The "Elect"

[OzSpen]

ivdavid,

My worldview is more comprehensive than my view of regeneration and faith.

My understanding of regeneration is: From God's perspective, it is called the new birth; from the human perspective it is called conversion. So in regeneration, God's life is communicated to the soul (e.g. Jn 3:5; 10:10, 28; 1 Jn 5:11-12) and the human being receives a new nature (2 Pt 1:4) or a new heart (Jer 24:7; Ezek 11;19; 36:25), and the person is described as being a new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 2:10; 4:24). In the Scriptures 'heart' means the soul or the self. It is that which causes us to think, feel, will and act.

This is what happened while Paul and Silas were in prison at Philippi and the jailer asked,
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:30-31 ESV).

Was this a true or false statement? Is it possible for reprobate sinners to believe on the Lord Jesus and be saved? My answer is, yes, otherwise Acts 16:30-31 doesn't make sense.

C H Spurgeon, a Calvinist, did not believe that regeneration is logically prior to faith. He preached that it is absurd to say that a sinner is regenerate logically before he/she believes. Spurgeon stated:

If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. But you will tell me that I ought to preach it only to those who repent of their sins. Very well; but since true repentance of sin is the work of the Spirit, any man who has repentance is most certainly saved, because evangelical repentance never can exist in an unrenewed soul. Where there is repentance there is faith already, for they never can be separated. So, then, I am only to preach faith to those who have it. Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners. [Sermon, The Warrant of Faith].

Norman Geisler, who calls himself a moderate Calvinist (1999:129), stated that

Contrary to the claims of extreme Calvinists, there are no verses properly understood that teach regeneration is prior to faith. Instead, it is the uniform pattern of Scripture to place faith logically prior to salvation as a condition for receiving it (Geisler 1999:228).​

To support his position, Geisler examines Romans 5:1; Luke 13:3; 2 Peter 3:9; John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:24-25; John 3:6-7; and Titus 3:5-7 (1999:228-230), to demonstrate that faith is prior to regeneration.

Oz

References
Geisler, N 1999. Chosen but free. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Yes, I do believe regeneration precedes faith. I have stated where I come from in post#88 of this thread.


Firstly, what is it that you hold to be 'regeneration' - we must agree upon a common understanding of what we each refer to by a term, before we can discuss further on the topic.

Regeneration, as I've understood it, is God's work of taking away the hardened stony heart of man in the flesh, and giving him a new heart - and of birthing him in the renewed spirit.

Luke 13:3 - I'm unable to see how repentance here dictates the sequence of salvation. Independently, I too believe if a man will not repent, he will perish.
John 3:6-7 - Again, I see the necessary requirement of regeneration here but no allusion to its order with respect to faith. I'm unable to see what you're seeing as conclusive evidence.
Acts 16:31 - Here, I see the necessary requirement of faith but no allusion to its order with respect to regeneration.
Romans 3:24-25 - Where is regeneration even mentioned here? If it's to be inferred indirectly, what is/are the connecting beliefs for that?
Titus 3:5-7 - Again, no allusion to its order with respect to faith.
2 Peter 3:9 - what's the connection between repentance and the sequence again?

Obviously, you've got an underlying thread that connects these verses for you - but without your explicitly stating it, I might not be able to follow your worldview. As for me, I concur with each of these above verses which I find to be wholly true and consistent with my worldview.

 

[Deborah13]

Are you confusing the preaching of the Gospel message with actual regeneration itself? What you've observed is hyper-calvinism - an abuse of the calvinist doctrines beyond the measures it sets for itself. The Gospel message to be preached everywhere and to all is simply the same - repent and believe, and whosoever calleth upon the Lord will be saved. It is commanded of man to believe, which he chooses not to as long as he is in the flesh and for which reason he is to be justly condemned. However, If God wills to have mercy and regenerates this hardened man to be birthed in the spirit, then he is able to willingly attend to the things of the Gospel.

Therefore, if the mandate to believe is removed, on what grounds can the unregenerate man be justly condemned - and how would the regenerate man know what is exactly required of him when he is enabled through God's mercy to fulfill such requirements?


