Blessing of Election !

[tdidymas]

How do I purposefully misrepresent something I linked?

I explained it clearly, which proves beyond doubt that you don't understand what you're reading.

Piper and MacArthur are Calvinists. You certainly sound like one to.
You don't believe in free will.
You believe a person is regenerated and THEN saved.
You believe persons are born totally depraved.

I don't believe in the sort of "free will" that you say you believe in. Yes, I believe a person is regenerated before being saved, because that's what Jesus said in John 3:3 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." This means first regeneration (born again), then salvation into the kingdom.

I also believe that people are born totally depraved, because Paul said so in Rom. 3:12 "THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." When it says "not even one," he is including infants and preborn, because there are no exceptions stated. Paul's quote of OT scripture is an argument for total spiritual depravity of man, which renders him incapable of pleasing God in any way by himself (that is, without the moving of the Holy Spirit in him, which comes only after regeneration), and this includes the exercise of faith which is a gift of God. And "good" in this context is talking about the goodness of God, and what pleases Him, not the so-called goodness of man which is relative to other people.

Paul further solidifies that inability of unregenerate man by saying in 1 Cor. 2:14 "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." "Cannot" is a term of inability. "Does not" is a term of action/inaction. It means unregenerate people do not accept the gospel because they don't understand it. He is speaking of spiritual understanding, since he says it's "spiritually appraised." And "the things of the Spirit" = the gospel of Christ, since that's what he is talking about in the context of ch. 1 and 2.

So Paul is telling us that man by himself is so corrupt spiritually that he cannot and will not believe and obey the gospel of Christ. It takes an act of God regenerating an individual, making them spiritual, before they can understand and believe the gospel in a way that makes them obey the message. This is his whole argument in that context, in which he distinguishes between two kinds of wisdom in ch. 1.

I respect that you've studied the bible for many years. I think almost everyone on this forum has.
You've read reformed writers...have you read the non-reformed writers? OR those opposed to the reformed faith?
That would balance things out and give you the opportunity to really decide.
I've read both.

I've read many things, including non-reformed writers. But I don't need to "balance things out," because I take what the Bible says at face value, and I don't judge what I'm reading from God's word. I rather let God's word judge me to make my thinking conform to what it says. Therefore I don't need to "decide" anything as you would like. I've already made my decision to believe what the Bible says, and not what people claim.

I know what we're debating T....
You stated free will correctly....but then total depravity sets in and that is where the confusion lies.
NOT my confusion.

I maintain man has enough light to choose God (or not).
John says this plainly...

John 1:9 THE ONE WHO IS THE TRUE LIGHT, WHO GIVES LIGHT TO EVERYONE, WAS COMING INTO THE WORLD.

If everyone had enough light to choose God, then they would choose Him. The reason why they don't choose Him is because they walk in darkness. Examine the context of the verse you quote. They don't come to Christ because "they love the darkness rather than the light."

v. 5 says "The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." Can you see that "the darkness" is everyone (who you claim has sufficient light) who does "not comprehend" - that is, doesn't understand, the light. Can't you see this is not enough light to choose God? And besides this, it takes an act of God, a supernatural act, above and beyond the natural hearing of the gospel message, for a person to have sufficient light to choose God. Paul describes that act in Eph. 2:5.

But I suspect you won't believe this, because you'd rather believe what the RCC teaches.

I never said unregenerate man is not ABLE to choose God..I said he doesn't UNDERSTAND God or His work, as in 1 Cor 2:14.

In the context of 1 Cor. 1-2, Paul is explaining that unregenerate man DOES NOT believe the gospel (and therefore does not choose God), because he does not understand it.

I've already replied that FAITH comes BEFORE SALVATION.

You can't restrict it to a chronological process. The apostle Paul explains that faith comes to a person when they hear the gospel, and that faith makes one justified. Therefore, salvation is at the same time. 1 Jn. 5:1 says "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God," and no matter how you try to rearrange it, you can't separate belief from regeneration in this statement. 1 Pet. 1:3 says that God "has caused us to be born again" when we heard the gospel. Therefore, God causing regeneration is the logical precedent of believing, and this fits all of scripture, even all the commands to believe and repent.

Here's another verse:

Ephesians 2:8
FOR BY GRACE ARE WE SAVED.....THROUGH FAITH....

What came first?
Faith or salvation?

But it doesn't say faith comes first. It says "through faith," not "as a result of faith." It seems to me that you are trying to make it mean that a person's faith is the cause of them being saved, but it doesn't say that. In v. 5 Paul just got through saying that being saved by grace was God raising us to life. A spiritually dead person has no faith, because they can't appraise the gospel properly (and therefore they reject it). But a spiritually alive person spiritually understands the gospel, and therefore believes and obeys.

Yes T...YOU also claim to study the bible but I didn't question you.
Please don't be so personal and let's stick to the subject at hand.

Study up on Romans 9 to 11 --- It's speaking about the Jews being chosen...it's Paul stating that God hasn't failed.

I already explained this to you.

Yes, I believe that salvation is CONDITIONAL.
It's conditional based on the fact the we want to choose to obey God.
This refers back to all the verses I posted about Jesus saying we must obey His commands.

