What is Election?

[mondar]

Which doesn't make sense since you have to have faith to be regenerated. But I guess that's the point.

Show me scripture when speaks of the necessity of faith before regeneration. I can definitely show scripture which requires regeneration as the cause of faith.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Show me scripture when speaks of the necessity of faith before regeneration. I can definitely show scripture which requires regeneration as the cause of faith.

Not faith as in 'trusting in the blood of Jesus', but faith as in a supernatural enablement to know the gospel is true. That 'knowing' is by definition, 'faith':

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 NASB)

But you are probably conditioned by the church to only understand 'faith' as only being able to be 'saving faith', but the Bible does talk about those who 'have faith' but are not saved by that faith (James 2:14 NIV).


How does God expect anybody to place their trust in something they do not know is even true in the first place? So God sends the testimony of the Spirit into the world to produce faith in the hearts of people. Most people reject that testimony, the Word of faith:

"14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have..." (Romans 10:14,16-18 NASB)

A few (the chosen) retain that faith/testimony, place their faith in what they know to be true, and are saved. That's why they are the 'chosen'. Most do not place their trust in that which God has assured them to be true through the undeniable voice of the Holy Spirit.

John also speaks about this testimony that is sent out into the world to convict the world about the truth:

6"It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son." (1 John 5:6,3-10 NASB)

I know this is going to be hard to swallow. You're probably struggling trying to figure out how this could possibly not be true. That's okay, I understand. After many years of hearing these arguments I've come to the conclusion that this and other misunderstandings seem to all stem from the Protestant's fundamental misunderstanding of Paul's faith/law argument. That somehow faith itself (that is, trusting in Christ), if we say we did that, belongs in the list of works Paul's says can not justify. But I see Paul contrasting works with trusting in Jesus Christ.

The church has 'believing' on the wrong side of the inequality because they're afraid to let man have any credit in it because they think that's what's wrong with the works Paul says can't justify. Yes, it's true those works can not justify, but not simply because man did them, but mainly because that is not how sin is atoned for.

Sin is atoned for through forgiveness, not atoned for by making up for sin through righteous deeds. When a person understands that they can then put the work of 'believing', as Jesus calls it, back on the other side of the inequality where it belongs and contrast believing, not equate it, with the works that can not justify.

 

[mondar]

Not faith as in 'trusting in the blood of Jesus', but faith as in a supernatural enablement to know the gospel is true. That 'knowing' is by definition, 'faith':

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 NASB)

So in your first reference, your saying this is a demonstration that faith precedes regeneration? Can you tell me what phrase in the verse speaks of regeneration?

But you are probably conditioned by the church to only understand 'faith' as only being able to be 'saving faith', but the Bible does talk about those who 'have faith' but are not saved by that faith (James 2:14 NIV).

Now your detouring from the question. We could certainly talk about a correct definition of "πιστις" (James 2:14), but that of course is not the question. My question is can you prove that faith (any faith, any defnintion of faith you want) can you supply even one reference to demonstrate that faith precedes regeneration? You made the claim that faith precedes regeneration, please provide a verse that demonstrates your opinion.

How does God expect anybody to place their trust in something they do not know is even true in the first place? So God sends the testimony of the Spirit into the world to produce faith in the hearts of people. Most people reject that testimony, the Word of faith:

"14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have..." (Romans 10:14,16-18 NASB)

A few (the chosen) retain that faith/testimony, place their faith in what they know to be true, and are saved. That's why they are the 'chosen'. Most do not place their trust in that which God has assured them to be true through the undeniable voice of the Holy Spirit.

Jethro, there are literally hundreds of verses in the NT that have the word pistos or pisteuo in them. To demonstrate that faith precedes regeneration, should not the word "regeneration" or "born again" be in the verse? That is painfully obvious to me. Your not doing that.

John also speaks about this testimony that is sent out into the world to convict the world about the truth:

6"It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son." (1 John 5:6,3-10 NASB)

I know this is going to be hard to swallow. You're probably struggling trying to figure out how this could possibly not be true. That's okay, I understand. After many years of hearing these arguments I've come to the conclusion that this and other misunderstandings seem to all stem from the Protestant's fundamental misunderstanding of Paul's faith/law argument. That somehow faith itself (that is, trusting in Christ), if we say we did that, belongs in the list of works Paul's says can not justify. But I see Paul contrasting works with trusting in Jesus Christ.

The church has 'believing' on the wrong side of the inequality because they're afraid to let man have any credit in it because they think that's what's wrong with the works Paul says can't justify. Yes, it's true those works can not justify, but not simply because man did them, but mainly because that is not how sin is atoned for.

Sin is atoned for through forgiveness, not atoned for by making up for sin through righteous deeds. When a person understands that they can then put the work of 'believing', as Jesus calls it, back on the other side of the inequality where it belongs and contrast believing, not equate it, with the works that can not justify.

