A question for the Calvinists

[pinoybaptist]

That is the most bizare claim I have heard, does anyone else actually believe that? All anyone has to do is cross reference and hold romans into the context of the rest of the scriptures to understand what Paul was refering to. Salvation from Judaism (but not for Gentiles??.... huh??), that's too weird.....

Darren

Would you mind showing me at least, since I am the object of your "wonderment", why I have presented an unusual, strange, fanciful, idea ?

Only those who would find hidden meanings in the Bible where there are not would come up with the understanding that Paul was referring to Gentiles as well as Jews in Romans 10, therefore making the idea of going out on "missions" to "get souls eternally saved" a legitimate one.

Take for example verses 1-3 as your starting point.

1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Notice that the bolded letters always relate to the subject: Israel. Not the Gentiles. The Gentiles DO NOT HAVE a zeal of God or do you have a cross-reference that they do ? Which is it, the Mars Hill discourse ?

You can cross reference all you want, though, it will still not change that the context of this section of Paul's letter to Romans is his desire to have his countrymen, or those who are the Israel among Israel, to turn to Christ in faith and away from the practice of Judaism which refused to acknowledge Christ as Messiah (as they still do today).

This doesn't go very far from the desire of most Christians today to have others turn away from their false gods to the One True God. When I was first converted, my heart's desire was to have my family and kin come to the knowledge of God and His Christ, and away from Mariolatry and Roman Catholicism. How is this different from what Paul was saying ? Do you not have the desire for your neighbors and those you love, indeed, for every American, to come to the knowledge of God, and to come to faith in Christ ?
If you say you do, then why am I bizarre in understanding that Paul wants the same for his people ?

The question is: if they do, will that result in their eternal salvation ? This agrees with winman's theology.


Or do they turn from idolatry and false religions because they are God's people and Christ Himself said of His own (this agrees with God's choice of His people):

I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine..John 10:14

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: John 10:27

 

[Darrenss1]

You have to understand that Pinoy holds to the Primtive Baptist view point in which man is born saved (this they refer to as eternal salvation) regardless of faith but is due to election. Thus many unbelievers will be in heaven based upon God's election and not faith.

That's interesting. I've never actually heard of it. :smilewinkgrin:

Temporal salvation refers to those who have heard the gospel and believed however their having faith or not has absolutely no effect on their eternal state but it does on their temporal life here.

This would come back to my objection with predestination being both positve and negative - to heaven as well as hell. And of course the problem of thinking that there are eternally saved unbelievers. Actually I would have many problems with that particular viewpoint.

With this in mind, I 'am assuming' he is meaning that 'christianity' (a way of life, not eternal salvation) came through Judaism but Judaism was only pointing toward the christain way of life that released them from the trapping of trying to obtain salvation.

I think the important thing to remember is there is only 1 way to salvation that being the NC through the preaching of God's Word, Christ's completed work can be made accessible to those whom respond in faith. For the Jew or Gentile it doesn't matter, the same gospel applies to every and any man. There might be cases which are not the norm (where the gospel is not available - how God judges those in that situation, not the NC though) but the only way into the NC is through responding to God through the gospel in faith.

Anyway, back to the topic of regeneration and faith.....

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

Notice that the bolded letters always relate to the subject: Israel. Not the Gentiles. The Gentiles DO NOT HAVE a zeal of God or do you have a cross-reference that they do ? Which is it, the Mars Hill discourse ?

I think you assume that Paul's prayer to "save" Israel means something different from Paul's doctrine of "God saving the Gentiles". There is no difference. So how God saves the Jews will be the same as God saving the Gentiles. That's how I see it.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

And just to add, the time is passed for the Jews to believe just in God they must turn to their Messiah, there is no other way for them. To the Gentiles Jesus is the Savior of the world not just the Jews.

Darren

 

[pinoybaptist]

I think you assume that Paul's prayer to "save" Israel means something different from Paul's doctrine of "God saving the Gentiles". There is no difference. So how God saves the Jews will be the same as God saving the Gentiles. That's how I see it.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Darren

I agree.
There is no difference.
As far as these two peoples' eternal salvation is concerned, God saved them in and through Christ.
However, the eternally saved is not necessarily gospelly saved, and gospel salvation is what Paul is referring to in this case.

Paul, like Peter, will NEVER teach that besides the work of Christ, other forms of righteousnesses are to be added such as faith in Christ in order for the eternal salvation that Christ wrought on the cross to take effect in the child of God.

Paul said so in Titus 3:5.

