God's Conditional Grace

[Eventide]

Can two walk together except they be agreed ?

Let's deal with this point-by-point. Your point 1 asserts that Rom 4:1 does indeed show Abraham finding something good in the flesh while I assert that it is a rhetoric to conclude there is nothing good to be found in the flesh(much like Php 3:3-7). I have stated the following from Scripture as my basis for this assertion -
a) Paul's continual tirade against the flesh
b) John 6:63 - the flesh cannot give life and profits nothing

You are yet to show how you've reconciled these.

Please don't twist anything I have said... what I have said is simply what Romans 4 does say in simplicity and in truth... that Abraham believed God and that was counted to him as righteousness.

I see that you ignored the whole basis for that.. specifically Abraham being given the sign of circumcision which is a seal of the righteousness of the faith.. the faith which he had before he was circumcised.

How anyone can read this in its simplicity and manage to turn it completely upside down can only be because it must be filtered through some man's theology, in this case John Calvin.

Furthermore, believing God entails hope in the promises which He has given us, and are yet to be realized.. one of those promises to Abraham was a son.. the son of promise. It's not embracing hope in ourselves, but rather acknowledging that our only hope is in God.

But let's examine the basis you've laid out for your assertion -

And this makes you and what you've heard, the basis of interpreting Romans 4:1? Have you heard all that is to be heard on Romans 4:1? Is there some Scriptural basis that undeniably upholds your assertion?

It's simply my opinion ivdavid.. and I also have not relied solely on this, but upon the whole of scripture which affirms the exact same thing over and over again.. and even the ultimate example of faith explains it in perfect detail as to WHEN he was sealed with the SPIRIT.. or in Abraham's case.. given the SIGN of circumcision.

As I've stated before, Scripture and my own conversion have solely led to my understanding of what you collectively term as calvinism - I came across these same doctrines as stated by Calvin(not him directly but those who likewise have found their own learnings from God reportedly aligning with his) much after I had already concluded upon these doctrines(though without their commonly known terms of reference) myself. But now that you seem insistent on ad-hominem attacks, why pick Calvin - and why not Wesley? Given that you've "never, not even one time heard Rom 4:1 as rhetoric", I'd like to change that with this commentary of Wesley's.

It doesn't matter WHO says it.. or does it..? I could care less if it was Calvin and Hobbs.. it's just another man's commentary on the matter.

How about amillennialism.. it appears that ~90% of Calvinists also embrace that eschatology.. did they come to that conclusion on their own or was it because that's what all the reformed scholars of the day preach and teach ?

If this is the truth of God, then indeed there should be no end. But we are yet to unite in the truth and I am patiently hopeful of what God is sufficient to do.

We're united in CHRIST, we're divided in the doctrines of men.. in this case CALVIN.

Your point 2 asserts that there is no regeneration in the OT. On what basis do you make this assertion - an argument from silence?

Of course not.. simply the word of God itself.

In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

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

(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.

SO perhaps you can tell me how Abraham (or any OT saint justified by faith) was regenerated, if the SPIRIT had not yet been given ?

And notice what many of the people THOUGHT... they thought that HE was a PROPHET... Why ? Because the word of God was spoken through the PROPHETS in the OT.. it was not given to men in the manner which we receive it in the NT under GRACE.

My first basis to believe otherwise is that God's ways of justification have not changed - it has always been by faith even when Scriptures of those times have been perceived to imply it was by the law - which is why Paul wrote extensively, clarifying this. If God's ways have always remained the same w.r.t. justification despite the giving of the Lev 18:5 law of works(which serves another purpose apart from justification), I can infer His entire plan of salvation has no requirement to change.

While it's certainly true that ALL MEN are justified by FAITH.. there's clearly a staggering difference between the Law which was given by Moses as compared to GRACE and TRUTH from our Lord Jesus Christ. Abraham believed the promise of God given to him at the time.. which was a son of promise... Isaac, an external example and type of an internal reality for the CHRISTian.

Secondly, how do you explain John 3:3,5 - if the OT saints were not regenerated, how can they enter the Kingdom of God? This point alone should be conclusive enough - or have you reconciled this in another way?