And once again, you do not bother to address the question. The word "believe" is in the passage, that's obvious. Where is the concept of regeneration?

So far, you have not quoted even one verse with the word regeneration, or the concept of regeneration in it. This is not exegetical at all. You just quote verses with the word "faith" or "believe" in it and then assume your point of view. To say it again, with out the word or concept of regeneration in a verse, you cannot prove your point of view. Please supply a verse that demonstrates your claim that regeneration is caused by faith.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So in your first reference, your saying this is a demonstration that faith precedes regeneration? Can you tell me what phrase in the verse speaks of regeneration?

It doesn't. It speaks of being assured of what the truth is. That is what faith is. It's knowing that something you can't see is true. Do you disagree? The prerequisite for trusting in the truth is that you know it's even true to begin with. Do you disagree? I'm sure you don't, so how can knowing the truth be the same as being born again since some reject what God shows them to be the truth and are not saved (as I showed you in Romans and 1 John)?

My question is can you prove that faith (any faith, any defnintion of faith you want) can you supply even one reference to demonstrate that faith precedes regeneration? You made the claim that faith precedes regeneration, please provide a verse that demonstrates your opinion.

Well, you're not going to heed the definition the Bible itself gives for faith, and you're not going to see that the Bible also says 'faith' does not automatically equate to salvation (James 2), so let's try this:

"...the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe" (Romans 3:22 NASB)

Sounds kind of redundant, doesn't it? Why is it necessary for Paul to make the distinction between 'faith in Jesus Christ' and 'all those who believe'?

You see faith is efficacious to those who believe, not to those who know the truth (by faith--there is no other way to know the truth) but who then don't believe after God has given them that ability to know what he wants them to believe in is true.

The righteousness of God (justification) does not come to those who simply know the truth about the righteousness of God. It comes to those who know about and believe in what God has shown them about the righteousness of God. Or do you want to argue the point that simply knowing the truth about the gospel is what saves? What you have to show me is knowing the gospel is true is not faith.

Do you disagree that God gives us faith (noun) to then believe (verb)? I guess you do because you've probably been taught that faith (knowing something is true) is in itself the trusting that saves. But this is exactly the thinking that has led the church into trusting in the 'faith' that James says can not save, but which the Protestant church will argue with you vigorously can save...in direct contradiction to James.

Jethro, there are literally hundreds of verses in the NT that have the word pistos or pisteuo in them. To demonstrate that faith precedes regeneration, should not the word "regeneration" or "born again" be in the verse? That is painfully obvious to me. Your not doing that.

Answer the question then. How do you trust in something you do not know is true? And if you do know it's true, now did you find out it was true if not by the Spirit of faith?

And once again, you do not bother to address the question. The word "believe" is in the passage, that's obvious. Where is the concept of regeneration?

I really don't know why you're asking this. Obviously we both agree that people who believe are regenerated. That's not what is in question. What you have to do is show that people are regenerated then believe. In defense of my argument, simply knowing that the gospel is true does not regenerate anybody. Placing your trust in what you know to be true is what washes away sin guilt and joins you to the Holy Spirit in salvation. But if you think that simply knowing does that, show me that in the Bible. I'll show you where it says it does not.

So far, you have not quoted even one verse with the word regeneration, or the concept of regeneration in it. This is not exegetical at all. You just quote verses with the word "faith" or "believe" in it and then assume your point of view.

Why doesn't the definition of faith the Bible itself gives have any bearing in this? Are to just ignore that?

To say it again, with out the word or concept of regeneration in a verse, you cannot prove your point of view. Please supply a verse that demonstrates your claim that regeneration is caused by faith.

You're really confusing me, because aren't you the one who's backing the 'regeneration' argument? And that simply being shown the truth by the power of the Holy Spirit causes one to be born again? If so, you are the one who has to provide the evidence that simply hearing the word of faith from the Holy Spirit makes a person born again. I showed you it does not.

 

[ivdavid]

Because you say the ability to see the truth, revealed by the Holy Spirit, is in and of itself regeneration.

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying - "The ability to accept/believe the truth, revealed by the Holy Spirit, is an inevitable consequence of regeneration."

So, I do believe that your 1st paragraph of post#592(my point 1 of post#593) captures the presentation of the truth for man to see/to know, revealed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit - and the consideration of that man's choice to accept/believe or reject it. My further points 2 and 3 of post#592 then capture the salvation of a man who, by his own will, rejected the truth he was shown here by the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

You're using the word law as in 'a law of works as a way to be justified'.

Of course, I am. What else does the Lev 18:5 'Law of works' state?

That doesn't mean every person's spirit is 'spiritual', as in 'godly' spiritual.

In consideration of just the "spiritual man" of 1Cor 2:14, why cannot his spirit be 'godly' given John 3:6 ?

