. For obvious reasons it couldn't be. However, upon re-birth we are given the Faith of Christ inasmuch as we receive Christ, His life, into us. This is the "Salvation" Paul speaks of when he says: "Work it out". This is the prerequiste to Pentecost inasmuch as the Holy Ghost has something to agree with in the disciples from John 20.22. Jesus said, "Wait, I will give Him and He will teach/show you". It can only be when the life of Christ within us is in agreement with will of the Father, that we achieve. That's the process of becoming a begotten son. That's why Paul said: "Don't quench the Spirit". The Faith of Christ=the Mind of God.

[Nang]

Matthew 9:22 (NASB-U)
But Jesus turning and seeing her said, "Daughter, take courage; your faith has made you well." At once the woman was made well.
Matthew 9:29 (NASB-U)
Then He touched their eyes, saying, "It shall be done to you according to your faith."
Matthew 15:28 (NASB-U)
Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.

Mark 5:34 (NASB-U)
And He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your affliction."




The "your faith" spoken of here is unto salvation, not rebirth/regeneration.

Faith is called "your" in these passages due to imputation of faith from God to the sinner. Faith becomes ~ours~ through the gift of the faithfulness of Christ.

And regeneration is salvation.

Two essentials for salvation:

1. The power and work of the Holy Spirit to resurrect us from being dead in sins to new life in Christ. (Ephesians 2:1-5)

2. The gift of faith to believe and comprehend the things of God. (John 3:3)





upon re-birth we are given the Faith of Christ inasmuch as we receive Christ, His life, into us. This is the "Salvation" Paul speaks of when he says: "Work it out".

I agree with this. And I believe there is no choice not to receive the gift of life and faith, for the power of God's grace is irresistible.


Jesus said, "Wait, I will give Him and He will teach/show you". It can only be when the life of Christ within us is in agreement with will of the Father, that we achieve. That's the process of becoming a begotten son. That's why Paul said: "Don't quench the Spirit". The Faith of Christ=the Mind of God.

Amen.

Nang

[Ormly]

Faith is called "your" in these passages due to imputation of faith from God to the sinner. Faith becomes ~ours~ through the gift of the faithfulness of Christ.

Scripture please and not conjectured nonsense.


And regeneration is salvation

Nope. It's the born again experience.


Two essentials for salvation:

1. The power and work of the Holy Spirit to resurrect us from being dead in sins to new life in Christ. (Ephesians 2:1-5)

2. The gift of faith to believe and comprehend the things of God. (John 3:3)


Nope. Faith in God testified of by ones life.

Acts 10:34-35 (KJV)
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

There, how's that? That's salvation in anyone"s book, correct or no?


I agree with this. And I believe there is no choice not to receive the gift of life and faith, for the power of God's grace is irresistible.

Nope. Many are called but chosen. Why? Because most resist God and continue in "self mode" after their supposed salvation. You need a course in the beattitudes.

Hebrews 2:3 (KJV)
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

If God succours and nourishes those who are His, what does he mean neglect if not referring in some way to resisting Him, Hmmm? And these, the born again?

[Owen]

Its a few days since the last post but I figure I might as well take a stab at the issue.

I do believe all men can be saved, but I also believe that regeneration precedes faith logistically (not temporally). The semantics of that I will briefly go into later, but let me first try to establish regeneration preceding faith.

First, let me define regeneration as being born again. In such, we are made partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). In other words, with regeneration, we are given an imparted (NOT imputed) principle of righteousness. Regeneration is also the granting of our initial repentance. I am sure that is a definition some may argue with.

Also, I am saying faith is summed up by full trust in Him and the acceptance as Christ as Lord instead of a mere intellectual assent.

John 3:20-21:

For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.

In these verses, we see that coming to Christ (the Light) would be performed only by the person who practices the truth. Those who do evil would not come to Christ.

If man can not be brought to salvation by his works, these verses can not be saying by doing certain number of good or evil deeds one becomes capable of coming to Christ.

Rather, if a man was born again, he would have a imparted righteousness which would cause the man to practice the truth. Then at that same time, the man would also come to Christ. Thus, at the very least, regeneration and faith are seen to happn at the same time temporally. However, the text gives a further clue as to what if first logistically. Jesus attributes coming or avoiding the Light to their works.