We've already been through this very same line of argument on an earlier thread. Spurgeon was arguing against hyper-calvinism, an argument with which I concur. You obviously do not preach the Gospel to regenerate men - you preach to unregenerate men. This does not contradict the order of salvation where regeneration precedes one's attending to the things preached earlier and thereby believing in God.

I see your grappling between a doctrine you hate and a preacher you love.

No sir, I do not hate. I just seek the truth of God's word. If it should lead me around to Calvinism so be it.

We've been through this too earlier, and your reluctance to see it for what it is tells me I shouldn't press the issue more. Make your own conclusions on the following, I wish not to engage this argument any more -
"Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate." - Faith and Regeneration, Charles Spurgeon , http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0979.htm

This is a very good sermon. This is a better context then a one liner but still fails to represent the whole teaching.

"To believe in Jesus is a better indicator of regeneration than anything else, and in no case did it ever mislead. Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man."

"That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ," and our Lord himself assures us, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." I know there are some who will deny this, and deny it upon the ground that man has not the spiritual ability to believe in Jesus, to which I reply that it is altogether an error to imagine that the measure of the sinners moral ability is the measure of his duty. .....Every man ought to believe that which is true, but if his mind has become so depraved that he loves a lie and will not receive the truth, is he thereby excused?....The command of Christ stands good however bad men may be, and when he commands all men everywhere to repent, they are bound to repent, whether their sinfulness renders it impossible for them to be willing to do so or not. .....At the same time, this faith, wherever it exists, is in every case, without exception, the gift of God and the work of the Holy Spirit. Never yet did a man believe in Jesus with the faith here intended, except the Holy Spirit led him to do so. He has wrought all our works in us, and our faith too. Faith is too celestial a grace to spring up in human nature till it is renewed: faith is in every believer "the gift of God." You will say to me, "Are these two things consistent?" I reply, "Certainly, for they are both true."

What do we see in the jailer, certainly his faith was renewed but was he yet reborn (regenerated), it would seem that he wasn't, he asked and he received, Paul told him what he must do, he didn't say there is nothing for you to do, you're already reborn. It seems that this is what the jailer did....

Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Mat 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Mat 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

 

[ivdavid]

My worldview is more comprehensive than my view of regeneration and faith.

As it should be. It just so happens that we're on a thread with an OP citing calvinism and where its consistency is being discussed with respect to regeneration of the elect.

My understanding of regeneration is: From God's perspective, it is called the new birth; from the human perspective it is called conversion. So in regeneration, God's life is communicated to the soul (e.g. Jn 3:5; 10:10, 28; 1 Jn 5:11-12) and the human being receives a new nature (2 Pt 1:4) or a new heart (Jer 24:7; Ezek 11;19; 36:25), and the person is described as being a new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 2:10; 4:24). In the Scriptures 'heart' means the soul or the self. It is that which causes us to think, feel, will and act.

I'm not sure 'heart' is used to refer to the soul or self - nevertheless, the last statement summarizes it well. If the unregenerate need to will differently with a new heart in place of their hardened stony hearts and they require a new nature instead of simply being in the flesh wherein they can never please God - how is it that these unregenerate are able to do just that, while remaining unregenerate?

Is it possible for reprobate sinners to believe on the Lord Jesus and be saved?

What you mean is, "Is it possible for reprobate sinners to believe on the Lord Jesus and be saved, while still remaining unregenerate", right?
The answer is No, they continually will not believe while still in the flesh. And then pat comes the hyper-calvinistic retort - what use is it then to preach to the unregenerate, let's simply preach to those who can do something about what we preach - to which Spurgeon counters in the sermon you quoted. Note, he did not say it was absurd to say a sinner is regenerate logically before he believes - he said it was absurd to say that only the regenerate must be preached to about the faith.

C H Spurgeon, a Calvinist, did not believe that regeneration is logically prior to faith. He preached that it is absurd to say that a sinner is regenerate logically before he/she believes.

Norman Geisler, who calls himself a moderate Calvinist (1999:129), stated that...