And what according to you is the interpretation of "not in the flesh" but in whatever your interpretation of 'spirit' is, in Rom 8:9 ?

 

[mondar]

It doesn't. It speaks of being assured of what the truth is. That is what faith is. It's knowing that something you can't see is true. Do you disagree? The prerequisite for trusting in the truth is that you know it's even true to begin with. Do you disagree? I'm sure you don't, so how can knowing the truth be the same as being born again since some reject what God shows them to be the truth and are not saved (as I showed you in Romans and 1 John)?

Well, you're not going to heed the definition the Bible itself gives for faith, and you're not going to see that the Bible also says 'faith' does not automatically equate to salvation (James 2), so let's try this:

"...the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe" (Romans 3:22 NASB)

Sounds kind of redundant, doesn't it? Why is it necessary for Paul to make the distinction between 'faith in Jesus Christ' and 'all those who believe'?

You see faith is efficacious to those who believe, not to those who know the truth (by faith--there is no other way to know the truth) but who then don't believe after God has given them that ability to know what he wants them to believe in is true.

The righteousness of God (justification) does not come to those who simply know the truth about the righteousness of God. It comes to those who know about and believe in what God has shown them about the righteousness of God. Or do you want to argue the point that simply knowing the truth about the gospel is what saves? What you have to show me is knowing the gospel is true is not faith.

Do you disagree that God gives us faith (noun) to then believe (verb)? I guess you do because you've probably been taught that faith (knowing something is true) is in itself the trusting that saves. But this is exactly the thinking that has led the church into trusting in the 'faith' that James says can not save, but which the Protestant church will argue with you vigorously can save...in direct contradiction to James.

Answer the question then. How do you trust in something you do not know is true? And if you do know it's true, now did you find out it was true if not by the Spirit of faith?

I really don't know why you're asking this. Obviously we both agree that people who believe are regenerated. That's not what is in question. What you have to do is show that people are regenerated then believe. In defense of my argument, simply knowing that the gospel is true does not regenerate anybody. Placing your trust in what you know to be true is what washes away sin guilt and joins you to the Holy Spirit in salvation. But if you think that simply knowing does that, show me that in the Bible. I'll show you where it says it does not.

Why doesn't the definition of faith the Bible itself gives have any bearing in this? Are to just ignore that?

You're really confusing me, because aren't you the one who's backing the 'regeneration' argument? And that simply being shown the truth by the power of the Holy Spirit causes one to be born again? If so, you are the one who has to provide the evidence that simply hearing the word of faith from the Holy Spirit makes a person born again. I showed you it does not.

The whole recent conversation started because you corrected me ... when I corrected Deborah about what Calvinists believe about regeneration. You stated that you have to "have faith to be regenerated." (See post #601) I asked for biblical support for you claim. Where does the scripture mention faith as a necessary requirement for regeneration? All you do is point to verses with the word faith or believe in them and not one of them has the word regeneration or the concept of regeneration.

I can see what is happening. You might be confused, but I am not confusing you. There is no biblical support for you claim. Therefore you must continue avoiding the request for a verse which demonstrates what you claimed (again see post 601 where I responded to you).

 

[ivdavid]

Not faith as in 'trusting in the blood of Jesus', but faith as in a supernatural enablement to know the gospel is true. That 'knowing' is by definition, 'faith':

You don't have to create your own new definitions to already well-defined words. You can still maintain your distinction between "knowing the Gospel" and "trusting the Gospel" without redefining "faith".

Besides, Heb 11:1 doesn't say faith is defined as knowing that something you can't see is true. It describes faith to be the very evidence required to accept the truth of things not seen. Heb 11:1 similarly describes faith to be the very substance or assuring foundation on which one can base their hopes on - not that faith itself is defined this way. Faith in somebody is essentially to "trust that person on something" - but a more exhaustive working definition would be to "accept as true, the sufficiency of that person to fulfill a promise/expectation based on that person's own abilities/nature".

...the Bible does talk about those who 'have faith' but are not saved by that faith (James 2:14 NIV)

James 2 is in the same sense of 1John 2:19...
What does 1John 2:19 state - Just because those who leave us were with us, doesn't mean they were of us - the evidence being them not continuing with us.
Similarly James 2 states - Just because they claim to have faith, doesn't mean they have faith - the evidence being such faith not accompanied with good works.

So, obviously these are not saved because they never had faith.

Why is it necessary for Paul to make the distinction between 'faith in Jesus Christ' and 'all those who believe'?

Because he's referring to the means of manifestation of such righteousness - and the scope of application of such righteousness - with both having the same common basis. Besides, repetition needn't necessarily imply redundancy - it could also be done for emphasis too.

 

[Deborah13]

mondar and Jethro Bodine, I keep reading your posts and I keep seeing that you are so close together on what you believe to be "true saving faith" and "regeneration/being saved/born again" that I wonder why you can't see it, or maybe you can.....