So then, you believe that salvation is conditional based on our obedience to His commands. Do I read you correctly?

We cannot say we're born again and disobey God.
Jesus said IF we love Him, we will obey Him. John 14:15

I agree. But this isn't what we're debating in this thread.

I agree with you on why the reformation happened.
The doctrine of the Trinity was always present, even in scripture, but the full idea took theologians to work out.
Was Jesus really God? I'm sure you know the history.
The council of Nicea in 325AD was specifically to settle once and for all the heresies that were circulating and to state what the CC believed to be true.
All councils were to settle one matter or another.

ok

However, NO ONE believed that man had no free will or that God chose based on NOTHING before the reformation.
As I've stated, only gnostics believed man did not have free will.

This is a straw man argument, because I'm not arguing for man not having free will in the same sense that the gnostics taught that idea. In fact, you are using the term "free will" in the same sense that the gnostics used the term, and in the same sense that Pelagius used the term. By your usage of the term throughout this thread, you are assuming that man's will, which is separated from God (not reconciled) has the wherewithall to make righteous choices in God's sight, including to believe and obey the gospel. This is exactly what Pelagius and his cohorts taught, which was condemned at subsequent councils.

But you continue to misrepresent what I'm saying, perhaps because you simply don't understand it, or what the Bible teaches about it. IMO you are confused about man's makeup and his true spiritual condition. I showed clearly how unregenerate man's will is a slave to the devil and sin, and therefore his will is not free as you claim. The reason is that a person's spirit must be regenerated, and the Holy Spirit leading them to believe and obey the gospel. This happens in the spiritual realm, and can only be determined by God.

We know that God chooses persons....BUT based on their willingness to adhere to HIS CONDITIONS.

No, that would be merited grace. The grace of God is unmerited, which means that God chooses to save certain persons He wants to save, apart from anything we do or are willing to do.
(Part 1 of 2)

 

[tdidymas]

To Wondering:
(Part 2 of 2)

The idea that God chooses person arbitrarily and with no conditions at all goes against everything we know about the nature of God.
(which I've listed up above)

God has His own reasons for doing what He does, and He is still right about it. Such is the lesson of Job. in ch. 42 v. 2. In context, he means that God can do anything AND STILL BE RIGHTEOUS. Therefore, I disagree with you about the nature of God. He is sovereign, which means His will ultimately prevails. Him having sovereignty over the salvation of individuals shows Him to be glorious, loving, and merciful, in addition to holy and just. So your assessment is poor, IMO. When God said "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy," it speaks of Him having mercy on some and not others. I already well-explained that God is not obligated to have mercy on anyone, and that mercy is an exception to justice. So I take it that your assessment of the matter is that God has to have the same mercy on everyone alike, and that's just not the case.

So your usage of "arbitrarily" as derogatory simply speaks of your attitude toward God's sovereignty. No conditions is conducive to unmerited favor. What you're trying to do, and your whole argument, is that God has to find a reason in man's obedience before He shows mercy, and that's just not the case, and not what the Bible teaches. You're trying to teach that God's grace and mercy shown toward individuals is merited by a person's "willingness to obey" (attitude). "Willingness to obey God's commands" isn't shown until obedience to those commands is acted out. Someone who thinks himself willing to obey but doesn't obey is a liar in his own heart. Therefore, only one who actually obeys is one who is willing to obey. And the way you are using the idea is nothing other than a salvation by works idea.

 

[tdidymas]

tdidymas

Forgot to link attributes:


Here is more from that article on Wikipedia:

In Christianity, God is the creator and preserver of the universe. God is the sole ultimate power in the universe but is distinct from it. The Bible never speaks of God as impersonal. Instead, it refers to him in personal terms– who speaks, sees, hears, acts, and loves. God is understood to have a will and personality and is an all powerful, divine and benevolent being. He is represented in Scripture as being primarily concerned with people and their salvation.[21]

Attributes of God​

Main article: Attributes of God in Christianity
Some attributes ascribed to God in Christian theology


...Truncated

I don't need an education on systematic theology, and none of what you post here proves your point one iota.

Regarding IMPECCABILITY....
IF God predestined everything that happens...He certainly did sin. (and this is impossible).
Stealing, murder, etc. is a sin. If God predestined these and other acts...then He sinned.

Your assessment of the matter is in error. You are describing Determinism, which Reformed Theology does NOT teach. But I've already told you that, and you completely disregard it. But I will once again (possibly for the last time) give a last ditch effort to get you to acknowledge that you could be wrong about your judgments:

Acts 2:23 "this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."
Acts 4:27-28 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."
Both scriptures in context is talking about the crucifixion of Christ. Notice it says "predetermined" and "predestined" which refers to the sinful acts of those involved in the crucifixion. According to your logic, God sinned, based on these statements. But it is because your logic is bad. God can predestine these sinful acts and not sin Himself. Such wisdom seems above you.

 

[tdidymas]

God is just means that God gives to every person alive what that person DESERVES.
This is what JUSTICE means.

You never answered my question:
WHAT IS THE GOOD NEWS?

You think very little of God, which you say is sovereign.
MY GOD is not afraid of giving His creation free will.
YOUR GOD is afraid to give man free will --- for what reason I cannot fathom.