I think you misunderstand. I am not a calvinist myself because I sit around reading calvinist writings by other calvinists and because I draw my theology from the famous calvinist theologians/preachers. I do not even call myself a calvinist follower - for I am yet to read any of John Calvin's works. I have independently formed some beliefs from my own experiences and my reading of Scriptures. Much after having formed these beliefs, I have come across this group of people who seem to share the very same beliefs that I do - and so for ease of reference, instead of trying to elaborate on my every belief while explaining them, I simply refer to the calvinist terminology, given that most are already familiar with them or at least have easy access to them.

Therefore, citing what this calvinist said or that one didn't, isn't going to alter my beliefs in the slightest - for I do not feel at all obligated to defend these men's writings. I can only give an explanation of my faith from Scripture, ensuring its consistency with the world we observe around us. Nonetheless, I have dealt with this very same passage in post#118 - Spurgeon does believe regeneration precedes faith. And given the number of people citing this very same passage against calvinist doctrines, I'm inclined to believe that most have come across this passage through an online search which perhaps led them to some arminian board on this. In that case, I'd only request that each worldview's doctrines must be picked in its totality, preferably from its own proponents and not from its detractors.

 

[ivdavid]

While acknowledging that all analogies are insufficient or lacking in some aspect or the other - Concerning Preaching the Gospel, Regeneration and Faith, I've managed a crude analogy to picture -

A man who is prone to indulging in oily and fatty foods keeps piling on the fat and cholesterol in his body while not keeping himself fit. His physician warns him not to continue in such a lifestyle and commands him to take more than a 2 mile run each day to keep healthy. But as it is, the man does not wish to abstain from his favorite foods nor is he able to exert himself for a run. The physician takes pity on this man and asks him to at least enter surgery where the physician would remove the excess fat and cholesterol and restore him to a healthy state after which he can begin to run - the man still is reluctant and goes on his way. Eventually, the man collapses in great pain and shock - and the physician immediately rushes him into surgery, removes all the excess fat,cholesterol and sets right all that was failing before reviving him. The man now feels new, understands the gravity of the warnings and the commands - and willingly begins to abstain from harmful foods and starts running each day.

Did the physician preach what was required of that man before or after the surgery? Would it not be absurd to Not preach the same when he most needed to hear the warnings and the commands, even though he was not willing and hence unable to obey? Would it not be even more absurd to wait for such a man to realize his folly and decide to change his lifestyle, before preaching the commands?

Similarly, I believe that the Preaching of the Gospel is unto each of the unregenerate, commanding them to believe - which they all willfully disobey. As part of God's sovereign mercy, those who are regenerated realize their folly, see the precious pearl and willingly run to believe in Christ.

 

[ivdavid]

This is a better context then a one liner but still fails to represent the whole teaching.

"To believe in Jesus is a better indicator of regeneration than anything else, and in no case did it ever mislead. Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man."

Saying faith is an indicator of regeneration and that it is always the result of regeneration, proves that Spurgeon believed faith succeeded regeneration - for what results must follow whatever caused the result, isn't it?

What do we see in the jailer, certainly his faith was renewed but was he yet reborn (regenerated), it would seem that he wasn't, he asked and he received, Paul told him what he must do, he didn't say there is nothing for you to do, you're already reborn.

Apply Spurgeon's quote again - "Faith can never exist except in the regenerate". If the jailer's faith was renewed, how could Spurgeon agree with such faith existing in the unregenerate?

Also, faith is always the indicator of regeneration - when a person says he believes, that is when you know he's been regenerated. How ever could Paul know that the jailer was regenerated just by his asking what he must do to be saved? Do you think calvinism states that a person simply asking such a question is a true indicator that one is regenerated? By that measure, calvinism must be declaring the rich young ruler who went away from Christ to be regenerated too. No, all of man's seeking and his regeneration is to be measured against the resulting faith alone.

 

[Deborah13]

Saying faith is an indicator of regeneration and that it is always the result of regeneration, proves that Spurgeon believed faith succeeded regeneration - for what results must follow whatever caused the result, isn't it?