1Jn 5:1 Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loves Him that begat loves Him also that is begotten of Him. [I changed the 'ths' to 's' and capitalized the 'H' in the word 'him]
Spurgeon:
""He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." We shall consider this morning, first of all, the believing which is here intended; and then, secondly, how it is a sure proof of regeneration; and then, thirdly, dwelling for awhile upon the closing part of the verse we shall show how it becomes an argument for Christian love: "Every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.""

1. the believing which is here intended; Jethro , I believe that this section of this sermon, as well as another section further down. Spurgeon didn't 'ear tickle', speaks directly to what you are saying about what saving faith/believing is. And that it is the responsibility of man to "look" and "believe".
2. how it is a sure proof of regeneration mondar, I believe that this section of this sermon speaks directly to what you are saying about regeneration and faith "that one must be regenerated in order to have saving faith"

Spurgeon:
"....In the present case I do not find it difficult to believe faith to be at the same time the duty of man and the gift of God; and if others cannot accept the two truths, I am not responsible for their rejection of them; my duty is performed when I have honestly borne witness to them....."
"....True faith is reliance. Look at any Greek lexicon you like, and you will find that the word pisteuein does not merely mean to believe, but to trust, to confide in, to commit to, entrust with, and so forth; and the marrow of the meaning of faith is confidence in, reliance upon..."
"A still more remarkable representation of faith was that of the healing look of the serpent-bitten Israelites. On the great standard in the midst of the camp Moses lifted up a serpent of brass; high overhead above all the tents this serpent gleamed in the sun, and whoever of all the dying host would but look to it was made to live. looking was a very simple act, but it indicated that the person was obedient to God's command." [All quotes are from Faith and Regeneration, #979, a sermon of C.H. Spurgeon 1871] http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0979.htm

Jethro, I remember your testimony of God calling you and you knew the Gospel was true but you were not willing, until ....
I believe, then you willingly 'looked', and saving faith came, and you were healed/born again. You obeyed the command to 'look'. It is man's responsibility to look and obey the command to believe, repent of unbelief, as the Holy Spirit convicts of this unbelief.

mondar, if you agree with Spurgeon in this sermon, that regeneration is being born again when a man receives the faith from God that is a saving faith. Then I can say I agree with you as I believe that is what Spurgeon is saying in this sermon. If you do not agree, on any point, I would ask you to show me were Spurgeon is not saying what I think he is saying.
Personally, I think by using his sermons as references for the Calvinist beliefs, we could understand each other better, as he explains things so well.
The man truly had the Holy Spirit giving him the words to say, to the audience that he preached to.

Blessings to both of you, in the Lord.

 

[ivdavid]

Deborah13,

Wonderful Post, to be more precise!

 

[Deborah13]

Deborah13,

Wonderful Post, to be more precise!

Thanks, but it's all Spurgeon really.

Hi ivdavid, have you read this sermon? I think if one takes the points in this one and combines it with the "Warrant of Faith" the picture of the doctrines become clear.
But like Spurgeon says if one goes too far to the left or the right they can get into trouble. He preached against hyper-Calvinism you know and mentions it out right, by name, in at least one sermon.
That is part of the problem now a days, some just go too far south. Some say that man is so depraved he cannot even 'look'. That is where some of the confusion comes from. God commands it of men and if He says man can do it, then man can. And if he will look with open eyes, ears, and be willing to just 'look', God in His mercy and grace will save him.
Spurgeon has another one where he talks about man must be willing. I think it is the one about Matt. 23:21. Oh, it's called, "I Would, You Would Not". Spurgeon, was very concerned about men thinking grace excused them from their responsibility.

 

[mondar]

mondar and Jethro Bodine, I keep reading your posts and I keep seeing that you are so close together on what you believe to be "true saving faith" and "regeneration/being saved/born again" that I wonder why you can't see it, or maybe you can.....

Deborah, I guess I do not see it. When I read this in post #299... "Which doesn't make sense since you have to have faith to be regenerated. But I guess that's the point." That seems a denial of the heart of what I am saying and what I believe. Faith does not cause regeneration, but regeneration causes faith. That was what I reacted to. One the other hand, below, you seem to be quoting Jethro and that statement is more in line with regeneration as the cause of faith. I do not remember where Jethro made that statement.

1Jn 5:1 Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loves Him that begat loves Him also that is begotten of Him. [I changed the 'ths' to 's' and capitalized the 'H' in the word 'him]
Spurgeon:
""He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." We shall consider this morning, first of all, the believing which is here intended; and then, secondly, how it is a sure proof of regeneration; and then, thirdly, dwelling for awhile upon the closing part of the verse we shall show how it becomes an argument for Christian love: "Every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.""