If you have children, perhaps you should lock them up in a room so that they can never make a choice of their own...
or do you let them out of the house and hope they will make correct choices?

Do you think you're better than God?
Do you think God doesn't even have the attributes YOU have with your children?

You gripe about insults, but here you are trying to insult my intelligence. Don't you think that's hypocritical? IMO you're just avoiding the issue because you're frustrated that I keep proving by scripture that your thinking is incorrect.

Your "my God/your God" conversation is adolescent to say the least. Your extremely exaggerative analogies don't address the real issue. But you continue failing to acknowledge the distinction between the natural and the spiritual that Paul explains, and it may be that you simply don't understand it, and IMO you refuse to even try.

 

[tdidymas]

No. I don't agree with your interpretation of the good news.
YOUR good news only applies to the saved persons God chooses.

The REAL good news is for EVERYONE who wishes to spend eternity in heaven with God.

Jesus told the Apostles to go into all nations and teach what He commanded.
He didn't tell them not to have a care in the world because God would decide who was going to be saved.

It's good news because it's for EACH INDIVIDUAL.

No need to reply to this.

I can see you want the last word. Yet, key words is "who wishes to spend eternity in heaven with God." But the whole world and all the world religions are full of people who wish to spend eternity in paradise (or nirvana, or the ultimate existence, whatever that means to them). The fact is, only those believing in Christ will actually be there. And you just don't want to acknowledge that only God has control of that.

And in reality, the gospel is ONLY good news for those who believe the message. For everyone else, it's BAD NEWS!! I'll quote the apostle Paul: "the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing."

 

[tdidymas]

As you reject mine.
I'm finished speaking to you since you're unable to be serious about this.
Your insults are personal and I will no longer respond to you.

I said, you said...
I have no time for this nonsense.

It's only nonsense to someone who refuses to accept the truth. If you were serious about it, you'd read every scripture I cited.

 

[Butch5]

In other words you contend that you can determine to do what you don't desire most strongly to do. Ridiculous.

So, hypothetically, a Christian can have NO DESIRE for Christ ... he just chose to follow Him and love Him because he determined to want to do so despite his desire not to follow and love Christ. One could love and follow Christ though it is not necessarily a desire to do so, you just chose to do it anyway. (This would make a unique testimony. I think you need to think more about the consequences of what you are saying.)

Your version of "free will" is interesting. So, when one marries a spouse one could say: "I don't desire to love you in sickness and health, but I have determined that I will do so despite my desire to do the contrary".

Of course, the question still remains (and always will remain) ... why did you determine to do something you did desire to do most????


Born Again/New Creature/Spiritually Alive/New Nature are synonyms
Regeneration is the instantaneous impartation of eternal life by the Holy Spirit to the spiritually dead; it is to be “born again”… it is to be a new creation, renewing of the mind, a dying to sin and living to righteousness, a translation from darkness to light; for the old has passed away, and the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17). One’s dominant motives are transformed from darkness to light and from death to life. God is the author (John 1:13; John 6:63), the Holy Spirit is the agent (John 3:8) or efficient cause and the Word of God is the instrument (John 15:3; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23). God’s work of regeneration reaches into our hearts to bring about a response (faith/repentance) that is absolutely certain—even though we respond voluntarily. It is certain because of our new nature which has been given believers via regeneration; we are spiritually alive and responsive to the will of God.

I suppose one could do that, although I don't know why they would. But, since you're making assertions, why is it ridiculous that one would choose that which is not their greatest desire? I'm kind of surprised that you've made this argument give what we have in Scripture.

41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
(Lk. 22:41-42 KJV)

It appears Jesus chose to do the Father's will and not His own.

This idea of regeneration is interesting, I don't think it's Biblical, but it's interesting. You said that Regeneration is the instantaneous impartation of eternal life. Well, that's at the Resurrection. Jesus referred to the Resurrection as regeneration. There is nothing in the Scriptures about "spiritually dead", so, I'm not sure how that plays into things. The new creation in 2 Cor. 5:17 is in the active voice, that means that the person is the one who is making them a new creation. It is not something that is being done to them by God. John 1:13 is talking about Christ, not Christians. James was written to the Jewish believers as was 1 Peter. So, these two passages don't support your argument.

Your argument is that God does this before one believes yet we see these things taking place after one believes. The New Creation is one changing one's self and becoming a new creation. It seems to me that there's not really any argument left.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I suppose one could do that, although I don't know why they would. But, since you're making assertions, why is it ridiculous that one would choose that which is not their greatest desire?

You have to explain why you would chose something you don't desire the most. It makes no sense.
You are choosing what to desire despite what you actually desire. When you choose something you don't desire most you don't have a reason for doing it. This make no sense. You can't determine your desire as Free Will proposes as you can't give a reason for choosing something you don't desire most in a given situation.

I'm kind of surprised that you've made this argument give what we have in Scripture.

I am willing to go there too.

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
(Lk. 22:41-42 KJV)

It appears Jesus chose to do the Father's will and not His own.