Apply Spurgeon's quote again - "Faith can never exist except in the regenerate". If the jailer's faith was renewed, how could Spurgeon agree with such faith existing in the unregenerate?

Also, faith is always the indicator of regeneration - when a person says he believes, that is when you know he's been regenerated. How ever could Paul know that the jailer was regenerated just by his asking what he must do to be saved? Do you think calvinism states that a person simply asking such a question is a true indicator that one is regenerated? By that measure, calvinism must be declaring the rich young ruler who went away from Christ to be regenerated too. No, all of man's seeking and his regeneration is to be measured against the resulting faith alone.

What does regeneration mean to you?
To me it means that one is reborn, saved, a new creature in Christ.

So are you saying that the jailor was reborn before Paul told him what he must do to be reborn?

"Christ is able to save unto the uttermost them that come unto God by him;" and tell him that he has a right to come, be he who he may, or what he may, because God bids him come; and you will find that the suitability of such a gospel to the sinner's case, will prove a sweet inducement in the hand of the Holy Spirit, to lead that sinner to lay hold on Jesus Christ"

 

[Stan1953]

What does regeneration mean to you?
To me it means that one is reborn, saved, a new creature in Christ.
So are you saying that the jailor was reborn before Paul told him what he must do to be reborn?
"Christ is able to save unto the uttermost them that come unto God by him;" and tell him that he has a right to come, be he who he may, or what he may, because God bids him come; and you will find that the suitability of such a gospel to the sinner's case, will prove a sweet inducement in the hand of the Holy Spirit, to lead that sinner to lay hold on Jesus Christ"

I think this is important as RT uses doctrinal words not found in scripture, and definitely not in the context as used in the doctrine.
An example would be "new creature". That is not evident in scripture. A "new creation has come", is the operative and proper rendering in 2 Cor 5:17, not the former. We need to stick with what the NT actually says, and not what men have asserted or claimed it said. Words like reprobate, regeneration, total depravity, etc... don't exist in the NT as mans normal condition, as it is defined in RT dogma.

 

[Deborah13]

I think this is important as RT uses doctrinal words not found in scripture, and definitely not in the context as used in the doctrine.
An example would be "new creature". That is not evident in scripture. A "new creation has come", is the operative and proper rendering in 2 Cor 5:17, not the former. We need to stick with what the NT actually says, and not what men have asserted or claimed it said. Words like reprobate, regeneration, total depravity, etc... don't exist in the NT as mans normal condition, as it is defined in RT dogma.

New creature, is my mistating, new creation. I've never heard new creature in Calvinism.
Thanks for the correction.
We do find reprobate in about four verses. Regeneration in 2.
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

I'm not sure how all these words were/are defined though.

 

[ivdavid]

What does regeneration mean to you?
To me it means that one is reborn, saved, a new creature in Christ.

As I've mentioned in post#107 -
Regeneration, as I've understood it, is God's work of taking away the hardened stony heart of man in the flesh, and giving him a new heart - and of birthing him in the renewed spirit.

While this inevitably leads to salvation, this is not all of salvation - regeneration is but one step in the intricate process of God saving man. Therefore I would not use the words "saved" and "regenerated/reborn" synonymously in all contextual applications.

So are you saying that the jailor was reborn before Paul told him what he must do to be reborn?

When I write, "How ever could Paul know that the jailer was regenerated just by his asking what he must do to be saved" - does it not apply to me too?
And when I write, "faith is always the indicator of regeneration", - I mean that a person can be known to be regenerated only when he declares his faith, since faith is always the result of regeneration. It is not given to us to presume when God has worked upon a person, apart from his own declaration of faith.