Yes, it would have been this exact verse I would have quoted to support the concept of regeneration as the cause of faith (or Christian love or any other Christian righteousness). It is a technical argument, but it is a correct argument. The verb is perfect tense, and the participle is present tense, but thats a different story.

Concerning Spurgeon, while I have no disagreement with Spurgeon in what he says, Spurgeon does not outright state that regeneration causes faith. Of course that was my original point I tried to respond to you concerning. About 3 or 4 pages ago you made the statement that some Calvinist believe that regeneration occurs and then at a later time one believes. My original complaint was that if that is true, that is not Calvinism. Reformed theology talks about regeneration occurring ahead of faith in the ordo salutus, but not in time. They happen at the same instant, but nevertheless, regeneration is a necessary ingredient along with the word for faith to occur.

1. the believing which is here intended; Jethro , I believe that this section of this sermon, as well as another section further down. Spurgeon didn't 'ear tickle', speaks directly to what you are saying about what saving faith/believing is. And that it is the responsibility of man to "look" and "believe".
2. how it is a sure proof of regeneration mondar, I believe that this section of this sermon speaks directly to what you are saying about regeneration and faith "that one must be regenerated in order to have saving faith"

Well, if Jethro said what you quote above, then maybe I am confused, not him. The point I was trying to make is that one must be regenerated in order to have saving faith.

Spurgeon:
"....In the present case I do not find it difficult to believe faith to be at the same time the duty of man and the gift of God; and if others cannot accept the two truths, I am not responsible for their rejection of them; my duty is performed when I have honestly borne witness to them....."
"....True faith is reliance. Look at any Greek lexicon you like, and you will find that the word pisteuein does not merely mean to believe, but to trust, to confide in, to commit to, entrust with, and so forth; and the marrow of the meaning of faith is confidence in, reliance upon..."
"A still more remarkable representation of faith was that of the healing look of the serpent-bitten Israelites. On the great standard in the midst of the camp Moses lifted up a serpent of brass; high overhead above all the tents this serpent gleamed in the sun, and whoever of all the dying host would but look to it was made to live. looking was a very simple act, but it indicated that the person was obedient to God's command." [All quotes are from Faith and Regeneration, #979, a sermon of C.H. Spurgeon 1871] http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0979.htm

Yes, I see myself as in agreement with Spurgeon. It seems to me what Spurgeon said here is very well expressed. When he says that saving faith is the gift of God, that accords with Phil 1:29. Faith is then not something the natural man generates without God, but it is something God does in man. There is much more scripture that could be used to validate the quotes above.

Jethro, I remember your testimony of God calling you and you knew the Gospel was true but you were not willing, until ....
I believe, then you willingly 'looked', and saving faith came, and you were healed/born again. You obeyed the command to 'look'. It is man's responsibility to look and obey the command to believe, repent of unbelief, as the Holy Spirit convicts of this unbelief.

mondar, if you agree with Spurgeon in this sermon, that regeneration is being born again when a man receives the faith from God that is a saving faith. Then I can say I agree with you as I believe that is what Spurgeon is saying in this sermon. If you do not agree, on any point, I would ask you to show me were Spurgeon is not saying what I think he is saying.
Personally, I think by using his sermons as references for the Calvinist beliefs, we could understand each other better, as he explains things so well.
The man truly had the Holy Spirit giving him the words to say, to the audience that he preached to.

Blessings to both of you, in the Lord.

I am not aware of any differences between Spurgeon's theology and my own. In fact, he made minor changes in vocabulary to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and claimed it as his own (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm). We use the same confession in the Church I attend, we just use an original version (http://www.reformed.org/documents/i.../www.reformed.org/documents/baptist_1689.html). I certainly have no objections to you using someone from my own theological group as long as Spurgeon is understood correctly.

 

[Deborah13]

Deborah, I guess I do not see it. When I read this in post #299... "Which doesn't make sense since you have to have faith to be regenerated. But I guess that's the point." That seems a denial of the heart of what I am saying and what I believe. Faith does not cause regeneration, but regeneration causes faith. That was what I reacted to. One the other hand, below, you seem to be quoting Jethro and that statement is more in line with regeneration as the cause of faith. I do not remember where Jethro made that statement.

No, I am not quoting Jethro, at all. I'm not sure what you are referring to. I quote from Spurgeon's sermon, and then say that, that section and another, I believe speak to what Jethro has said and what concerns him about the responsibility of man.

Yes, it would have been this exact verse I would have quoted to support the concept of regeneration as the cause of faith (or Christian love or any other Christian righteousness). It is a technical argument, but it is a correct argument. The verb is perfect tense, and the participle is present tense, but thats a different story.