Jesus had at least two desires in regards to submitting to His crucifixion (His choice).
1) I assume He did not want to be crucified due to the suffering involved
2) He wanted to obey God.
So, as I said He chose what He desired most ... to obey God.
I am not saying one can't have competing desires. I am saying that when all the influences are aggregated in a particular circumstance one will always picks what he desires most. (Aside: we are dealing with God here, but I am assuming human characteristics for God's decision making) There is nothing in this verse showing Christ desired to abstain from suffering more than He wanted to obey God. Everything we know about Christ says his #1 priority/desire was to obey God so He did what He desired most.

Jesus referred to the Resurrection as regeneration.

I am not familiar with this statement. Do you have a scripture. (this is going on a tangent IMO)

This idea of regeneration is interesting, I don't think it's Biblical, but it's interesting. You said that Regeneration is the instantaneous impartation of eternal life.

Are you saying my definition is not biblical. I admit the word is seldomly found in the bible as I define it. If the term as I define it is not acceptable we can use another. The point of the matter, no matter what term I am using, the point is I propose that God causes us to believe and repent. I use the word REGENERATION as the name of this cause and many theologians do so also.
Looks like Titus 3:5 use the word regeneration in some translations ... he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

John 1:13 is talking about Christ, not Christians.

Hmmm ...never heard that explanation.
Verse 12 But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the right [the authority, the privilege] to become children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name—13 who were born, not of blood [natural conception], nor of the will of the flesh [physical impulse], nor of the will of man [that of a natural father], but of God [that is, a divine and supernatural birth—they are born of God—spiritually transformed, renewed, sanctified].
But to as many as did receive and welcome Him is who is spoken of in verse 13. Since Christ is one person the MANY means verse 13 is not describing CHRIST by multiple persons.

Your argument is that God does this before one believes

The word BEFORE is a temporal designation. I state that regeneration LOGICALLY precedes faith. The two happen at the same time chronologically. In other words, Regeneration is the Cause and faith is the Effect. I imagine you would say faith is the cause and regeneration is the effect. Then you are stuck with proving the cause of your faith despite ones depravity and the many verses like NO ONE SEEKS GOOD that contradict the notion that one can cause their faith (one can't cause one's faith because for everyone it is NOT their greatest desire due to a sin nature ... said nature also not being chosen by man).

The New Creation is one changing one's self and becoming a new creation. It seems to me that there's not really any argument left.

I don't think I follow your last sentence/conclusion. I say at regeneration one is baptized into the spirit which now indwells the person making him spiritually alive (new creation). You say a spiritually dead person makes himself spiritually alive (born again). Dead people can do nothing; that's the definition of DEAD and why scripture uses that word IMO.

Interesting conversation ... thx ... bedtime

 

[Butch5]

You have to explain why you would chose something you don't desire the most. It makes no sense.
You are choosing what to desire despite what you actually desire. When you choose something you don't desire most you don't have a reason for doing it. This make no sense. You can't determine your desire as Free Will proposes as you can't give a reason for choosing something you don't desire most in a given situation.

Why, has nothing to do with my ability to choose. That's a non sequitur.

I am willing to go there too.


Jesus had at least two desires in regards to submitting to His crucifixion (His choice).
1) I assume He did not want to be crucified due to the suffering involved
2) He wanted to obey God.
So, as I said He chose what He desired most ... to obey God.
I am not saying one can't have competing desires. I am saying that when all the influences are aggregated in a particular circumstance one will always picks what he desires most. (Aside: we are dealing with God here, but I am assuming human characteristics for God's decision making) There is nothing in this verse showing Christ desired to abstain from suffering more than He wanted to obey God. Everything we know about Christ says his #1 priority/desire was to obey God so He did what He desired most.

And, there's nothing in this verse saying that He desired to obey God more. You're simply imposing that onto the text. You're actually arguing against the very argument that you're using.

I am not familiar with this statement. Do you have a scripture. (this is going on a tangent IMO)

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28 KJV)

The reason I mentioned it is because Calvinists have taken certain words and redefined them to fit within their theological ecosystem. For instance, in Scripture we see grace, however, Calvinists have a general grace and a prevenient, they have a general call and an effectual call. These definitions are used to reject Scripture that doesn't fit Calvinist theology. We don't see a general and effectual call in Scripture. We don't see different graces in Scripture. They've taken words like Election, Predestination, and Sovereign, and redefined them to fit within their system.

So, my point was to show that the word regeneration only appears twice in Scripture and neither time is it used of the things you mentioned.

Are you saying my definition is not biblical. I admit the word is seldomly found in the bible as I define it. If the term as I define it is not acceptable we can use another. The point of the matter, no matter what term I am using, the point is I propose that God causes us to believe and repent. I use the word REGENERATION as the name of this cause and many theologians do so also.
Looks like Titus 3:5 use the word regeneration in some translations ... he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

I wouldn't say seldom, it's not used that way at all. Yes, theologians do use these terms as I pointed out above. They do this to make they're claims look Biblical. They use terms like regeneration, give it a different meaning, and then argue with their definition. This gives a smoke screen of cover for their doctrine. It's, well, regeneration is in Bible so maybe what they say is true. It's just a way to try to make the doctrines look real. I'm not saying that you're doing this. I'm guessing that you've read Reformed theologians and they've all made these same arguments. On the surface they sound good. Unless one breaks them down and examines them they seem to pass the muster. However, as I've said several times, I used to be a Calvinist, so, I have broken down these arguments. I see them for what they are.