Hence I'd hold that the jailer was regenerated at some point in time before he believed and was baptized - which happened much after his initial question on how to be saved(Acts 16:30). I think you're assuming the jailer had faith while he asked the question itself, which is why you're stuck on whether he was regenerated before asking the question itself. I do not however hold that simple question to be evidence of any saving faith at all - for the Gospel was preached only in Acts 16:31, and how can one believe without hearing the Gospel? Hence, it necessitates that he must have believed sometime after hearing the Gospel and before he expressed his faith through baptism - ie he believed sometime between Acts 16:31 and Acts 16:33 - and definitely not in Acts 16:30. Hence it becomes immaterial to me whether he was regenerated before Acts 16:30 itself - given that I could hold him to be regenerated after Acts 16:30 too as long as it preceded the resulting faith.

And Paul does not tell the jailer how to be reborn, he tells him how to be saved - for regeneration is a work of God, while believing is the work required of man, worked out in him by God. Preach to man what is required of man alone - why burden him with what does not concern his input at all, unless you're teaching him about it as in John 3. I have not heard any of the apostles or for that matter, even a non-calvinist Gospel preacher, go about preaching man to believe and then be regenerated - they're totally silent on the requirement of regeneration in their Gospel message simply because it will be taken care of by God. Why impose it on Paul then to preach regeneration before he preaches faith - when anyway he doesn't preach it after preaching faith?

 

[ivdavid]

Words like reprobate, regeneration, total depravity, etc... don't exist in the NT as mans normal condition, as it is defined in RT dogma.

This is such a simplistic argument - do we throw out the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as mere dogma by the same measure just because the term doesn't exist in the NT?

While the term total depravity does not exist in the NT, I am referring to Rom 3:9-19, Rom 7:18 and Rom 8:7-8 by it. Would you rather me quote these entire passages each time I want to claim man can do no good in the flesh or can we make such references simpler by assigning a commonly agreed term for it such as 'total depravity'?

 

[Deborah13]

As I've mentioned in post#107 -
Regeneration, as I've understood it, is God's work of taking away the hardened stony heart of man in the flesh, and giving him a new heart - and of birthing him in the renewed spirit.

While this inevitably leads to salvation, this is not all of salvation - regeneration is but one step in the intricate process of God saving man. Therefore I would not use the words "saved" and "regenerated/reborn" synonymously in all contextual applications.


When I write, "How ever could Paul know that the jailer was regenerated just by his asking what he must do to be saved" - does it not apply to me too?
And when I write, "faith is always the indicator of regeneration", - I mean that a person can be known to be regenerated only when he declares his faith, since faith is always the result of regeneration. It is not given to us to presume when God has worked upon a person, apart from his own declaration of faith.

Hence I'd hold that the jailer was regenerated at some point in time before he believed and was baptized - which happened much after his initial question on how to be saved(Acts 16:30). I think you're assuming the jailer had faith while he asked the question itself, which is why you're stuck on whether he was regenerated before asking the question itself. I do not however hold that simple question to be evidence of any saving faith at all - for the Gospel was preached only in Acts 16:31, and how can one believe without hearing the Gospel? Hence, it necessitates that he must have believed sometime after hearing the Gospel and before he expressed his faith through baptism - ie he believed sometime between Acts 16:31 and Acts 16:33 - and definitely not in Acts 16:30. Hence it becomes immaterial to me whether he was regenerated before Acts 16:30 itself - given that I could hold him to be regenerated after Acts 16:30 too as long as it preceded the resulting faith.

And Paul does not tell the jailer how to be reborn, he tells him how to be saved - for regeneration is a work of God, while believing is the work required of man, worked out in him by God. Preach to man what is required of man alone - why burden him with what does not concern his input at all, unless you're teaching him about it as in John 3. I have not heard any of the apostles or for that matter, even a non-calvinist Gospel preacher, go about preaching man to believe and then be regenerated - they're totally silent on the requirement of regeneration in their Gospel message simply because it will be taken care of by God. Why impose it on Paul then to preach regeneration before he preaches faith - when anyway he doesn't preach it after preaching faith?

So then you do not believe that man is so totally deprived that he cannot ask or seek God?

 

[Sinthesis]

I will consider this but don't you think that we run into a problem with that considering even just one statement by Paul directed to Jews and Greek alike and after the death of Stephen.