But again, whether it be gospel salvation, or eternal salvation, all is because of grace and mercy.
It is grace and mercy that caused God to save the sinner from His own wrath through Christ and that with absolutely no input or contribution or action on the part of the redeemed child.
It is grace and mercy that brings the gospel, and the salvation that comes from obedience to it, to the elect and redeemed child of God. It is this salvation that requires faith, repentance, obedience, belief, and all the things being preached as requisites to eternal salvation among the Arminian people, and even among many Calvinists.

P.S.

May I add that it is still grace and mercy that moves God to grant faith to the heart of his redeemed child, and that by regenerating this once dead in sin individual.

 

[Darrenss1]

However, the eternally saved is not necessarily gospelly saved, and gospel salvation is what Paul is referring to in this case..

I'm afraid you haven't explained that. In what way can anyone be saved except the through the gospel? Do you mean simply election, where the saved person is to the ordinary sense of the defination, still an unbeliever (how can they call upon Him whom they've not heard).

Paul, like Peter, will NEVER teach that besides the work of Christ, other forms of righteousnesses are to be added such as faith in Christ in order for the eternal salvation that Christ wrought on the cross to take effect in the child of God.

Agreed and because faith is not a work.

Paul said so in Titus 3:5.

Titus 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;

You said:

But again, whether it be gospel salvation, or eternal salvation, all is because of grace and mercy.
It is grace and mercy that caused God to save the sinner from His own wrath through Christ and that with absolutely no input or contribution or action on the part of the redeemed child.
It is grace and mercy that brings the gospel, and the salvation that comes from obedience to it, to the elect and redeemed child of God. It is this salvation that requires faith, repentance, obedience, belief, and all the things being preached as requisites to eternal salvation among the Arminian people, and even among many Calvinists.

As a non Calvinist the simple issue is the gospel can do nothing towards saving anyone unless someone responds in faith to God through it. That is not a work at all on the part of man. Therefore all the work of Christ is still all the work of Christ. Man did not attempt to duplicate Christ's actual work to save themselves, they simply responded to Christ's vicarious and efficacious substitionary atonement and entered into the NC through that one time act of saving faith. Therefore in this manner Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: is 100% correct.

Darren

 

[pinoybaptist]

I'm afraid you haven't explained that. In what way can anyone be saved except the through the gospel? Do you mean simply election, where the saved person is to the ordinary sense of the defination, still an unbeliever (how can they call upon Him whom they've not heard).

In what way can anyone be saved except the gospel ?
You're kidding, right ?
Is the gospel God become man ? Is the gospel the one that took the sins of the sinner unto Himself and then nailed to the cross for sins he did not commit ? Is the gospel the one that shed blood ? Is the gospel the one that rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and sat at the right hand of power ? Is the gospel the one that is coming again, and is at this moment interceding for you and for me ? Is the gospel the one by whose stripes we are healed ?

The gospel is not Christ.
Had Christ not sent His apostles out to preach the finished work He did, His work will still stand, and His blood will still be effective for those for whom it was shed.
The gospel is the good news of that finished salvation, it is not the finished salvation itself.
Belief or unbelief in the gospel does not damn the elect child of God, or spare him from the wrath of God, it is the fact that he has a Savior who stood in his place that does that.

Agreed and because faith is not a work.

Oh, but it is, no matter which way you say it, no amount of semantics will change the fact that faith is a work of righteousness, it is not of grace and mercy.

You said:
As a non Calvinist the simple issue is the gospel can do nothing towards saving anyone unless someone responds in faith to God through it.

Now you're getting closer to truth. You simply need to understand that not everytime the Bible says something akin to "save yourselves from this untoward generation" it means eternal salvation.

When the great One in three elected His people, and when the Son of God agreed with the Father to redeem these people with His blood, their faith, their obedience, their theology, their creed, their color, their race, their chronological position in time, had no bearing at all, not one bit.

God saved them because He wanted to, not because they believe or will believe in Him. If their faith, their belief, their obedience, or their faithfulness, or their theologies were a factor, even just secondary, then grace is no more grace, as Paul said.

That is not a work at all on the part of man. Therefore all the work of Christ is still all the work of Christ. Man did not attempt to duplicate Christ's actual work to save themselves, they simply responded to Christ's vicarious and efficacious substitionary atonement and entered into the NC through that one time act of saving faith. Therefore in this manner Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: is 100% correct.

Darren

But you see, this reasoning demeans the work of Christ, and debases His grace. I am sorry, I do not mean this as a personal affront to you, it is just the only way I can express what I feel everytime I see someone trying to inject humanism into the glorious work of the One true God.