 

[Butch5]

Fastfredy0

Hmmm ...never heard that explanation.
Verse 12 But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the right [the authority, the privilege] to become children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name—13 who were born, not of blood [natural conception], nor of the will of the flesh [physical impulse], nor of the will of man [that of a natural father], but of God [that is, a divine and supernatural birth—they are born of God—spiritually transformed, renewed, sanctified].
But to as many as did receive and welcome Him is who is spoken of in verse 13. Since Christ is one person the MANY means verse 13 is not describing CHRIST by multiple persons.

Since this passage doesn't support your claim I'll not dwell on it. It says He gave the right to become children of God to those who received Him. So, they received Him before they were given the right to become children of God. And on side note, remember, He came to the Jews.

Regarding the passage itself, I'd ask, those who received Christ, which ones weren't, born of blood, the will of the flesh, and the will of man? None, they were all born of human will. Christ is the only one who was not born of Human will. Christ was begotten of God before all ages. There were no humans, thus no human will, no blood, no man.

So, why do we have a translation of '"who were born"? I'll let Tertullian answer that. Here he is refuting the Gnostic teacher Valentinus. Take note to the beliefs of this Gnostic teacher.

Christ, as to His Divine Nature, as the Word of God, Became Flesh, Not by Carnal Conception, Nor by the Will of the Flesh and of Man, But by the Will of God. Christ’s Divine Nature, of Its Own Accord, Descended into the Virgin’s Womb.​

What, then, is the meaning of this passage, “Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God? ” I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it. They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural) “ Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves. But how can this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.” And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh. To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men, because it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh? For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being “born of blood” but only the matter of the seed, which, as all know, is the warm blood as convected by ebullition into the coagulum of the woman’s blood. In the cheese, it is from the coagulation that the milky substance acquires that consistency, which is condensed by infusing the rennet. We thus understand that what is denied is the Lord’s birth after sexual intercourse (as is suggested by the phrase, “the will of man and of the flesh”), not His nativity from a woman’s womb. Why, too, is it insisted on with such an accumulation of emphasis that He was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor (of the will) of man, if it were not that His flesh was such that no man could have any doubt on the point of its being born from sexual intercourse? Again, although denying His birth from such cohabitation, the passage did not deny that He was born of real flesh; it rather affirmed this, by the very fact that it did not deny His birth in the flesh in the same way that it denied His birth from sexual intercourse. Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of God descended into a woman’s womb at all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the womb. For He could have become spiritual flesh without such a process,—much more simply, indeed, without the womb than in it. He had no reason for enclosing Himself within one, if He was to bear forth nothing from it. Not without reason, however, did He descend into a womb. Therefore He received (flesh) therefrom; else, if He received nothing therefrom, His descent into it would have been without a reason, especially if He meant to become flesh of that sort which was not derived from a womb, that is to say, a spiritual one.[11]

Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Note the part in Red. Tertullian was refuting a Gnostic who was using this passage to try to prove the very same thing you are. That's your doctrine and it's being refuted by this Christian pastor. These doctrines aren't new, they're just new to the church.

The word BEFORE is a temporal designation. I state that regeneration LOGICALLY precedes faith. The two happen at the same time chronologically. In other words, Regeneration is the Cause and faith is the Effect. I imagine you would say faith is the cause and regeneration is the effect. Then you are stuck with proving the cause of your faith despite ones depravity and the many verses like NO ONE SEEKS GOOD that contradict the notion that one can cause their faith (one can't cause one's faith because for everyone it is NOT their greatest desire due to a sin nature ... said nature also not being chosen by man).

Likewise, you're stuck with having to prove that man cannot choose Christ, with passages that say this person or that person was righteous or blameless. You see all of those passages need to be looked at in context. You're making an argument that regeneration (as you define it) precedes faith but all you have to base that on are inferences you're drawing from Scripture. One of the debate tactics of Calvinism is to stay on the offensive so as not to have to defend it's own doctrines. I'm not sure if you're ware of this but, you're telling me I can't do the very thing that you can't do. Nothing personal, I'm just pointing out tactics for others to see.

I'm not sure what you mean by a sin nature or what that has to do with any of this.

I don't think I follow your last sentence/conclusion. I say at regeneration one is baptized into the spirit which now indwells the person making him spiritually alive (new creation). You say a spiritually dead person makes himself spiritually alive (born again). Dead people can do nothing; that's the definition of DEAD and why scripture uses that word IMO.

Interesting conversation ... thx ... bedtime

That's not what I'm saying. There is nothing in Scripture that talks about spiritually dead, so, I don't use that language. That's just something Christians made up. Peter tells us that one receives the spirit at baptism. We have Jesus' example of this. After being baptized in the river Jordan He received the Holy Spirit. So, that doesn't fit your definition of regeneration.