YLT
Col 3:11 where there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, servant, freeman--but the all and in all--Christ.
Col 3:12 Put on, therefore, as choice ones of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humble-mindedness, meekness, long-suffering,

KJV
Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

The writings of the Apostles give us everything we need to establish the fundamental doctrine of the Christian Church, but this didn't all spring forth at Pentecost, rather it was revealed by the Holy Spirit over time. So I am saying that in a sense the Apostolic Christian Church served as the ferryboat between Judaism and modern Christianity. During that time the 'elect' were those chosen who heeded the call to cross over. It irked some that the call extended to the Gentiles, but the Apostles in time showed how this prejudice was unacceptable to God.

 

[Deborah13]

The writings of the Apostles give us everything we need to establish the fundamental doctrine of the Christian Church, but this didn't all spring forth at Pentecost, rather it was revealed by the Holy Spirit over time. So I am saying that in a sense the Apostolic Christian Church served as the ferryboat between Judaism and modern Christianity. During that time the 'elect' were those chosen who heeded the call to cross over. It irked some that the call extended to the Gentiles, but the Apostles in time showed how this prejudice was unacceptable to God.

Thanks Sinthesis, I appreciate your time. I'm considering this.
Blessings

 

[Sinthesis]

Thanks Sinthesis, I appreciate your time. I'm considering this.
Blessings

You're welcome. It is only a way of understanding the elect without resorting to subdividing today's Christians into the elect and those who are somehow less than elect.

 

[ivdavid]

So then you do not believe that man is so totally depraved that he cannot ask or seek God?

Of course I believe in the total depravity of man - and it in no way contradicts my earlier beliefs about the possibility that the jailer could have been regenerated after Acts 16:30.

I simply attribute this to the limitations of language - when I begin to boil a bowl of milk, I've already begun the boiling process and yet I cannot claim its completion till after that specific point in time when the milk actually boils over. It is so with regeneration - a process of God working on the heart and soul of man is begun and may carry on over months as in Luther's and Spurgeon's case, or over a few minutes as in Paul's and the jailer's case - and yet they are declared regenerated only when they have boiled over to repentance and faith. I have no doubt that the work of regeneration was begun in the jailer before Acts 16:30 but could've been completed before he actually repented and believed.

The promises of God are always declared initially - and yet none pays heed to it or seeks after God. God says, ask and you shall receive - God says, seek for me with all your heart and I will be found of you. None in the flesh exercises these promises. Therein God's mercy begins a new work in such a hardened heart, where the convictions of God are laid upon his heart as a process - at the end of which, this man inevitably boils over to cling on to God's promises - and asks for forgiveness through repentance and seeks God's righteousness through faith - evidencing the result of the preceding completed regeneration meant for this very purpose of leading him to salvation.

Could we continue any further discussion on this later, on another thread? We began discussing who/what the elect referred to - and invariably that term is always in association with calvinist doctrines and consequently, every other unrelated doctrine within calvinism is pulled into question instead of discussing just that specific point that we began with. But if you must discuss this here, then also provide explanations from your worldview to the questions/points I've raised on this topic to make it a fair discussion.

 

[OzSpen]

As it should be. It just so happens that we're on a thread with an OP citing calvinism and where its consistency is being discussed with respect to regeneration of the elect.

I'm not sure 'heart' is used to refer to the soul or self - nevertheless, the last statement summarizes it well. If the unregenerate need to will differently with a new heart in place of their hardened stony hearts and they require a new nature instead of simply being in the flesh wherein they can never please God - how is it that these unregenerate are able to do just that, while remaining unregenerate?


What you mean is, "Is it possible for reprobate sinners to believe on the Lord Jesus and be saved, while still remaining unregenerate", right?
The answer is No, they continually will not believe while still in the flesh.

Titus 2:11 explains it very well how God approaches the reprobate: 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people' (ESV).

 

[ivdavid]

Titus 2:11 explains it very well how God approaches the reprobate: 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people' (ESV).

If you are referring to the Gospel appearing to all men, I myself see that from various other passages apart from this - what am I to conclude differently when I myself am in concurrence with it?