Man is dead in sin until his spirit is brought back to life by the Holy Spirit and that will not happen to every living man, but only to God's elect children. Ephesians 2:8 still refers to gospel salvation because it requires faith. Through faith.
My best example will still be that of one of our deacons in the first church I joined in the Philippines.
He was Roman Catholic, and he recites by memory all the prayer books used by the Roman Catholic faith during processions and such like, and he knows his catechism by heart.
Did Christ refuse him because he was Roman Catholic ?
Did Christ redeem him because of a foreseen conversion and faith ?
No, the Bible says Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, and the Book of Life He has contains all the names of His people written before they were even born.
Therefore that old brother's name was there while he was still a devout, practicing Roman Catholic, deep in a faith and theology which was not only erroneous, but outright heretical.
When the Holy Spirit regenerated him, he turned to Christ in faith and renounced ALL he held, but he cannot turn to Christ without the Holy Spirit working His will on him.

It is ALL OF CHRIST, or not at all.

 

[Darrenss1]

In what way can anyone be saved except the gospel ?
You're kidding, right ?
Is the gospel God become man ? Is the gospel the one that took the sins of the sinner unto Himself and then nailed to the cross for sins he did not commit ?
The gospel is not Christ.

It is Christ and HIM cruficied and raised from the dead. IF Christ did NONE of those than there is no salvation in the context of resurrection to life. The gospel is Christ's credentials and claim to the throne, to which the law and the prophets spoke concerning.

Belief or unbelief in the gospel does not damn the elect child of God, or spare him from the wrath of God, it is the fact that he has a Savior who stood in his place that does that.

If someone should reject the gospel or not believe it is true, they are rejecting God; they ARE rendered themselves still under condemnation, to the wages of sins, wrath of God and judgement of God. To think that God can just overlook sin at the wave of His hand and allow a person a free pass to heaven outside the work of Christ is to deny the Lord as Savior. It is the gospel which brings the truth of Christ and God to the world.

Oh, but it is, no matter which way you say it, no amount of semantics will change the fact that faith is a work of righteousness, it is not of grace and mercy.

You are wasting your time even trying to prove that, there is no case to make, saving faith is not a work, never has been, never will be.

Now you're getting closer to truth. You simply need to understand that not everytime the Bible says something akin to "save yourselves from this untoward generation" it means eternal salvation.

I never said it did. The word saved doesn't always mean eternal salvation and it must be understood in the context it is given. And... Your point???

God saved them because He wanted to, not because they believe or will believe in Him. If their faith, their belief, their obedience, or their faithfulness, or their theologies were a factor, even just secondary, then grace is no more grace, as Paul said.

Is God saving those in false religions or athiests? I would say those whom are saved generally speaking have a common theology, that is foundational christian doctrine that all christians adhere to.

But you see, this reasoning demeans the work of Christ, and debases His grace. I am sorry, I do not mean this as a personal affront to you, it is just the only way I can express what I feel everytime I see someone trying to inject humanism into the glorious work of the One true God.

Humanism has nothing to do with it. And claiming a person's responsibility to respond to God is debasing and demeaning of Christ is an absolute fallacy.

Man is dead in sin until his spirit is brought back to life by the Holy Spirit and that will not happen to every living man, but only to God's elect children. Ephesians 2:8 still refers to gospel salvation because it requires faith. Through faith.

Yes and this very thread is a debate on when regeneration occurs, before instantaneously or after man's act of saving faith.

When the Holy Spirit regenerated him, he turned to Christ in faith and renounced ALL he held, but he cannot turn to Christ without the Holy Spirit working His will on him.

If you believe that than do what everyone else is doing and prove your position from scripture. Saying it doesn't prove anything.

It is ALL OF CHRIST, or not at all.

Agreed. And God gets all the glory over even 1 sinner that repents.

Darren

 

[Carico]

I have a question for those who consider themselves to be Calvinists, it has been on my mind for some time.

Now, if I understand Calvinism correctly, men are sinners and can only do evil, and they have no desire or will to do things that please God. According to Calvinism, God must regenerate a lost person to believe. This also works an effect upon the will.

Now my question.

Could some of you Calvinists tell of the time you were regenerated please? I mean, this sounds like a dramatic change that a person would surely notice. Did you absolutely hate God and all his ways and then suddenly turned 180 degrees and loved God? Did it happen in a moment or over time? What were the circumstances when this change happened to you? If you can remember when this happened to you, could you please give at least a little detail? I have been very curious about this for some time.