Thus assuming that there is an imparted righteousness given at regeneration, this verse would be the basis for regeneration before faith. However, no doctrine should be established upon one Scripture if at all possible. So lets look at verses elsewhere in John.

John 6:44-45:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, "AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD." Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

This verse right here states that without God's drawing, we can not come to Christ. However, the next verse adds some further light to the meaning. WE come to Christ when we are taught by the Father. Now this verse in itself really doesn't speak of regeneration per se, but it would not be a far strech to associate this teaching coming from the Holy Spirit with or at regeneration. But nevertheless, we must be taught by the Father before we come to Christ.

John 8:42-47:

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."

Here Jesus says if God were our Father they would have loved Him. However, they were instead of the devil and because of that they did not believe Him. Thus from these verses we see that loving Him and believing Him is conditioned upon God being our Father. And God being our Father could very well speaking of being born of God, or more specifically of the Holy Spirit, which is regeneration. Thus if "God being our Father" does indeed refer to being born again, it would definately show that love of Christ and belief of Him would be conditioned upon regeneration.

However, I don't think this is the only place where the Scripture speak of this, but I believe Paul implies regeneration before faith also.

1 Corinthians 12:3:

Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Fairly self explanatory.

Galatians 5:22-23:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

The Greek word transalted as faithfulness there is the same Greek word that is generally translated as faith, pistis, so there is no change in the wording in reality. One would have to propose that pistis here refers to something different other than saving faith, which is could very well be, but I personally doubt it.

2 Timothy 2:25b:

if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth

If God granted men our repentance (our desire to turn against our sins) if regneration, then we recognize that knowledge (in the Greek epignosis or percise knowledge) of the truth comes as a result of repentance. Now the question would come up as to what is "knowledge of the truth." I think it refers to the whole Christian truth, which includes Christ.

John 16:8-9:

"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;

We see the Holy Spirit convicting men that do not beleive in Christ not of the truth of Christ as Savior and God, but rather about sin. Therefore a very reachable conclusion is that Holy Spirit convicts us of sin so that we would repent, resulting in our regeneration and subsequent faith.

Other verses that may support regeneration before faith, but ones that I am not really sure it does teach it are John 6:29, Acts 19:4 and 2 Peter 1:1.

Of course all the verses I gave are not absolute proofs beyond question. Each verse by itself is not conclusive, but I believe when you begin to see them all together, they would definately show the theme of regeneration before faith.

Now as for a reconciling of salvation being for all men yet regeneration before faith, I have spoken of the answer within this post already. By repentance from sin (which I believe every man is enabled to perform through an prevenient enabling grace of God) in conjunction with knowledge of God, men are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, thus unquestionably leading them to faith in Christ. If they are born again and have heard or do hear the Gospel, they will without question come to faith in Christ.

[Bernie]

I agree with nang that regeneration is salvation. I also believe that regeneration not only begets but actually equates to illumination, love, faith and all things good and true.

Aquinas, who appears to have fallen prey to what I see as the single greatest error about the spiritual birth in this debate--that one is wholly and completely regenerated in a single event--nonetheless noted in the Summa, "...faith must needs be from God. For the things which are of faith surpass human reason, and hence they do not come to man's knowledge, unless God reveal them." (On The Cause of Faith, Q.6, a1)

and....."[the Pelagian belief that the beginning of faith is of man's choice]is false, for since, by assenting to what belongs to faith, man is raised above his nature, this must needs come to him from some supernatural principle moving him inwardly; and this is God." (Q.6, a1)

and..."...the rational creature is purified by means of a contrary movement, namely, by tending to what which is above it, viz, God."

Regeneration is everything. If we could take an ethereal microscope and peer into the depths of existence, I believe we'd see that 1) all that exists is, at base level, information of one sort or another, and, 2) all information (except God and possibly the angels) exists in a fragmented state of both true or false. Simply put, true=perfection, false=imperfection. The properties true and false in existence can be seen in a variety of prescriptive/religious contexts. It defines good and evil, life and death, light and darkness, etc. and all that arise from them: sin and righteousness, unity and chaos, understanding and incomprehension, etc.