Again, I don't say anything about a spiritually dead person, as the Bible doesn't. Regarding the new creation. Paul used active voice verbs. That means that the people he is writing to are doing the action. They are making themselves a new creation. Essentially what he's saying is now that you've become a Christian, You're a new person, you've put off your old way of living

 

[GodsGrace]

Fastfredy0


Since this passage doesn't support your claim I'll not dwell on it. It says He gave the right to become children of God to those who received Him. So, they received Him before they were given the right to become children of God. And on side note, remember, He came to the Jews.

Regarding the passage itself, I'd ask, those who received Christ, which ones weren't, born of blood, the will of the flesh, and the will of man? None, they were all born of human will. Christ is the only one who was not born of Human will. Christ was begotten of God before all ages. There were no humans, thus no human will, no blood, no man.

So, why do we have a translation of '"who were born"? I'll let Tertullian answer that. Here he is refuting the Gnostic teacher Valentinus. Take note to the beliefs of this Gnostic teacher.

Christ, as to His Divine Nature, as the Word of God, Became Flesh, Not by Carnal Conception, Nor by the Will of the Flesh and of Man, But by the Will of God. Christ’s Divine Nature, of Its Own Accord, Descended into the Virgin’s Womb.​

What, then, is the meaning of this passage, “Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God? ” I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it. They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural) “ Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves. But how can this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.” And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh. To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men, because it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh? For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being “born of blood” but only the matter of the seed, which, as all know, is the warm blood as convected by ebullition into the coagulum of the woman’s blood. In the cheese, it is from the coagulation that the milky substance acquires that consistency, which is condensed by infusing the rennet. We thus understand that what is denied is the Lord’s birth after sexual intercourse (as is suggested by the phrase, “the will of man and of the flesh”), not His nativity from a woman’s womb. Why, too, is it insisted on with such an accumulation of emphasis that He was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor (of the will) of man, if it were not that His flesh was such that no man could have any doubt on the point of its being born from sexual intercourse? Again, although denying His birth from such cohabitation, the passage did not deny that He was born of real flesh; it rather affirmed this, by the very fact that it did not deny His birth in the flesh in the same way that it denied His birth from sexual intercourse. Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of God descended into a woman’s womb at all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the womb. For He could have become spiritual flesh without such a process,—much more simply, indeed, without the womb than in it. He had no reason for enclosing Himself within one, if He was to bear forth nothing from it. Not without reason, however, did He descend into a womb. Therefore He received (flesh) therefrom; else, if He received nothing therefrom, His descent into it would have been without a reason, especially if He meant to become flesh of that sort which was not derived from a womb, that is to say, a spiritual one.[11]

Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Note the part in Red. Tertullian was refuting a Gnostic who was using this passage to try to prove the very same thing you are. That's your doctrine and it's being refuted by this Christian pastor. These doctrines aren't new, they're just new to the church.


Likewise, you're stuck with having to prove that man cannot choose Christ, with passages that say this person or that person was righteous or blameless. You see all of those passages need to be looked at in context. You're making an argument that regeneration (as you define it) precedes faith but all you have to base that on are inferences you're drawing from Scripture. One of the debate tactics of Calvinism is to stay on the offensive so as not to have to defend it's own doctrines. I'm not sure if you're ware of this but, you're telling me I can't do the very thing that you can't do. Nothing personal, I'm just pointing out tactics for others to see.

I'm not sure what you mean by a sin nature or what that has to do with any of this.

That's not what I'm saying. There is nothing in Scripture that talks about spiritually dead, so, I don't use that language. That's just something Christians made up. Peter tells us that one receives the spirit at baptism. We have Jesus' example of this. After being baptized in the river Jordan He received the Holy Spirit. So, that doesn't fit your definition of regeneration.

Again, I don't say anything about a spiritually dead person, as the Bible doesn't. Regarding the new creation. Paul used active voice verbs. That means that the people he is writing to are doing the action. They are making themselves a new creation. Essentially what he's saying is now that you've become a Christian, You're a new person, you've put off your old way of living

Great post!
:nod

 

[GodsGrace]

dlted

 

[Butch5]

Great post!
:nod

Thanks!

 

[Fastfredy0]

Why, has nothing to do with my ability to choose. That's a non sequitur.

Your ability to choose has nothing to do with "Free Will" as you define it. WOW!! Complete contradiction.

And, there's nothing in this verse saying that He [Christ] desired to obey God more. You're simply imposing that onto the text. You're actually arguing against the very argument that you're using.

Granted the verse does not state Christ desired to obey God. Yet the Bible is replete with verses stating this is the case. It is Ridiculous of your to propose otherwise and I assumed I didn't need to give scripture to establish the point. You are implying that Christ could have a desire to disobey God ... that Christ has a SIN NATURE. This is a bewildering proposal.

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28 KJV)

Good point. I didn't know of the use of REGENERATION in that context.

Calvinists have a general grace and a prevenient, they have a general call and an effectual call.

You need to review your Reformed theology. There is a general call and an effectual call but they do not believe in PREVENIENT GRACE. (This is getting off topic. Any group can use a term effectively if they define it ... i.e. the Trinity)

So, my point was to show that the word regeneration only appears twice in Scripture and neither time is it used of the things you mentioned.

Agreed. I defined the word as I use it, so there still shouldn't be further confusion in regards to this discussion

.