Once again, every OT saint was justified by FAITH in the promises of God given at the time.. and that happened to be the LAW.. one did not need to meet the perfect requirements of the Law to be justified, they simply needed to BELIEVE that God would justify them for doing what He commanded.

You've built this on your previous assertion that there was no regeneration in the OT - to further infer that man could have faith even when not regenerated - but if your prior assertion falls, this inference of yours is rendered invalid. I hold that both of them(and all the other OT saints) were spiritually enabled to hear, believe and obey as a result of their being regenerated. This belief of mine is yet to be negated from Scripture - and as you'd be knowing, an argument from silence doesn't suffice as logical proof.

Well then the burden is on you.. because imo there is absolutely NO evidence at all that OT saints were regenerated in the same way which CHRISTIANS are today, and since the SPIRIT was given at Pentecost.

IMO this is a blatant denial of the truth.

This is in response to a question I had put forth. To answer my question with another question, your new question should directly and rhetorically answer mine - which I don't see how it does. So could you explain how the flesh plays perhaps a small but nonetheless vital role in our salvation - either as the beginning or as part of our perfection/completion - when Gal 3:3 states otherwise. And in the same context, how do you reconcile that the flesh is able to obey and believe into the spiritual things of the Gospel of Christ given Gal 5:17 ?

As to your question, you've set up a false dilemma. The doctrine of God's sovereign election does not deny the doctrine of justification by faith. When asked what one must do to be saved - the answer is always (a) Believe in God and in Him whom He has sent. While I state that this is impossible of man in the flesh to do, I do not presume upon myself to stop commanding him the same - just as it was not presumed to erase Lev 18:5 Law of works from OT Scripture even when it was impossible of any created man in the flesh to fulfill and be justified by it.

Call it a false dilemma if you'd like.. it's the simplicity of the gospel of God concerning His Son.. and in your opinion God must allow certain individuals to believe while letting the rest go down the drain.. if that's what you'd like to perceive as the truth and love and grace of God, then go right ahead.

You see, man is always accountable for his actions and choices - he is commanded to keep the law, he chooses not to and comes under the curse of the law. He is then commanded to believe in Christ to be redeemed from this curse of the law, and man in the flesh still chooses not to - and he remains under the curse of the law - the law of sin and death. And yet, not as he deserves fittingly now for being an enemy of God, but by the grace of One who justifies the ungodly, such a one in the flesh is regenerated and is born from above in the spirit - not to waive off justification by faith but in order to uphold it. For this regenerated man now is vividly conscious of his sins and more so conscious of the glory and love of God, that he inevitably repents through confession and believes in the sole hope of Christ for his salvation, having lost all hope in the arm of sinful flesh. What the hardened heart could not see and hear and understand, the new heart could. In all this, the doctrine of justification by faith has not been denied. As to why one is shown mercy while not another is answered by Romans 9:15-16, the doctrine of Sovereign election, which still doesn't deny the previously established doctrine of justification by faith.

IMO you're simply confusing CONVICTION with REGENERATION.

CONVICTION of sin, righteousness, and judgment brings forth FAITH in God.. it convinces us of these enormous issues in life.. and that builds trust in the one who is RIGHTEOUS.. and when a person BELIEVES that these things are true, then God SEALS that faith with the SPIRIT of promise unto the day of redemption, and that's when we are baptized into that one body, HIS BODY, by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit.

The same HOLY SPIRIT which pressed upon the heart and mind of man to CONVINCE him of these truths... and imo this is exactly how OT saints were convinced.. with the exception that many of them actually heard the voice of God audibly before it was written down through the prophets.. Abraham being a perfect example given.

You don't have to sell the "God is not making YOU better" doctrine to a person who already believes in the doctrine of total depravity - I already hold that there is no good in the flesh, neither can be, for God to better the flesh. All good is done by Christ in me and by Him alone, in the spirit. But how does this answer my question of how this flesh - that has no good in it and that is in enmity against God - is able to lead us to believe and obey the Gospel of Christ and hence be pleasing to God while contradicting Rom 8:8 ?

Once again... CONVICTION.. not regeneration.

Abraham believed God and then was given the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of the faith.