I think my Calvinist brethren have the logical upper hand in noting that regeneration necessarily preceeds and is the basis for faith, while my Arminian brethren, properly affirming that choice plays a role in faith, end placing it's relevance in the wrong place. As the world's only Rational Esotericist, I see regeneration as the fragmentary and progressive destruction of false data in human spirit and its "rebirth" into a "true" state, and this is essentially salvation because it produces in one all those things necessary to beleive. To the extent spirit is true, mind is causally also true and in union with God, who is Truth.

In other words, regeneration is a death and rebirth. Jesus alluded to this esoterically in parables (wheat and tares, Mat 13) and other of His teachings (sheep and goats of Mat 25; branches in the vine, some cleansed or pruned and others thrown into the fire in Jn 15; body parts some cut off and discarded, Mat 18:7-9, etc.) Jesus noted in John 12:24, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

Once illuminated (regenerated to some measure of moral capacity), the created intellect is invited to participate in his or her salvation by exercising the minute power of choice--which is almost always only an assent to revealed truth (distinct from an ability to actually comply with or embrace this truth. Choice arises dimly and weakly from the admixture of true/false (or good/evil, light/darkness, spirit/flesh) the mind is presented from the fragmental and partially-regenerate spirit. I believe this view alone satisfies the logical difficulties inherent in an assumption of a wholly regenerate spirit.

I agree with lifesharer that regeneration is a literal rebirth of the spirit from death to life (true to false), but doctrine runs into epistemological difficulties it cannot overcome when we try to apply spiritual birth as an instant, wholly performed event.

Even Aquinas noted this difficulty in the Summa [without ever directly saying so], doubtless unaware that he was arguing for progressive regeneration when he wrote, "He who receives faith from God....is healed from unbelief, not entirely....but in part, namely, in that he ceases from committing such and such a sin. Thus it happens frequently that a man desists from one act of sin, through the instigation of his own malice. In in this way sometimes it is granted a man to believe, and yet he is not granted the gift of charity; so, too, the gift of prophecy, or the like, is given to some without charity."

Aquinas observed here, whether knowingly or not, the inherent difficulty in proclaiming regeneration complete: faith, attraction to sin, behaviors, etc. remain yet fragmentary in the individual. Only the rationally esoteric view is able to dispell these difficulties.

[lifesharer]

the " veil was done away with In Christ " through our regenerated spirit so that the Holy Spirit can guide us into all truth even with a mere tranlsation . if we all had to speak and read greek and hebreww to Know God and His word the Holy Spirit came in vain.

[lifesharer]

Regeneration can in NO way BE salvation. these are two entirely different concepts and words with entirely different defintions and effects. Regeneration is tied to a rebirth of your spirit: see Ezekiel 11: 19 John 3:6, Jeremiah 31: 31-34 Ez. 36:24-28 and 2Peter 1:3. amongst dozens of other verses. In Deut. 30:6 we see that this literal rebirth of our spirit is likened unto circumcision, of the heart, and this corresponds directly to and without any ambiguity to Ro. 2: 28-29 + Col. 2: 11-14 and Ro. 6: 1-11 which reveals plainly that GOD chose to regenerate us at the time of Water baptism and NOT at the moment of salvation. This explains why Jesus used accuratly: "KINGDOM" and NOt heaven or salvation in HIS teaching about spirit rebirth (John 3:6 is the very defintion of being: born again ("from above" is a better rendering). Its NOT about salvation but spiritual ability and maturity and being led By the Spirit (John 3:8. Thus we see that since regeneration is tied directly to water baptism, and that is a "works" we DO, it cannot be added to grace as essential to have "mere" salvation. Neither the water nor the ritual having any power, but the HS gives birth to our spirit at that time as a fullfillment of the OT type and shadow of Israel passing through the red sea and being set free from bondage to egypt, the flesh and sin in type. See again Ezekiel 36: 25. Where else is sprinkle spoken of ? Heb 10: 22 as a evidence that our spirit and the communion with the Hs is fully restored as spoken in about in deut 30: 6 and 1Peter 3: 21 creating in us a "good Conscience". This "divine NATURE" being that perfect human spirit that God divinly created in Adam and was restored In Jesus and then given to us as the "spirit of Life in Christ Jesus".
lifesharer

[lifesharer]