On a separate note, where is it clear that Titus 2 deals with the reprobate - I see it as instructions to the church alone. Nonetheless, the weight of the same meaning as you've alluded to is captured across the Bible - that the Gospel must be preached to all people without exception.

 

[OzSpen]

On a separate note, where is it clear that Titus 2 deals with the reprobate - I see it as instructions to the church alone. Nonetheless, the weight of the same meaning as you've alluded to is captured across the Bible - that the Gospel must be preached to all people without exception.

Titus 2:11 states: ''For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for ALL PEOPLE' (ESV).

Don't you understand that 'ALL' means ALL?

 

[ivdavid]

Titus 2:11 states: ''For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for ALL PEOPLE' (ESV).
Don't you understand that 'ALL' means ALL?

Caps, Bold, Underlined - I'd really have to be dense now not to understand 'All' means All. I'm afraid you've put me into a box of stereotypical calvinists who'd struggle with their incomplete theology to somehow reinterpret certain words. As I've already stated, I don't need these prooftexted verses to show that the Gospel offer is unto All. Aren't you now simply nitpicking when I've already concurred that "the Gospel must be preached to ALL people without exception"?

Having already agreed with the universal scope of the Gospel offer, I now do want to read verses within their context - hence my question on how it's clear that Titus 2 deals with the reprobate contextually? You could have quoted Mark 16:15 to convey the same point without ambiguity, couldn't you?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

While acknowledging that all analogies are insufficient or lacking in some aspect or the other - Concerning Preaching the Gospel, Regeneration and Faith, I've managed a crude analogy to picture -

A man who is prone to indulging in oily and fatty foods keeps piling on the fat and cholesterol in his body while not keeping himself fit. His physician warns him not to continue in such a lifestyle and commands him to take more than a 2 mile run each day to keep healthy. But as it is, the man does not wish to abstain from his favorite foods nor is he able to exert himself for a run. The physician takes pity on this man and asks him to at least enter surgery where the physician would remove the excess fat and cholesterol and restore him to a healthy state after which he can begin to run - the man still is reluctant and goes on his way. Eventually, the man collapses in great pain and shock - and the physician immediately rushes him into surgery, removes all the excess fat,cholesterol and sets right all that was failing before reviving him. The man now feels new, understands the gravity of the warnings and the commands - and willingly begins to abstain from harmful foods and starts running each day.

Did the physician preach what was required of that man before or after the surgery? Would it not be absurd to Not preach the same when he most needed to hear the warnings and the commands, even though he was not willing and hence unable to obey? Would it not be even more absurd to wait for such a man to realize his folly and decide to change his lifestyle, before preaching the commands?

Similarly, I believe that the Preaching of the Gospel is unto each of the unregenerate, commanding them to believe - which they all willfully disobey. As part of God's sovereign mercy, those who are regenerated realize their folly, see the precious pearl and willingly run to believe in Christ.

The problem we run into then is why does the physician only perform surgery on some, and not others? You'll of course be quick to notice that it isn't because of anything good in them, but will likely cite the reason of "to the praise of his glorious grace."

Which seems to imply that God saves certain people because he gets more glory for it. This points to the biggest issue I think Calvinism presents. That all of God's other attributes become indiscernible and all you can say about God is, "he will always do whatever brings him the most glory."

Is God loving? Only so long as it brings him glory.
Is God good? Only so long as it brings him glory.

It is the black hole of Calvinistic glory where everything is sucked up into it being about God making more of himself, and then getting us to journey there where it is an eternity of ego boosting.

The idea that God is for us, only because he is for making much of himself is a groundless foundation for a genuine relationship. If I married my wife and wanted to love her more than anyone else ever had, simply because I wanted to reveal how glorious my loving is... it would turn the whole idea of love on it's head and make it something else.

In Calvinism, the Love of God is truly on for himself, and then by extension he loves others only such to the degree that it serves himself.

Thankfully, I do not think the Scriptures teach such a doctrine, but were a latter invention by Augustine and then was further clarified at the Reformation. We do not have to deal with the idea that there is such a God like this.