This gives a smoke screen of cover for their doctrine. It's, well, regeneration is in Bible so maybe what they say is true. It's just a way to try to make the doctrines look real.

While abuse is a possibility, the establishment of words to represent ideas if an effective way of communication. I.E. The trinity, the hypostatic union

I'm guessing that you've read Reformed theologians and they've all made these same arguments.

Well, by definition they have to make similar arguments or they would not be able to called themselves REFORMED.
It is the only denomination that states they theology clearly and thoroughly. (Aside: that does make them right or wrong ... but at least one knows where they stand.)

However, as I've said several times, I used to be a Calvinist, so, I have broken down these arguments. I see them for what they are.

Possibly you're right. Possibly I am. We both doubt the other is correct.
Aside: The Spirit is supposed to help us discern these things yet protestants have great disagreement. This doesn't seem as it should be to me.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Since this passage doesn't support your claim I'll not dwell on it. It says He gave the right to become children of God to those who received Him. So, they received Him before they were given the right to become children of God. And on side note, remember, He came to the Jews.

My claim is that God determines who is saved and we do not. This supports the topic at hand, "that regeneration (being reborn) logically precedes Faith)
John 1:12 shows John is talking about salvation
John 1:13 tells us WHY we receive him.

Regarding the passage itself, I'd ask, those who received Christ, which ones weren't, born of blood, the will of the flesh, and the will of man? None, they were all born of human will.

The verses refer to salvation. Therefore, they don't refer to a physical birth; rather, a spiritual birth.
Dude, we aren't getting anywhere. It's like we are talking in a different language. I am afraid this is useless.
Maybe it's me. (Aside: I am sure you think so... .*giggle*)

There is nothing in Scripture that talks about spiritually dead

Hmm, interesting point. It is a theological term to differentiate between the ideas of physical and spiritual death. The bible talks to people as being dead even though they are physically alive so they qualified such uses of the word DEAD with the word spiritually to aid understanding. I see your point as I don't see the actual phrase SPIRITUALLY DEAD in scripture.
Eph. 2:1 And you [He made alive when you] were [spiritually] dead and separated from Him because of your transgressions and sins AMP
Eph. 2:5 even when we were [spiritually] dead and separated from Him because of our sins, He made us [spiritually] alive together with Christ (for by His grace—His undeserved favor and mercy—you have been saved from God’s judgment). AMP

 

[Butch5]

Your ability to choose has nothing to do with "Free Will" as you define it. WOW!! Complete contradiction.

Sorry for the delayed response. I had a large project going at work. My ability to choose has nothing to do with free will? They are one and same.

Granted the verse does not state Christ desired to obey God. Yet the Bible is replete with verses stating this is the case. It is Ridiculous of your to propose otherwise and I assumed I didn't need to give scripture to establish the point. You are implying that Christ could have a desire to disobey God ... that Christ has a SIN NATURE. This is a bewildering proposal.

Having a desire different than God's is not sin. Acting contrary to what God has said is sin. As has been pointed out, you keep speaking of desires yet are not able to prove what you claim.

Good point. I didn't know of the use of REGENERATION in that context.


You need to review your Reformed theology. There is a general call and an effectual call but they do not believe in PREVENIENT GRACE. (This is getting off topic. Any group can use a term effectively if they define it ... i.e. the Trinity)

The point is that they have created ways around what Scripture says.

Agreed. I defined the word as I use it, so there still shouldn't be further confusion in regards to this discussion

Yes, you did. However, the word in Scripture has a different meaning. So, when you use it, people see it and understand what you mean rather than what the Scriptures mean. This is how predestination became a doctrine completely separate from predestination in the Bible.

.

While abuse is a possibility, the establishment of words to represent ideas if an effective way of communication. I.E. The trinity, the hypostatic union

Yes, it is. And the misuse of those words is what gives the smoke screen. Predestination is a prime example.

Well, by definition they have to make similar arguments or they would not be able to called themselves REFORMED.
It is the only denomination that states they theology clearly and thoroughly. (Aside: that does make them right or wrong ... but at least one knows where they stand.)

Similar arguments are to be expected. Arguments that are practically identical are not. I have debated Calvinists for many years and I've often joked that there is a Calvinism 101 class because the arguments from all Calvinists are practically identical.

Possibly you're right. Possibly I am. We both doubt the other is correct.
Aside: The Spirit is supposed to help us discern these things yet protestants have great disagreement. This doesn't seem as it should be to me.

I started out Arminian, then became a Calvinist. I realized that both were wrong. Now I let the Bible speak.

 

[Butch5]

My claim is that God determines who is saved and we do not. This supports the topic at hand, "that regeneration (being reborn) logically precedes Faith)
John 1:12 shows John is talking about salvation
John 1:13 tells us WHY we receive him.

It doesn't. It says those who received Him were given the right to become children of God. They received Him before they were given the right became children of God. Receive is in the active voice, that means they performed the action. If God had performed the action it would be in the passive voice.