The only problem is in your understanding my friend, our spirit is instantly and completely rebirthed:
Titus 3:5, the germ of regeneration, divides the work of the HS into regeneration proper AND into soul sanctification proper ("renewing" as in the renewing of your mind). one is an instant and complete work the second a process.
Simply grasping that regeneration is typed By Israel passing through the red sea where bondage to the old man /NATURE is broken as the soldiers of egypt were distroyed, and "Renewing", is typed By Israel in the wilderness (where sin, rebellion and unbelief was worked out of them) will help you understand what this is about. God alludes to this dual state in Ro. chapter 7 and in the process of soul renewing in many verses not least of which is the " word of God that sharp two edged sword that divides asunder the soul and spirit by the washing of the water of the word" causing us to walk in spiritual mindedness rather than in mere soul and flesh( carnal life/ mindedness) alone. Putting On the "mind of Christ" is NOT about a fragmented partial regeneration but speaks to spiritual growth: up to "the perfect man of the measure and stature of Christ" Ephesisn 4: 11-16, to spiritual maturity, to the KINGDOM life in the "promise land" , the type for spiritual maturity and kingdom life.
My friend has improperly divided the word here in Titus 3:5 confusing spirit rebirth with soul sanctification.(renewing of your mind) Just because you are a spiritual babe in Christ does NOT mean your spirit is NOT totaly restored. It is after all merely a organ akin to eye or ear and NOT a place where your personality or person it self resides , that is the soul alone. your spirit has NO self awareness like a soul does.
Your " rational ( natural man ) CANNOT rightly divide the word of God NOR know HIM and his " things ( 1 Cor. 2: 9-16) since they are spiritualy discerned. Our Faith is NOt some blind belief but is founded in a sure KNOWledge of God as an intmate " friend" (face to face) thus have Faith IN HIM.Thus rgeneration and its restoration of face to face intimate communion is the foundation of the building blocks of faith and obediance and welding the power and authority of God and KNOWing his perfect will:The very Kingdom and soveriegnty of God manifested! Regeneration allows us to have illumination and other EFFECTS of it not to beconfused with it itself. there are all the gifts of the Spirit , all the fruit of the Spirit and all the ministries and callings squarely founded on our first being regenerated and then learning to walk in it as mature spiritual men. The Holy Spirit reveals to our spirit the "Things of God " which includes righteous judgment / spiritual discernment and other gifts like tongues and prophecy as the HOLY SPIRIT choosesto reveal them through usand NOT as functions inherant IN our spirit ( hence they are GIFTS not abilities).
a proper understanding of and experience in regeneration is essential to all christian yet many do NOT walk in it and remain carnal or never learn of this concept. regeneration is like the gas you put in your new car( salvation ) you may HAVE salvation , but without regeneration its just a big storage unit lolol.

[Ormly]

I agree with nang that regeneration is salvation. I also believe that regeneration not only begets but actually equates to illumination, love, faith and all things good and true.

Aquinas, who appears to have fallen prey to what I see as the single greatest error about the spiritual birth in this debate--that one is wholly and completely regenerated in a single event--nonetheless noted in the Summa, "...faith must needs be from God. For the things which are of faith surpass human reason, and hence they do not come to man's knowledge, unless God reveal them." (On The Cause of Faith, Q.6, a1)



Never mind Pelegian. He doesn't enter into this, one wit.

Aquinas, if indeed your quote from him is all he understood, falls shorts. He does not make good distinctions in this. For instance: Does one need faith for the Blood of Jesus Christ to be shed for him? After all it is the Blood of Christ that saves, is it not? Where is faith needed for that? Who is saved by the Blood? Who is also damned by it and why would they damned? What does any of that have to do with regeneration??

Now it's your turn to make proper distinctions.

Orm

[Ormly]

Thus we see that since regeneration is tied directly to water baptism, and that is a "works" we DO, it cannot be added to grace as essential to have "mere" salvation. Neither the water nor the ritual having any power, but the HS gives birth to our spirit at that time as a fullfillment of the OT type and shadow of Israel passing through the red sea and being set free from bondage to egypt, the flesh and sin in type. See again Ezekiel 36: 25. Where else is sprinkle spoken of ? Heb 10: 22 as a evidence that our spirit and the communion with the Hs is fully restored as spoken in about in deut 30: 6 and 1Peter 3: 21 creating in us a "good Conscience". This "divine NATURE" being that perfect human spirit that God divinly created in Adam and was restored In Jesus and then given to us as the "spirit of Life in Christ Jesus".
lifesharer

Good post, Lifesharer. May I offer a slight adjustment in fear and trembling.