Concerning Spurgeon, while I have no disagreement with Spurgeon in what he says, Spurgeon does not outright state that regeneration causes faith. Of course that was my original point I tried to respond to you concerning. About 3 or 4 pages ago you made the statement that some Calvinist believe that regeneration occurs and then at a later time one believes. My original complaint was that if that is true, that is not Calvinism. Reformed theology talks about regeneration occurring ahead of faith in the ordo salutus, but not in time. They happen at the same instant, but nevertheless, regeneration is a necessary ingredient along with the word for faith to occur.

Well, if Jethro said what you quote above, then maybe I am confused, not him. The point I was trying to make is that one must be regenerated in order to have saving faith.

When you say in order to have saving faith one must be regenerated (born again/saved) and it happens in the same instant, then I am in total agreement.
Jethro, will speak for himself I'm sure. I really wasn't quoting him.

Yes, I see myself as in agreement with Spurgeon. It seems to me what Spurgeon said here is very well expressed. When he says that saving faith is the gift of God, that accords with Phil 1:29. Faith is then not something the natural man generates without God, but it is something God does in man. There is much more scripture that could be used to validate the quotes above.

Well, I think I agree more than some on this particular point because I do believe that I am saved by grace alone, through faith alone.
The terminology escapes me.

I am not aware of any differences between Spurgeon's theology and my own. In fact, he made minor changes in vocabulary to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and claimed it as his own (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm). We use the same confession in the Church I attend, we just use an original version (http://www.reformed.org/documents/i.../www.reformed.org/documents/baptist_1689.html). I certainly have no objections to you using someone from my own theological group as long as Spurgeon is understood correctly.

Maybe I will start a thread using another of Spurgeon's sermons and we can try to wade through it. Even if we can't agree on everything it would be helpful I think to have a clear understanding of each others beliefs. My hope is that we can find more points of agreement than not.
One of the problems for me has been trying to decipher what is true Calvinism, hyper-Calvinism (which Spurgeon even had to address back then), and just my own misunderstanding and not being able to clearly state my complaint.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The whole recent conversation started because you corrected me ...

I wasn't correcting you, lol. I was commenting on the contradiction you pointed out in Calvinists not believing "that regeneration occurs before faith in time", but who believe regeneration precedes faith.

...when I corrected Deborah about what Calvinists believe about regeneration. You stated that you have to "have faith to be regenerated." (See post #601) I asked for biblical support for you claim. Where does the scripture mention faith as a necessary requirement for regeneration? All you do is point to verses with the word faith or believe in them and not one of them has the word regeneration or the concept of regeneration.

I think I understand the angle you're coming at on this now (I've been addressing the concept of faith itself-- I challenge the notion that any and all faith means salvation has occurred). Even among those who think all faith=salvation I thought it was almost universally accepted in the church that a person is regenerated/born-again because they had faith. And here is where that is taught in the Bible:

The agent of regeneration is the Holy Spirit:

"5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5 NASB)

We receive the Holy Spirit (who regenerates us) when we believe:

"13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise" (Ephesians 1:13 NASB)

See it?
Hear the message. Believe the message. Receive the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

And here we see Peter explaining how it is faith that solicits regeneration, the indwelling Holy Spirit:

"8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:8-9 NASB)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well, I think I agree more than some on this particular point because I do believe that I am saved by grace alone, through faith alone.

Without a doubt. But I'm also sure, by reading your posts, that even though the ability to know the gospel is true, and to be given the power to repent, is entirely and utterly gracious, you think man himself still has to trust in the grace of God. And this seems to be the central issue on election. After God graciously gives man the power to see the truth, and the power to obey the truth, does God then even do man's trusting in that truth and power for him?

If a person believes that man doing his own trusting is exactly the works that Paul said can't justify then they HAVE to believe that God does even our trusting for us, and that election means God makes believers and unbelievers by his sovereign design programmed into the individual. But if you understand correctly what works Paul says can't justify you'll see that those works do not include the very believing he contrasts with the works that can't justify. In which case election means God electing and appointing individuals on the basis of their own choice to believe, not on the basis of being pre-programmed to believe or not believe.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You don't have to create your own new definitions to already well-defined words. You can still maintain your distinction between "knowing the Gospel" and "trusting the Gospel" without redefining "faith".

I'm not redefining faith. I quoted Hebrews 11.

But I do understand that this is about semantics, not hard and fast syntax. And that 'faith' is understood in the majority of Biblical contexts to mean 'knowing with believing'. But not in all contexts as I have shown.

Besides, Heb 11:1 doesn't say faith is defined as knowing that something you can't see is true.

"Now faith is...the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 NASB)

How is that not 'knowing something you can't see is true? Everybody who trusted in the gospel had to first know it was true. That's why I say every man God calls receives a measure of faith to equip them to then trust in the gospel and be saved. Many are called and receive this measure of faith, but only a few, the elect, place their trust in what they've been shown by faith to be true.

It describes faith to be the very evidence required to accept the truth of things not seen.