I did not write this so that I can attack Calvinism, I've done that numerous times on other threads. I am sure some of that will take place by myself and others, but I ask this because I am sincerely curious about if Calvinist's noticed a sudden and abrupt change in their beliefs and attitudes.

I hope some will respond.

As 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 explains, no one can understand God without the Holy Spirit. Romans 3:11 also explains that no one is righteous, not even one. Jesus also says; "No one is good but God alone."

So before I received the Holy Spirit, I too did not understand or "agree" with God. Romans 5-6 also explains that Jesus died for us when we were his enemies.

My conversion was as abrupt as Paul's. I received an extremely bright light, warmth, and peace. It was onyl then that when I opened the bible, the words became crystal clear, it was like I was literally eating them. Jesus tells us in John 6 that he is the bread (manna) that came down from heaven and that he is real food. I knew that the day I received the Spirit. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[pinoybaptist]

It is Christ and HIM cruficied and raised from the dead. IF Christ did NONE of those than there is no salvation in the context of resurrection to life. The gospel is Christ's credentials and claim to the throne, to which the law and the prophets spoke concerning.

The gospel Christ's credentials ?
Where did you get that from ?
Are you saying Christ without the gospel is not Christ ?
If you are, then I am saying the exact opposite.
The gospel without Christ is nothing.
Christ without the gospel is still Christ.
The elect without Christ are damned.
Christ without the elect is still Lord of Glory, King of kings, Creator of Heaven and Earth.
I am not demeaning the gospel, friend, all I am saying is Christ is above all, even the gospel, and if the gospel is gold, then Christ is the temple that sanctifies the gold.
The gospel has its place in the economy and kingdom of God, but that place is not as a cause of eternal salvation.
That honor and glory belongs to Christ.

If someone should reject the gospel or not believe it is true, they are rejecting God; they ARE rendered themselves still under condemnation, to the wages of sins, wrath of God and judgement of God.

In the gospel salvation sense, what you said is true. However, I still do not see where the Holy Spirit can be rejected if He works His will on the sinner, therefore, he who willfully rejects the gospel call is at that point in time
unregenerate, not necessarily unredeemed.

To think that God can just overlook sin at the wave of His hand and allow a person a free pass to heaven outside the work of Christ is to deny the Lord as Savior.

And I never even intimated that that is the case. If you say I did, then you either misunderstood, never understood, or are putting words into my mouth.

It is the gospel which brings the truth of Christ and God to the world.

Not to the world. To His people.
Sorry, I have uneducated myself from that very Arminian concept.
Evangelization is not to the unbelieving world.
The Lord told Peter to feed HIS sheep, not the world.

You are wasting your time even trying to prove that, there is no case to make, saving faith is not a work, never has been, never will be.

And, by the way, there is no such word as "saving faith" anywhere in Scripture, at least not in the version I use.

I never said it did. The word saved doesn't always mean eternal salvation and it must be understood in the context it is given. And... Your point???

I have never seen you give the word its correct division.

Is God saving those in false religions or athiests?

Are you saying he won't, in the gospel sense ? Are you saying he won't in the gospel sense because of their atheism, or the falseness of their religion ? Have you not seen atheists come to faith in Christ ? Ever heard of Lee Strobel ? I do not agree with his entire theology, but he did come to Christ from atheism, as I understand.

I would say those whom are saved generally speaking have a common theology, that is foundational christian doctrine that all christians adhere to.

So, again, assuming that by saved you mean in the eternal sense, you are saying, if I may correctly say I understand, that until such time that a foundational christian doctrine was established among those who are "saved", there were no other souls that were saved, and the work of Christ at the cross were meant only for those after the cross, because the gospel, from whom this foundational christian doctrines supposedly came from, did not exist until after the cross, is that right ?

Where then are you going to place Job, Joshua, Moses, Isaiah, Solomon, David, Samson, Rahab and so on, of the Old Testament, in this scheme ? And doesn't your statement also imply that God had no people in every nation, tribe, and kindred and therefore there could have been a misunderstanding or a misprint in that scripture in Revelation ?

Humanism has nothing to do with it.

Oh, yes, it does. Anytime a man says that he has the free will to decide for or against eternal salvation, and that God allows him that free will and free choice, and that he has the ability to respond on his own, no thanks to God, that is humanism, and that is what many here say. In fairness I don't know if that is your position as well. IF IT IS, then you are injecting humanism against God's glory.