We believe God and then God seals us with the Holy Spirit of promise.

Trust and belief come first.. then the SEAL.. it's clearly not the SEAL and then trust and belief as you're advocating here.

 

[Eventide]

Can two walk together except they be agreed ?

I'd like to be perfectly CLEAR here because inevitably the push here is going to be that I might have some confidence in my FLESH..

One cannot believe the promises of God while hoping that WE are going to make them happen.. that's silly... they would just be the promises of men if WE could carry them out..

Take the resurrection of the dead for example.. that is MY HOPE.. and it is SOLEY in the promises of GOD, and has nothing to do with my FLESH.. I am crucified with Christ and nevertheless I live, yet not I but CHRIST liveth in me.. and my FAITH is in none other than the SON of God who loved me, and gave Himself for me.

It's the ultimate strawman imo although this is what this contention is often erected upon.. and that my friend is the ultimate FALSE DILEMMA.

My hope of GLORY is Christ in me, not Christ AND me.. and so I AGREE with God that there is nothing good in me, and everything good in HIM, and in Him alone..

So, can two walk together except they be agreed ?

 

[Eventide]

The righteousness of the Faith

Abraham's faith in God had absolutely nothing to do with trusting in himself.. because the promise was impossible for him to accomplish.. that son of promise to whom His covenant would be established.. Sarah was beyond her own child bearing years and so that promise could only be met by the power of God..

That's faith in God, and has nothing to do with trusting in ourselves.. and that it exactly what God honors as righteousness.. trusting in Him regardless of the blatant and obvious fact that we're helpless in ourselves.

Same faith justifies us today.. we're under the same condemnation.. and death has passed upon all men.. and so we can place our hope in our self or we can embrace the promises of God in faith.. the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen.. or not yet realized..

Things like the resurrection of the dead.. like our vile bodies being changed in the blink of an eye to be then be fashioned like unto HIS GLORIOUS BODY..

It's silly to place any hope in ourselves for these things to be realized.. our faith stands in the promise of God alone who is able. and has persuaded us of these enormous things.. which He alone can perform.

 

[ivdavid]

I see that you ignored the whole basis for that.. specifically Abraham being given the sign of circumcision which is a seal of the righteousness of the faith.. the faith which he had before he was circumcised.

Your argument has always been this - that faith precedes the sealing with the Spirit - and then you go on to conclude that this proves regeneration cannot precede faith. I had asked in the last point of my last post whether you held this sealing with the Spirit to be regeneration - and clarified that I don't myself equate this final sealing with regeneration. And we've gone through this same point in the past too. So tell me now, how does your stating that faith precedes the sealing with the Spirit(which I agree to) negate my stating that regeneration precedes faith?

What is regeneration? Is it not taking a man who is born in the flesh and causing him to be born again in the spirit - so that he is no longer in the flesh but in the spirit[Rom 8:9]? Is this what you hold to be the final sealing with the Spirit? I don't. The reason being that -
1. If this rebirth were the last step of my conversion, then every preceding step such as repentance and faith has been done in the flesh.
2. To have faith in God is pleasing to Him.

Then these imply that man in the flesh is able to please God. Which part of the above 2 premises or this conclusion do you disagree with? Now I look at the direct contradiction of this conclusion in Rom 8:8 and thereby deny that man is in the flesh while believing into Christ, hence regeneration must precede faith. Where do you differ on this?

I will respond to all the other points as and when time permits.

 

[Eventide]

Where do you differ on this?

Like you said.. In what you consider regeneration to be.. Which is evidently different from what I believe it is... and have explained numerous times.. It's when God seals the believer with the Holy Spirit of promise.. It's when we are baptized into His body by the same Spirit (1Cor 12:13)

You have mentioned that this is not what you believe it is, and yet have not told us what you do believe that it is.. According to the scriptures.

So once again, burden is on you to tell us what you believe regeneration is and upon what scriptural basis does it stand.

To be more specific.. What scriptures do you reference to show the work of regeneration taking place in the believer..?

 

[Eventide]

Mary had Christ in her earthen vessel...

I believe Mary is a wondrous picture of how a person is born again, having Christ in their earthen vessel.