Exactly!
How does a person trust in the gospel without first having this required evidence that the gospel is even true in the first place? The required evidence is the substance of faith. But the evidence alone is not enough to save a person. They must also trust in it.

Heb 11:1 similarly describes faith to be the very substance or assuring foundation on which one can base their hopes on - not that faith itself is defined this way.

Faith is also defined as having actually placed your trust in that which you know, but as I've shown, even the Bible calls just knowing 'faith'.

Faith in somebody is essentially to "trust that person on something" - but a more exhaustive working definition would be to "accept as true, the sufficiency of that person to fulfill a promise/expectation based on that person's own abilities/nature".

See, when you qualify it as 'faith IN', yes, you are using faith according to it's 'knowing with believing' meaning.

James 2 is in the same sense of 1John 2:19...
What does 1John 2:19 state - Just because those who leave us were with us, doesn't mean they were of us - the evidence being them not continuing with us.
Similarly James 2 states - Just because they claim to have faith, doesn't mean they have faith - the evidence being such faith not accompanied with good works.

So, obviously these are not saved because they never had faith.

And this is the very point I'm making. They knew the truth, but the evidence shows they did not trust in the truth. But James still calls this knowing without trusting 'faith'.

Because he's referring to the means of manifestation of such righteousness - and the scope of application of such righteousness - with both having the same common basis. Besides, repetition needn't necessarily imply redundancy - it could also be done for emphasis too.

Redundancy is a legitimate literary device. But I think Ephesians 1 makes the point clear that you know the message, and that it is true, through hearing the message, then you believe the message you know to be true. And then you receive the regeneration of the Holy Spirit because you believe in what God has shown you through the hearing of the message to be true:

"13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise" (Ephesians 1:13 NASB)

So there's no reason to think Paul was being redundant in the other passage I quoted, because he makes the clear distinction between hearing the message and then believing in the message in this passage: Knowing and believing both being referred to as 'faith' in the Bible. But only the 'believing' aspect of faith being able to save.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying - "The ability to accept/believe the truth, revealed by the Holy Spirit, is an inevitable consequence of regeneration."

You can not call simply receiving, as you say, the required evidence of the truth 'regeneration' because Paul says it is when you believe in what you have heard that you then receive the regenerating Holy Spirit.

Of course, I am. What else does the Lev 18:5 'Law of works' state?

But the point is, how do you put the 'work' of believing in Christ into that law of works? But that is exactly what the church does. And which leads to erroneous doctrines like 'predetermined election'. Because they think the ability and necessity to choose in and of themselves (with God's help, of course) is a work, and works can't save, so God must label us a believer according to his choice entirely, not ours, because that would be works if we did it. But Paul hardly taught that the very believing he CONTRASTED with works was somehow a work that could not justify.

In consideration of just the "spiritual man" of 1Cor 2:14, why cannot his spirit be 'godly' given John 3:6 ?

Because, obviously, the spirit of a man must be born again first for it to be born of the Spirit. As I've shown, that doesn't happen until you believe in what you heard, not when you hear it.

In 1 Corinthians 2:14, spiritually discerned obviously is not referring to the man who gains discernment through the hearing of the message, but the man who either does not have that discernment by the voice of the Holy Spirit, or has rejected it. The verse has to be understood in view of all that the Bible says about how a person is enlightened and then saved (if he so chooses) by what he was enlightened about.

And what according to you is the interpretation of "not in the flesh" but in whatever your interpretation of 'spirit' is, in Rom 8:9 ?

Anybody who walks according to the flesh is 'in' the flesh. Walking in the flesh meaning listening to the dictates of the flesh. When a person--any person--is NOT in the flesh, they are listening to the dictates of the Spirit.

But simply having the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking the truth to a man, dividing a man's spirit from his flesh, hardly has to mean that person is saved. That's no more true than the born-again person being in the flesh has to mean he is not saved. Agreed?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro, I remember your testimony of God calling you and you knew the Gospel was true but you were not willing, until ....
I believe, then you willingly 'looked', and saving faith came, and you were healed/born again. You obeyed the command to 'look'. It is man's responsibility to look and obey the command to believe, repent of unbelief, as the Holy Spirit convicts of this unbelief.

You got it.

The 'evidence of things unseen' was not enough to save me. I had to purposely choose to place my trust in that which God graciously made known to me by faith.

He had been working on me for about 4 or 5 years. I knew the truth, but I was not responding to the conviction I had by the Holy Spirit about that truth. I remember very distinctly on the night I did respond God impressing on my heart that he was not going to bother me with the gospel again for a very long time (not until I was a senior citizen). Well, I did respond. And I often wonder about all the people who don't respond in their youth and who go through their whole life and can't believe until God gives them another chance at the end of their lives....that is, if he even told them he would do that.