Water baptism is an outward declaration of an inward happening. The occasion of the Red sea, a "type", happened after the revelation of God to the Israelites, after He called them out of Eqypt.

Something to remember: God didn't baptise them for them to remain in or go back to "Egypt" nor are we, when baptised in water, to remain in "self" or go back to it. "He who puts his hand to the plow and looks back ......" [finish it] In this regard alone, water baptism has strong significance. One should be more than "saved" by the Blood before he enters the water.

[Bernie]

Have had little time recently, will try to answer as time permits, though I may fall too far behind to be of much affect...this is a topic that can quickly branch out to cover a lot of territory.

Lifesharer:


"Regeneration can in NO way BE salvation. these are two entirely different concepts and words with entirely different defintions and effects.

It's best, when possible, to refrain from making categorical statements that have not been properly considered from all possible points of view or frames of reference. In fact, regeneration can be and is salvation. Not only this, it seems an absurd retreat into base legalism to not see the correlation between the two and argue as if they had no relationship.

Ormly:


"Never mind Pelegian. He doesn't enter into this, one wit."

And if you reread my post you'll see that I did not assert that he did; on the other hand, I beleive the pelagian error does, although this was not at all the point of any of my post.


"Aquinas....falls shorts. He does not make good distinctions in this. For instance: Does one need faith for the Blood of Jesus Christ to be shed for him?"

I thought he was quite clear. In simplest terms, Aquinas affirms that movement from God precedes faith, though he goes on in his theology to dim this all-important truth by endowing the will with more power and authority than I believe is prudent.


"After all it is the Blood of Christ that saves, is it not?"

Yes.


"Who is saved by the Blood?"

All.


"Who is also damned by it and why would they damned?"

The same all are damned. It appears from your wording that you're asking me if the blood of Christ damns, and I have to assume, since this makes no sense from an orthodox theological perspective, that I must not understand your question correctly. I would assume that you would agree that one's own sins "damn" them, not Jesus' blood....??


What does any of that have to do with regeneration??

"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
"Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ"
(Eph 2:1-5 NASB)

Regeneration is the 'first movement' from God which produces in the created intellect some ability and propensity for moral choice, affirming Jn 1:9: "There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." From this point, the contradistinction bewteen "flesh" and "spirit" made by Jesus, Peter and Paul pertain to man's fragmented ability on some minor level to make moral choices for either spirit [good] or flesh [evil]. The dogmatic literal reading used by some of "flesh" as referring
to the material body is unsupportable on biblical and epistemological grounds.

From this point of initial partial regeneration, all further movement toward God is accomplished in ongoing regeneration, which is the basis of all illumination.

The logic is simple and sound: man, spirit and body, is an informational structure, one's information [being] exsting in a fragmented state of both true (good) and false (evil). Regeneration, in this context, is the destruction of the property of falsity (the 'death' of one's spiritual death) and its replacement of this quality with the quality or attribute of truth, or life. Regeneration is thus an ongoing process culminating in more or less or one's spirit being increasingly transformed from a state of falsity to truth, or death to life. We usually call this sanctification.

Regeneration is essentially salvation, sanctification, renewal, etc. The Bible is a book of nothing but progressive and fragmental application of regeneration from death to life to all humanity.

Do you honestly fail to see the connection between salvation and regeneration?

[lifesharer]