Also, keep in mind that the passage says they were given the right to become children of God, it doesn't say they did.

met
The verses refer to salvation. Therefore, they don't refer to a physical birth; rather, a spiritual birth.
Dude, we aren't getting anywhere. It's like we are talking in a different language. I am afraid this is useless.
Maybe it's me. (Aside: I am sure you think so... .*giggle*)

It's because you're assuming spiritual birth. Where do the Scriptures speak of spiritual birth? That idea is imposed on the text because Christians have misunderstood Paul's teaching about works. Dead in sin is a metaphor not a statement of spiritual death. Because Christians have accepted this unbiblical idea of spiritual death they have the phrase "born again" meaning spiritual birth rather than born from above or a reference to the resurrection.

God said that Israel was HIs son, His first born. What Israel physically God's son or is it a metaphor? Well, since Israel is of the Seed of Abraham and not God I think it's safe to say it's a metaphor and not literal. So, if Israel wasn't literally born of God, then it's logical to assume that Christians aren't either.

Hmm, interesting point. It is a theological term to differentiate between the ideas of physical and spiritual death. The bible talks to people as being dead even though they are physically alive so they qualified such uses of the word DEAD with the word spiritually to aid understanding. I see your point as I don't see the actual phrase SPIRITUALLY DEAD in scripture.
Eph. 2:1 And you [He made alive when you] were [spiritually] dead and separated from Him because of your transgressions and sins AMP
Eph. 2:5 even when we were [spiritually] dead and separated from Him because of our sins, He made us [spiritually] alive together with Christ (for by His grace—His undeserved favor and mercy—you have been saved from God’s judgment). AMP

Again, spiritually dead isn't in the Scriptures. People have mixed Greek philosophy with Scripture. The Gnostics did it first and Christians have accepted these unbiblical ideas. This is why there is so much confusion in Christianity. People think that man is a spirit living in a flesh body, that is Greek philosophy, not Scripture. Man is not a spirit. You won't find that in Scripture. Man has a spirit, yes. It is the breath or spirit of life from God. But, he isn't a spirit. That's why we don't find the Scriptures speaking of spiritual death. It doesn't exist. Remember, the word spirit is a figurative way of translating breath or wind. The Greek and Hebrew words that are translated wind or breath do not have the meaning of a disembodied living being. That being the case, how would one be breathually dead or windually dead. It doesn't even make sense when we look at the actual literal translation. Christians have taken the literal definition of the English word spirit and imposed it onto the Greek and Hebrew words that the translators translated figuratively as spirit. In doing so they have created something that doesn't exist in Scripture. Man is not a spirit, thus he cannot be spiritually dead or alive.

 

[GodsGrace]

It doesn't. It says those who received Him were given the right to become children of God. They received Him before they were given the right became children of God. Receive is in the active voice, that means they performed the action. If God had performed the action it would be in the passive voice.

Also, keep in mind that the passage says they were given the right to become children of God, it doesn't say they did.

It's because you're assuming spiritual birth. Where do the Scriptures speak of spiritual birth? That idea is imposed on the text because Christians have misunderstood Paul's teaching about works. Dead in sin is a metaphor not a statement of spiritual death. Because Christians have accepted this unbiblical idea of spiritual death they have the phrase "born again" meaning spiritual birth rather than born from above or a reference to the resurrection.

God said that Israel was HIs son, His first born. What Israel physically God's son or is it a metaphor? Well, since Israel is of the Seed of Abraham and not God I think it's safe to say it's a metaphor and not literal. So, if Israel wasn't literally born of God, then it's logical to assume that Christians aren't either.


Again, spiritually dead isn't in the Scriptures. People have mixed Greek philosophy with Scripture. The Gnostics did it first and Christians have accepted these unbiblical ideas. This is why there is so much confusion in Christianity. People think that man is a spirit living in a flesh body, that is Greek philosophy, not Scripture. Man is not a spirit. You won't find that in Scripture. Man has a spirit, yes. It is the breath or spirit of life from God. But, he isn't a spirit. That's why we don't find the Scriptures speaking of spiritual death. It doesn't exist. Remember, the word spirit is a figurative way of translating breath or wind. The Greek and Hebrew words that are translated wind or breath do not have the meaning of a disembodied living being. That being the case, how would one be breathually dead or windually dead. It doesn't even make sense when we look at the actual literal translation. Christians have taken the literal definition of the English word spirit and imposed it onto the Greek and Hebrew words that the translators translated figuratively as spirit. In doing so they have created something that doesn't exist in Scripture. Man is not a spirit, thus he cannot be spiritually dead or alive.

Guess Fastfredy0 doesn't have a good response for such an intelligent post.

I admire the time you're willing to give.

Do you know about the Toronto Accord?
2020..

 

[Butch5]

Guess Fastfredy0 doesn't have a good response for such an intelligent post.

I admire the time you're willing to give.

Do you know about the Toronto Accord?
2020..

He may be busy. I was for a while

Thanks!

I've heard of it, but I'm not sure what it is.

 

[Fastfredy0]

He may be busy. I was for a while

Thanks!

I've heard of it, but I'm not sure what it is.

Sorry ... as best I recall I wrote something 14ish days ago in response to our on going discussion ... and 10ish days later you responded (I guess you were busy) ... by that time I had forgotten the trend of the subject matter ... so I just let it drop.
As best I can recall it was getting to a point where you said verses meant X and I said they meant Y and it seems like we were approaching an impasse.