 

[ivdavid]

Everybody who trusted in the gospel had to first know it was true.
That's why I say every man God calls receives a measure of faith to equip them to then trust in the gospel and be saved.

Kindly elaborate on this. What do you mean by one has "to first know the Gospel is true" ? No preaching of the Gospel claims it is false - in fact, it is preached as the Word of God, therein claiming it is necessarily true. If man still chooses to reject it, he cannot hide under the excuse that the Gospel didn't seem convincing enough to him - responsibility is necessarily laid upon him for failing to uphold his moral duty towards God in obeying His Gospel call.

Why then is God obligated to do any further "equipping" when all that is necessary for man to obey has already been provided from God's end - the only factor lacking being man's will to obey?

I think Ephesians 1 makes the point clear that you know the message, and that it is true, through hearing the message, then you believe the message you know to be true.

If you equate one's "hearing the message" with their "knowing the truth", I am in agreement with that. If not, what is additionally required to the Gospel message to establish its already proclaimed truth?

And then you receive the regeneration of the Holy Spirit..

I do not read regeneration here in Eph 1:13 at all. It quite clearly talks about the "sealing" of the believer with the Holy Spirit. How do you equate "sealing" with the new "birth" ? Look to the OT physical foreshadow of the NT spiritual things to come - the jew was born first and then on the 8th day, received the sign of circumcision which is a "seal" of God's righteousness - similarly, the "seal" and the "surety/pledge" of the Holy Spirit does come after the new "birth", which however is not mentioned in v13 at all.

 

[ivdavid]

I'm saying - "The ability to accept/believe the truth, revealed by the Holy Spirit, is an inevitable consequence of regeneration."

You can not call simply receiving, as you say, the required evidence of the truth 'regeneration' because Paul says it is when you believe in what you have heard that you then receive the regenerating Holy Spirit.

Skipping over what I've already addressed in my previous post, where did I mention "simply receiving" here? I was referring to this "believing/trusting" aspect only as the inevitable consequence of regeneration. Let me rephrase then -

I'm saying - "The ability to accept the truth / believe in the truth(Christ), revealed by the Holy Spirit, is an inevitable consequence of regeneration".

I do not call such "believing in Christ" itself regeneration - I call it a consequence of regeneration. Therefore, I hold that regeneration precedes such "believing in Christ" in both time and order - wherein they are immediately sequential.

..this seems to be the central issue on election. After God graciously gives man the power to see the truth, and the power to obey the truth, does God then even do man's trusting in that truth and power for him?

What is this "power to obey"? The only lacking factor in man choosing to obey the Gospel he has heard/seen preached - is his own will. Are you claiming that God gives this "power to obey" by changing that man's own will - and If so, how? I believe God doesn't do anything man has to do - but He does cause man himself to do them(Php 2:13). In the case of obeying the Gospel, God doesn't do the obeying for man - He instead regenerates man and with this new nature, the renewed inner man readily and inevitably obeys the Gospel.

But the point is, how do you put the 'work' of believing in Christ into that law of works? But that is exactly what the church does.

Please do not extend your tirade against whatever 'church' you're referring to, to me. I do not by default put the "work of believing" under the Law of works - in fact, I hold that to be a contradiction. The law of works was given to cover all the works of the flesh - and "believing in Christ" is not a work of the flesh. So, only in the case that somebody implies "believing" is a work of the flesh, do I show the further implication that it would then amount to a work of the Law which doesn't justify - therein my protesting a contradiction. As to our present discussion on this point, I hold that no man works out anything but in the flesh until he is regenerated - while you don't seem to hold the same belief. I'll get to that after we've cleared some of the current points of discussion.

Because, obviously, the spirit of a man must be born again first for it to be born of the Spirit. As I've shown, that doesn't happen until you believe in what you heard, not when you hear it.

"Born again first for it to be born of the Spirit"? Aren't the two the same? Anyway, given my earlier response to Eph 1:13, what is your present charge against my interpretation?

In 1 Corinthians 2:14, spiritually discerned obviously is not referring to the man who gains discernment through the hearing of the message, but the man who either does not have that discernment by the voice of the Holy Spirit, or has rejected it. The verse has to be understood in view of all that the Bible says about how a person is enlightened and then saved (if he so chooses) by what he was enlightened about.

In essence, what is "obvious" is to be understood in view of your worldview? This verse is indeed referring to such spiritually discerning people who've heard the actual Gospel message [1Cor 2:1-2] and are constantly referred to as "us/we(christians)" by Paul [1Cor 2:10a,16 etc.].

 

[ivdavid]

But simply having the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking the truth to a man, dividing a man's spirit from his flesh, hardly has to mean that person is saved. That's no more true than the born-again person being in the flesh has to mean he is not saved. Agreed?

No. I've stated my beliefs on this topic in post#580. Are you then of the view that the unregenerate man can obey the Holy Spirit in his unregenerate state itself?