She believed the message from above, and Christ was in her..

Simple and yet infinitely glorious in its illustration of what it means to have Christ born in us, by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit of God... Believing the message from above.

 

[ivdavid]

CONVICTION of sin, righteousness, and judgment brings forth FAITH in God.. it convinces us of these enormous issues in life.. and that builds trust in the one who is RIGHTEOUS.. and when a person BELIEVES that these things are true, then God SEALS that faith with the SPIRIT of promise unto the day of redemption, and that's when we are baptized into that one body, HIS BODY, by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit. The same HOLY SPIRIT which pressed upon the heart and mind of man to CONVINCE him of these truths...

I'd say almost the same thing - and so as to not split hairs, I'll say I have no argument against any of this, if we have indeed meant the same thing here. (I presume you do believe in imputed righteousness as opposed to self-righteousness being the basis of our justification.)

You have mentioned that this is not what you believe it is, and yet have not told us what you do believe that it[regeneration] is.

God's supernatural work of regenerating or causing man who is in the flesh to be born in the spirit with a new heart in place of his hardened heart of stone.

What is regeneration? Is it not taking a man who is born in the flesh and causing him to be born again in the spirit - so that he is no longer in the flesh but in the spirit[Rom 8:9]?

What part of it caused you to miss it?

To clarify again, I do not hold our sealing in the body of Christ by the power of the Spirit(which happens after justification by faith) as our regeneration - I hold man's rebirth in the spirit from being in the flesh(which precedes conviction,repentance and faith) as regeneration - where man's spirit is differentiated from the Spirit of Christ [Rom 8:16].

IMO you're simply confusing CONVICTION with REGENERATION.

No, not at all.
ivdavid - "For this regenerated man now is vividly conscious of his sins and more so conscious of the glory and love of God..."
As seen above, I have described what you term "conviction" as being made "vividly conscious" and have distinguished it from regeneration which precedes it. As to why I believe so - tell me, does the Spirit convict all men in exactly the same way? If so, then one being convinced while another isn't, is based on some distinguishing factor that rests in man - what is that distinguishing factor? Why does one choose to submit to the same convicting by the Spirit while another chooses to reject it? Is there something uniquely better in the one who submits than the one who doesn't? If the one who rejects is evil enough to reject, doesn't it imply that the one who submits is not evil enough ie is good enough not to reject? Then isn't there this much good at least in the flesh that such a one finds it in his flesh to submit to the convicting power of God?

Since I hold all men to be no different from each other in the flesh when it comes to goodness, the flesh having absolutely no good in it, I hold to the efficacious convicting by the Spirit to all whom God has mercy upon.

in your opinion God must allow certain individuals to believe while letting the rest go down the drain.. if that's what you'd like to perceive as the truth and love and grace of God, then go right ahead.

What do you mean by letting the rest go down the drain - as if any created man in the flesh was entitled to anything but the just wrath of God. That we are shown mercy as His vessels of mercy does not imply we have merited it in any way - and that is precisely what grace is - giving us the good we do not deserve. The vessels of wrath suffer what is due unto them, as was due unto us if not for Him who has mercy upon us. Is there then unrighteousness with God - Romans 9 says God forbid.

 

[Eventide]

I understand perfectly well what you're saying.. To cut to the chase simply reference the scriptures which you believe to be showing the work of regeneration taking place in the believer.

For example... I'm showing Eph 1:13 as to how we are SEALED with the Holy Spirit after we believe.. And use the biblical example of Abraham being given the sign of circumcision, which is the SEAL of the righteousness of his faith..

I also believe that 1 Cor 12:13 is the same thing.. Our baptism into the body of Christ by that same Spirit.. So there's another reference.

 

[Eventide]

Another perfect reference to regeneration is circumcision of the heart... And it too aligns perfectly with when Abraham was given the sign of circumcision in his flesh... After he believed.

 

[ivdavid]

Rom 8:7-9 for starters....

 

[Eventide]

Rom 8:7-9 for starters....

This is showing the difference between the flesh and the Spirit... Not how the Spirit of God was given to us.. Certainly you must be able to see that.