And claiming a person's responsibility to respond to God is debasing and demeaning of Christ is an absolute fallacy.

Again, this boils down to the question of whether it is eternal, or gospel or timely, salvation.
You see, I have always, ALWAYS, maintained that in as far as the eternal redemption and eternal salvation of God's people is concerned, their response was never required, never an element.
However, a man who claims to be regenerate, and have faith in God, as in the case of those whom Peter addressed, are responsible for their actions in relation to their profession or confession.
Repentance, obedience, submission, faith, faithfulness, all these are responsibilities of the redeemed and professing child of God.
These are not the responsibilities of the unregenerate.

Yes and this very thread is a debate on when regeneration occurs, before instantaneously or after man's act of saving faith.

And that, regeneration, sir, occurs before man's confession of faith which is the result of that regeneration, not the cause of it.


Darren[/QUOTE]

 

[Darrenss1]

The gospel Christ's credentials ?
Where did you get that from ?
Are you saying Christ without the gospel is not Christ ?

Are you saying Jesus made no attempt to prove Himself and His ministry from the law and the prophets? Are you crazy? The Apostle Paul reasoned from the scriptures, OT scriptures, in Christ's whole life He fulfilled prophecy upon prophecy.

In the gospel salvation sense, what you said is true. However, I still do not see where the Holy Spirit can be rejected if He works His will on the sinner, therefore, he who willfully rejects the gospel call is at that point in time
unregenerate, not necessarily unredeemed.

Oh, yes, it does. Anytime a man says that he has the free will to decide for or against eternal salvation, and that God allows him that free will and free choice, and that he has the ability to respond on his own, no thanks to God, that is humanism, and that is what many here say. In fairness I don't know if that is your position as well. IF IT IS, then you are injecting humanism against God's glory.

Saying freewill to respond to God is humanism is your right to express your opinion. That's it, your opinion nothing more.

Not to the world. To His people.
Sorry, I have uneducated myself from that very Arminian concept.
Evangelization is not to the unbelieving world.
The Lord told Peter to feed HIS sheep, not the world.

Your point is pointless. Peter may have been told to "feed My sheep" BUT Peter as with the Apostles were all told to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Unbelievers are not the Lord's sheep so why would we expect Jesus to ask Peter to feed the world. Talk about a non issue.

And, by the way, there is no such word as "saving faith" anywhere in Scripture, at least not in the version I use.

I say that in the case of relating the statement "faith without works is dead" to eph 2:8, faith that results in salvation is not of works and is a one time act not an ongoing faith. So many people use the term saving faith in order to express the difference from general faith or christian faith trusting in God for something.

Are you saying he won't, in the gospel sense ? Are you saying he won't in the gospel sense because of their atheism, or the falseness of their religion ? Have you not seen atheists come to faith in Christ ? Ever heard of Lee Strobel ? I do not agree with his entire theology, but he did come to Christ from atheism, as I understand.

I'm saying those whom are saved tend to be christians, if they were at one time athiests, when they are saved they stop being athiest and adopt the christian and Christ centered world view.

Where then are you going to place Job, Joshua, Moses, Isaiah, Solomon, David, Samson, Rahab and so on, of the Old Testament, in this scheme ?

Old Covenant or God's unmerited favor. God having grace and mercy does not imply it is a saving action. I see that God's chosen people (His grace and mercy in the OT) does not imply by necessity they are chosen for eternal life but that God has chosen to be with them and to reveal Himself to them. Out of that corporate group are those that exercise individual faith (or unbelief) and it is those whom I would relate salvation to. This is a point I make with Rom 9.

However, a man who claims to be regenerate, and have faith in God, as in the case of those whom Peter addressed, are responsible for their actions in relation to their profession or confession.
Repentance, obedience, submission, faith, faithfulness, all these are responsibilities of the redeemed and professing child of God.
These are not the responsibilities of the unregenerate.

And we would never assume anyone to be regenerated unless they are saved. So your point??

And that, regeneration, sir, occurs before man's confession of faith which is the result of that regeneration, not the cause of it.

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. I suggested you might like to try and prove it from scripture, go for it.

Darren

 

[Winman]

Yep, just what I thought, some believe you can be saved without the gospel. And that is what you must believe if you believe God regenerates a man to believe. If God regenerates a man, then the gospel is unnecessary.