I am often amazed when people quote just enough of someone elses full statement to make it easy to misunderstand and misrepresent them. That's crafty, dishonest, and carnal. What YOU failed to do was stop pontificating long enough to properly and scripturaly define these independant concepts. Regeneration: from the greek: paliggenesia:... means: spiritual rebirth, its two root words speak of a return to a former (ancient) NATURE. Jesus the foremost authority defined it as the LITERAL rebirth of our human spirit, BY the Holy Spirit. Thus restoring it to how God originaly created it in Adam to function, before he sinned and his spirit died (was cut off from God). There is absolutly NO connotation in the word paliggenesia, of the concept of "salvation". NOR is thier in Jesus' teaching obout regeneration (being born from above) in John 3: 3-12, of the concept of "salvation", but ONLY the "KINGDOM of God": which is in heaven, and can be in you, or in the earth.
Salvation is defined as the translation of the believer from the kingdom (jurisidiction) of darkness (which is hell and Lucifer's home) to the Kingdom of Light (which is heaven and Gods home). OR defined as: the privelidge of spending eternity with GOD in HEAVEN by grace through faith and NOT our works of any kind. This has NO connotation of "spirit rebirth" (John 3:6) in the defintion of "salvation". And the type of salvation proper which is Israel leaving egypt, ENDS where the regeneration type begins which is where Israel is set free from the bondage to Egypt as the type for this worlds ways and lusts of the flesh and which are Broken by God closing the red sea over egypts soldiers. SEE: Col. 2: 11-14, Ro. 6: 1-11 and Ro. 7:6. The types are clear and follow one after the other, why is it that you do not see it?
I find it utterly facinating how twisted and confused some men are by thier religious dogmas when scriptures are clear and obvious. It is CLEAR that "circumcision of the heart, in the (s)pirit", (not Spirit), Ro. 2: 28-29, is another name for spirit rebirth/ regeneration. See: Deut. 30: 6 Ezekiel 36: 25-28 specificaly verse 25-26 ezekial 11: 19 and jeremiah 31:31-34 and speaks of this "new covenant" (Heb. 8:9-12). it is connected to other names for spirit rebirth such as: "Quickened" Col 2:13 + (see Eph. 2: 1) and Ro. 6: 4: "newness of life" and "newness of spirit" in Ro. 7:6, and Ro. 8: 1-17 : "the spirit of life in Christ Jesus" wherein is the only instance of the "Christ spirit" (vs.9) and lacks the definite article "The" before either word; which would denote THE Holy Spirit. This "pneuma Theou" being a singular instance and arrangement of these words, is the new creature or new creation and is spoken of as :"Christ in you" being the very literal: perfect human spirit of Jesus as "very man" placed in you to replace your old corrupted and ruined human spirit at regeneration. (See E.W. Bullingers Book : numbers in scriptures page 86), as spoken about in 1 Peter 1: 11, 2:5 ("lively stones" compare to Ezekiel 11: 19), 3:4 3:21 , 1 John 3:1-10 and 3:24, Hebrews 8: 9-12 and Phil 3:3, and many other verses and names for this, which all speak of this simple concept of spirit rebirth. Furthermore: Col. 2: 11-14 ties DIRECTLT AND CLEARLY to the moment of water baptism Col. 2: 11-12, as ro. 6:1-11 (newness of life) does as well! And unless you can prove that Deut. 30:6 and the name: "circumcision of the heart, in the spirit", and ALL these verses DO NOT speak of regeneration of our spirit (spirit rebirth), being born from above,..... you have NO right to deny that GOD Chose to regenerate us at the time OF water baptism. And again I say the name " circumcision of the heart (inner man) in the spirit (NOT capitalized) is another name for regeneration which Col.2: 11-14 ties clearly to water baptism. NOT that water has any power, ... or the ritual, but this is where GOD CHOSE to regenerate us by HIS Spirit as a fullfillment of his fore-type in Exodus and many other prophetic places.
Salvation is NOT regeneration BY defintion , and scriptures clearly states when each occures.
NOR, it MUST be said: is regeneration (or water baptism for that matter) essential to HAVE mere salvation, since it is a "works" we DO, and cannot be added to the perfect propitiation of Christ essential to have mere salvation.
I pray God deliver you from fuzzy theology and mens confused doctrines into a clear grasp of the spiritual mechanics and truth involved with regeneration as apposed to salvation. If you write me at: lifesharer@yahoo.com and ask for it, ... I can send you a bible study on this that may clear up for you the question of what regeneration IS and When it occurs, as well as what it's effects are, if this short lesson failed to get past the dogma of mans religion you have been mislead by.

[Spokoina]

OK, just based on the OP, the scriptures that say ordus salutis...that you believe then are "made alive", "have life", "have eternal life" in that order are: (and I beg forgiveness if others posted these, but I will simply post the list where such is talked about)

Joh 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life

Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace
wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

NOTE: We access grace by faith, NOT we access faith by grace.


Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life

Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Joh 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.