 

[ivdavid]

I see that too...but certainly you don't see just that, do you? What does it mean to be "in the flesh" as opposed to being "in the spirit"? What do you mean by the flesh in the first place? I'd say it's our nature that we're born with into this world, containing sin in it, and which is what generates desires in us, provides counsel and acts out what we've chosen to do.

And back from a few posts ago, do you still believe this flesh that lusts against the Spirit of God is capable of pleasing God by believing into Him, especially given Rom 8?

 

[ivdavid]

Here where I come from, it's nearing midnight and I'm travelling tomorrow...have to get some shut-eye. I'll respond to your posts soon enough.

 

[Eventide]

I see that too...but certainly you don't see just that, do you? What does it mean to be "in the flesh" as opposed to being "in the spirit"? What do you mean by the flesh in the first place? I'd say it's our nature that we're born with into this world, containing sin in it, and which is what generates desires in us, provides counsel and acts out what we've chosen to do.

And back from a few posts ago, do you still believe this flesh that lusts against the Spirit of God is capable of pleasing God by believing into Him, especially given Rom 8?

You can postpone the inevitable if you'd like, although this obviously comes down to your showing scriptural support for the actual regeneration of a person... Something which you haven't done and I have already provided multiple references.

To borrow your phrase... are you basing your belief in regeneration on silence ? Not that it does happen, that's not the question... How does it happen and what scriptures show that to you.

 

[Eventide]

Rivers of living water...

I'll even throw in another reference to regeneration... The one mentioned previously from John 7... The Spirit which is to be given to all that believe on Him.

 

[childeye]

Re: Mary had Christ in her earthen vessel...

I believe Mary is a wondrous picture of how a person is born again, having Christ in their earthen vessel.

She believed the message from above, and Christ was in her..

Simple and yet infinitely glorious in its illustration of what it means to have Christ born in us, by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit of God... Believing the message from above.

Wow, well said. I love it when I see or hear something I never before considered.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

You yourself say that they failed at the Lev 18:5 criteria - how could they then be justified by the Lev 18:5 law? They were not justified by the law - they were justified by faith. Have you accidentally missed this post - I thought I'd dealt with this there. If there's something there that you want me to clarify further, I shall do so.

John's parents were justifed by faith not by faith only. They were reckoned righteous for their faith included their walking in all the commandments and statutes of God. No one is reckoned righteous for NOT walking in God's commandments and statutes.

Do you differentiate between justification "by the law" and "under the law"? If so, what is the difference? If not, doesn't Gal 3:11 categorically state that there is no justification by the law?

The law required perfect obedience to it to be justified but "all have sinned" so no one could be justified by the law due to perfect sinless. So one would have to be justifed by faith, but not faith only. Again, from Rom 4:4,5 Abraham was one who did not keep God's law perfectly so he could not be justified on the basis of perfect sinlessness/perfect law keeping. But Abraham was one who believed in God who justifeth the sinner. So God did not justify Abraham due to Abraham keeping God's law perfectly but God justified Abraham due to Abraham's belief and Abraham's belief was one that included obedient works and not belief only.

There are several points I'd like to discuss on this part of Romans 8 - but I shall do that after we've finished our current point of discussion. But just to set it up, let's assume this context does mean that man can choose between the flesh and the Spirit - but doesn't that imply man must first have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in him to choose against the flesh. What of man in the flesh and not in the spirit, who does not have the Spirit of Christ and is none of his (Rom 8:9) - can he ever put his fleshly mind that is in enmity against God and can never be subject to His law(Rom 8:7) - can he put this mind on the things of the Spirit?

Acts 5:32 says one must first obey before he can have the Spirit given him.

Furthermore, if one first have to have some direct, miraculous intervention by the Holy Spirit before he would be able to choose to the follow the Spirit and not the flesh, then those that do follow the flesh do so due to a failure and fault of the Holy Spirit not enabling them to choose the Spirit. This puts culpability upon the Holy Spirit for man being lost.

Now back to our current point of discussion -

1. The law itself required perfect obedience to it to be justified [by it].
2. No one could keep the OT law perfectly.
Did that mean no one could be justifed or accounted as righteous under the law?