I didn't ask that question for no reason. I have been waiting for someone to admit this is what they believe, because it the natural conclusion of this belief.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

And faith is not a work, the scriptures say so.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Are you saying Jesus made no attempt to prove Himself and His ministry from the law and the prophets? Are you crazy? The Apostle Paul reasoned from the scriptures, OT scriptures, in Christ's whole life He fulfilled prophecy upon prophecy.

No. I am saying that it is Christ who validates the truth of the gospel, not the other way around, so does that make me crazy ? Credentials are evidences of authority. Those who believe the gospel, who love the gospel, and who preach the gospel understand that it is the Person in that gospel that makes that gospel what it is: good news, nothing more. And they understand it that way because "to them it is given" while to others it is not given.
Christ is the evidence of authority of the gospel, not the other way around which is what you said.

Saying freewill to respond to God is humanism is your right to express your opinion. That's it, your opinion nothing more.

No. It is not free will to respond to God that I am referring to as humanism. It is the assertion that fallen man is in possession of a free will to respond to God that is humanism. The regenerates are the only people in this fallen world that have true free will. They can either obey, or disobey, clear commands of the Scripture. If they obey, the natural result will be blessings and protection, as promised by the Creator. If they disobey, the natural results are curses and withdrawal of blessings and protection.
Please do not muddle the issue with attempts to portray me as stupid.

Your point is pointless. Peter may have been told to "feed My sheep" BUT Peter as with the Apostles were all told to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Unbelievers are not the Lord's sheep so why would we expect Jesus to ask Peter to feed the world. Talk about a non issue.

So you agree that the scripture and the gospel is for feeding sheep, and not goats ?

I say that in the case of relating the statement "faith without works is dead" to eph 2:8, faith that results in salvation is not of works and is a one time act not an ongoing faith. So many people use the term saving faith in order to express the difference from general faith or christian faith trusting in God for something.

And I reiterate, in relation to what you said, that the salvation that results from one's own faith is not the eternal salvation that Christ authored on the cross, which carries NO requisite or prerequisite at all. The salvation that resulted from one's turning in faith to Christ is temporal or timely or gospel salvation. A salvation from dead works and dead faith, to godly works and a living faith.
Now here's the catch: not all of God's people, then, now, or in the future, will experience time salvation, but ALL are eternally secure in Christ.

I'm saying those whom are saved tend to be christians, if they were at one time athiests, when they are saved they stop being athiest and adopt the christian and Christ centered world view.

Given the Babel of differing views, which one is the Christian and Christ centered world view ?

Old Covenant or God's unmerited favor. God having grace and mercy does not imply it is a saving action. I see that God's chosen people (His grace and mercy in the OT) does not imply by necessity they are chosen for eternal life but that God has chosen to be with them and to reveal Himself to them. Out of that corporate group are those that exercise individual faith (or unbelief) and it is those whom I would relate salvation to. This is a point I make with Rom 9.

There is some truth in what you say, mister. Not all of Israel, not all of the Jews, if you will, then and now, comprise the true Israel of God, the chosen ones, the elect, if you will. Studying the Old Testament, one can clearly glimpse this truth, and no less than Paul himself reiterated this truth in Romans 9:6.
However, the true Israel is comprised of both Jew and Greek (Gentiles) from all points of the compass and from all points of time, and they were all redeemed at the cross, independent of anything else they could muster, especially the one you said: I would say those whom are saved generally speaking have a common theology, that is foundational christian doctrine that all christians adhere to.
Those who are the elect of God and whom His Son came to redeem and purchase with His blood cannot have a common theology here in time because they do not all come from the same point of time. They are all over the number line of time, and all over the points of the compass.

And we would never assume anyone to be regenerated unless they are saved. So your point??

Your statement read: And claiming a person's responsibility to respond to God is debasing and demeaning of Christ is an absolute fallacy.

If you are saying, as I am, that only those who claim to be regenerate, or born again, have a responsibility to respond to God, then I believe we have no more problems in that area.

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. I suggested you might like to try and prove it from scripture, go for it.

Darren

I don't think I have to go farther back than Simon, the old man, at the temple, during Christ's presentation there. You can read all about him in Luke 2. No gospel there to regenerate him, but he recognized Christ for who He is, and worshipped and I don't think an unregenerate will be able to do that.
How about the thief on the cross ?
There was no gospel to regenerate him, to be the source and cause of his redemption and eternal salvation, yet, in the last minutes of his life he turned to Christ and called Him Lord.
Or how about Ephesians 2:1 - "who were dead in sins and trespasses....", but, of course, this wouldn't be what you were looking for, since this verse has been bent and twisted and taken so out of context by the humanists among Christendom.
ah, well...