I'd say that the valid concluding inference from the above two premises is that man could not be justified by the law because he failed to keep the Lev 18:5 conditional criteria of the law to be justified by it. What you have gone on about is that the OT man could be justified unto salvation - and I have never raised an argument against OT man's justification per se - I only wanted you to see how such justification never came by the law. Everyone who tried to keep the Lev 18:5 conditional criteria failed - and came under the curse of the law - where redemption could be found in Christ alone, their being justified by faith in God who justifies the ungodly, without the deeds of the law(Rom 3:28).

JOhn's parents sinned meaning they did not keep the law perfectly, yet they were still reckoned righteous, Lk 1:6 God reckoned them righteous for their obedient faith to him for they walked in his statutes and commandments. Since they obeyed God that means when Christ died, His blood would have remitted all their sins along with all the other OT characters that obeyed and were reckoned righteous.

Per Rom 3:28. At this time, the OT law had already been taken out of the way by Christ by having been nailed to His cross, Col 2:12ff and been replaced with Christ NT law. Paul was having to deal with Judiazing teachers that falsely taught one could not be saved unless he was circumcised, cf Acts 15;1 Paul's point was to show one is not justifed by an OT work as circumcison but justified by a NT faith. A NT faith is not faith only but a faith that includes the obedient works of belief, repetance, confessing with the mouth and submitting to water baptism for remission of sins, Jn 3:16; Lk 13:3,5; Mt 10:32,33; Mk 16:16.

Finally, to proceed further, I've set some objective-type questions that you could answer with simply a yes/no if you find them unambiguous - but if you require them to be modified to be more specific, tell me where to clarify.

1. Has any created man in the flesh ever kept the Lev 18:5 conditional criteria?
2. Can any created man in the flesh ever keep the Lev 18:5 conditional criteria?
3. If one were to fail the Lev 18:5 conditional criteria, were they placed under the curse of the law?


But what then of imputed righteousness because of what Christ has done on the cross(Rom 4:6)? If man were able to attain righteousness by what he himself does, why the need for imputed righteousness? And if there's no need for imputed righteousness, then Christ is dead in vain. The mutually exclusive choice is between justification by the law where man attains self-righteousness by what he does(Rom 10:3,5) - and justification by faith where man is imputed righteousness by what God does.

1) Christ was the only one to keep the OT law perfectly. Others as John's parent walked in them but occasionally sinned. Even tough they sinned they could offer the required sacrifices for those sins and that would keep them "blameless".

Like under Christ's NT law, the Christian is to be spotless and blameless, Eph 1:4 adn 2 Pet 3:14 Yet how can a Christian who sins occasionally ever be spotless and blameless? By his continued waling inthe light where Christ blood continues to wash away all sins. THe coninue washing keeps him spotless and blameless but this only ocurs if one continues to obey God as John's parents. It is impossible to ever be spotless and blameless before God without obeying God.


2) if one chose not to sin he could keep the law perfectly but men have chosen to sin. Christ was a man in the flesh on earth and He chose to obey and chose not to sin.


3) if one violated the law he was under the curse of the law, Gal 3:10 but verse 11 says "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith." John's parents were not justifed by the law for they sinned but were justified for having an obedient faith, a faith that walked in all God's commandments and statutes.

As I posted before from Coffman: "The righteous shall live by faith"; thus the prophets had borne testimony to the fact that the purpose of God, even in the Old Testament, was looking for an "obedient faith" in his children, and not merely for the legalistic type of rule-keeping which was the essence of the Law. The Law did not even require faith, as seen in the quotation Paul gave here from Leviticus 18:5, the meaning of which may be paraphrased, "No matter about faith; do the Law and live." This was the essence of Judaism."

Now regarding the conceit that would make Habakkuk say, "The righteous shall live by FAITH ONLY? such a meaning was never in any Old Testament usage of faith. As we have already observed, trust/faith or faith only simply did not pertain to the word in the Old Testament. Paul was here merely pointing out that, from the beginning, God had been interested in receiving "faithful obedience" from his followers, and not a mere faithless rule-keeping."