 

[Winman]

I don't think I have to go farther back than Simon, the old man, at the temple, during Christ's presentation there. You can read all about him in Luke 2. No gospel there to regenerate him, but he recognized Christ for who He is, and worshipped and I don't think an unregenerate will be able to do that.
How about the thief on the cross ?
There was no gospel to regenerate him, to be the source and cause of his redemption and eternal salvation, yet, in the last minutes of his life he turned to Christ and called Him Lord.
Or how about Ephesians 2:1 - "who were dead in sins and trespasses....", but, of course, this wouldn't be what you were looking for, since this verse has been bent and twisted and taken so out of context by the humanists among Christendom.
ah, well...

Man, that is one strange belief you've got there. But it is consistent with Calvinism, if God regenerates a man as you believe, then the gospel is not necessary.

First, the gospel goes back to the OT. The first promise of a coming saviour was given to Adam and Eve.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is a promise that God will send a saviour who will step on the serpent's head (that is, Satan). The serpent will bruise this saviour's heel, that is when Jesus died on the cross. But by dying on the cross Jesus defeated Satan, thus bruising his head. And notice the saviour was said to be the seed of woman, but not man. This showed the saviour would be born of a woman, but not have an earthly father.

So, the gospel started right here in Genesis chapter 3. And others in the OT understood this. Job, the oldest book in the Bible understood that God would send a redeemer, he also understood the resurrection.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Job understood his redeemer was alive at the moment, and that he would stand upon the earth in the latter days. And he knew that after he died a natural death and his physical body decayed, that he would be raised and see this redeemer with his own eyes.

And Abraham knew the gospel as well.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

And Isaiah knew of the coming saviour as well.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

So, Simeon in the book of Luke knew of this promised Christ, the scriptures themselves say so.

Luke 2: 25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

 

[Tom Butler]

I don't think I have to go farther back than Simon, the old man, at the temple, during Christ's presentation there. You can read all about him in Luke 2. No gospel there to regenerate him, but he recognized Christ for who He is, and worshipped and I don't think an unregenerate will be able to do that.

Man, that is one strange belief you've got there. But it is consistent with Calvinism, if God regenerates a man as you believe, then the gospel is not necessary.

Sorry, it is not consistent with Calvinism. pinoybaptist is not a Calvinist and doesn't claim to be one. I do not know of a single Calvinist, and never read anything by or about a Calvinist who believes the gospel is not necessary. Nor do I know any Calvinist who will agree with pinoy about this.

You are welcome to oppose Calvinism. You are welcome to label it as heresy. But at the very least you should know what you are labeling. How can you argue against something about which you have demonstrated you don't understand?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Sorry, it is not consistent with Calvinism. pinoybaptist is not a Calvinist and doesn't claim to be one. I do not know of a single Calvinist, and never read anything by or about a Calvinist who believes the gospel is not necessary. Nor do I know any Calvinist who will agree with pinoy about this. .....

Thank you, Tom.
You are correct, I am not, and do not claim to be a Calvinist.
However, our basic difference, is not that I do not think the gospel is not necessary.
One of our basic difference is that I do not believe the gospel regenerates, nor is it intended for the unregenerates.
The good news is for those who are God's own, not those who are not His.
My firm belief is that it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates, and those who respond to the gospel, obey it, or sanctify it in their hearts do so because they are already regenerated.
Also, that when Christ died on the cross He saved and redeemed all who were to be saved and redeemed from the beginning of time, to the end of time, and since Christ and the Holy Ghost is One God, the Holy Spirit (Ghost) knows all who are His, and He knows where they are, and being God Omnipresent, He is able to reach them and regenerate them in His own time, and cause them to come to Christ, with or without the preacher or the gospel, in fact, apart from any means at all, and the one with primary importance is regeneration, not hearing the gospel and thus displaying regenerate faith (faith cometh by hearing), whose importance is for timely or gospel salvation.
Like Allan posted in terms of clarification of what I believe, the theology or creed, or non-theology or non-creed, of an elect of God, does not factor in to his redemption, otherwise if it does, like Paul said, grace is no more grace, for grace is unmerited favor (a rather weak definition, if you will allow me to say so), and if theology is a factor, or faith, or repentance, to eternal redemption, then it is grace plus.

 

[Winman]

Sorry, it is not consistent with Calvinism. pinoybaptist is not a Calvinist and doesn't claim to be one. I do not know of a single Calvinist, and never read anything by or about a Calvinist who believes the gospel is not necessary. Nor do I know any Calvinist who will agree with pinoy about this.