 

[ivdavid]

You can postpone the inevitable if you'd like, although this obviously comes down to your showing scriptural support for the actual regeneration of a person... Something which you haven't done and I have already provided multiple references.

I could have mentioned John 3:6; 1 Cor 2:14, Eze 36:26 that affirm my worldview - but you'd simply state what you believe on these and declare that you hate every 'false' way that's contrary to what you believe. I'd rather engage an argument over pivotal verses which I did state in Rom 8:7-9 and which you've had ample time to engage and have yet not. It would move the discussion forward if you concluded all that you did after engaging all argument points.

Anyway, is your above comparison of your 'multiple references' vs my 'none' - a)relevant rationally and b)based on facts.

a) Rational relevance -
How different is your argument from say that of a modalist who presents a list of Scripture which states that the Lord our God is one, against practically none describing the exact nature and dynamics of the Trinity? Just as the doctrine of the Trinity is not an explicit expository teaching in itself but a doctrine emerging implicitly out of Scripture and that must be true in order to reconcile ALL of Scripture, the doctrine of man in the flesh being born into the spirit as the initial step of conversion must be true in order to reconcile ALL of Scripture. So is an (appeal to numbers) logically valid here?

But what exactly is your argument here? You have provided multiple references of the final sealing of the Spirit. Where have you provided references that this sealing is where man in the flesh is born into the spirit - where have you provided references that this is where the hardened heart of stone is removed and a new heart is created?

Do you think I'm trying to position my "regeneration - man in the flesh being birthed in the spirit" at the cost of denying your "regeneration - sealing of the Spirit"? I consider the two to be separate events - neither in contradiction with the other. Why do you then pit them against each other? (And let us both refrain from using the term 'regeneration' in this discussion since we don't refer to the same thing by it - let's discuss it as the "final sealing of the Spirit" and "man in the flesh being born in the spirit", even if you might not distinguish between the two.)


b) Facts -
I have not yet given Scriptural references? Have I not stated Rom 8:7-9? I have already stated the presuppositions, premises and logical conclusion in this earlier post - have they been engaged? I shall repeat them here again -
A Christian is no longer in the flesh but in the spirit [Rom 8:9]. The question is - when does man get birthed into the spirit such that he no longer is in the flesh but in the spirit? Is it before having faith or after? If it is after, then such a man has believed in the flesh and has obeyed God's Gospel call and is found pleasing to Him in the flesh. This is directly contradicted by Rom 8:8. Hence, the conclusion that man in the flesh is birthed into the spirit before having faith.

Engage this rationally by pointing out the erroneous premises or inferences that you find here. This is a self-contained argument, so analyze this on its own merit - inferring that this must be false because of some other doctrine you hold elsewhere would be unwarranted in this case. But of course, if you can state the case for this argument not being self-contained, we could explore other dependencies too.

To borrow your phrase... are you basing your belief in regeneration on silence ?

It isn't my phrase - argument from silence is a logical fallacy that draws conclusions from the absence of evidence rather than the presence of evidence. My evidence is present in Rom 8:7-9 - so no, I'm not believing into something on the basis that there is silence over its converse.

 

[Eventide]

An argument from silence..

You can quote Romans 8 til the cows arrive ivdavid.. it says absolutely NOTHING AT ALL concerning WHEN the Lord gave us the SPIRIT of God in this earthen vessel.

Eph 1:13 on the other hand tells us precisely WHEN the Lord sealed us with the HOLY SPIRIT which is the earnest of our inheritance..

Romans 4 speaks of WHEN Abraham was given the sign of circumcision which is the SEAL of the righteousness of the faith..

All I'm asking is for you to show us WHEN regeneration takes place in the believer ACCORDING to the scriptures.. and you haven't.. so we must conclude that your argument on regeneration coming before belief is truly and argument from silence.

 

[Eventide]

Calvinistic Regeneration - An Argument from SILENCE

You know what else I found ivdavid..

I went to at least a dozen reformed sites to see if they actually say when regeneration takes place.. and I couldn't find a single reference to that.. amazing isn't it..

Although I did find one from Spurgeon who insisted that regeneration is exactly what I said that it is.. the new birth in Christ..