You are welcome to oppose Calvinism. You are welcome to label it as heresy. But at the very least you should know what you are labeling. How can you argue against something about which you have demonstrated you don't understand?

I have never called anyone's belief heresy ever. I might say I believe someone is in error, but I have never, ever called anyone's belief heresy.

And pinoybaptist may not claim to be a Calvinist, but I see very little difference in what he believes and what Calvinists here have said they believe. And not everyone here who does claim to be a Calvinist agrees with each other on every point.

And Tom, you say you do not know of a single Calvinist who does not believe the gospel is necessary. That is good, I agree with this. But you have only two options available. Either God regenerates a man so that he can believe the gospel before he hears the gospel, or God regenerates a man so that he can believe after he hears the gospel.

Maybe I am mistaken, but I got the impression from some Calvinists here that they believe God regenerates a man to believe before they heard the gospel. Otherwise, according to them, they could not possibly understand it or believe it still being in the state of a natural man. I have seen them argue 1 Corinthians 2:14 on several occasions.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Now, that is where I have a problem. For if that is the case, then the gospel is not necessary. You are already regenerated and born again, just as pinoybaptist believes. This is why I said his belief is consistent with Calvinism. Pinoybaptist has simply taken this belief to it's logical conclusion.

 

[Darrenss1]

Maybe I am mistaken, but I got the impression from some Calvinists here that they believe God regenerates a man to believe before they heard the gospel. Otherwise, according to them, they could not possibly understand it or believe it still being in the state of a natural man.

Winman I don't think its a mistake either. From what I understand about Calvinism no man will seek God without first being regenerated. Hearing the gospel is irrelevant to this factor. A totally depraved ungenerated sinner that is "elected" for salvation could be sitting at home drinking beer, watching whatever on TV and suddenly "bam" the Holy spirit regenerates him and he starts to wonder about God and begins to be convicted of his sins and starts thinking God is real...etc This is the impression I get from those whom are Calvinist on this board.

Perhaps someone could bring some clarification to whether or not the gospel has a function as far as regeneration preceding salvation is concerned.

Darren

 

[The Archangel]

Winman I don't think its a mistake either. From what I understand about Calvinism no man will seek God without first being regenerated. Hearing the gospel is irrelevant to this factor. A totally depraved ungenerated sinner that is "elected" for salvation could be sitting at home drinking beer, watching whatever on TV and suddenly "bam" the Holy spirit regenerates him and he starts to wonder about God and begins to be convicted of his sins and starts thinking God is real...etc This is the impression I get from those whom are Calvinist on this board.

Perhaps someone could bring some clarification to whether or not the gospel has a function as far as regeneration preceding salvation is concerned.

Darren

YES!!!! The Gospel has a function as far as regeneration! That's what we've been saying all along--it is not that God regenerates the beer-drinking, football-watching man with the football game he is watching or the beer he is drinking. God regenerates with the Gospel, for it is the Gospel that tells the unregenerate man of his condition and his need for a Savior.

Regeneration must precede redemption but the Gospel (along with the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the Gospel) is a tool in the "process" of regeneration.

This is why the church (individual believers) is commanded to preach the Gospel--because the Gospel has power in that God uses it to accomplish His purposes in the salvation of sinners.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it [the gospel] is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (ESV; emphasis and clarification mine)

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[pinoybaptist]

YES!!!! The Gospel has a function as far as regeneration! That's what we've been saying all along--it is not that God regenerates the beer-drinking, football-watching man with the football game he is watching or the beer he is drinking. God regenerates with the Gospel, for it is the Gospel that tells the unregenerate man of his condition and his need for a Savior.

Regeneration must precede redemption but the Gospel (along with the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the Gospel) is a tool in the "process" of regeneration.

This is why the church (individual believers) is commanded to preach the Gospel--because the Gospel has power in that God uses it to accomplish His purposes in the salvation of sinners.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it [the gospel] is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (ESV; emphasis and clarification mine)

Blessings,

The Archangel

A major error or two, Archangel.
First regeneration cannot precede redemption.
Regeneration belongs to the Holy Spirit, redemption was the work of Christ.
Redemption precedes regeneration.
Those who are elect were first redeemed, in Christ from eternity past as the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, which also means the blood shed at Calvary is the same blood shed at the foundation of the world, and which washed away the sin of Enoch and Elisha, who were carried into the presence of the Lord without going thru physical death.
Then the redemption of the elect was sealed in time, on the physical earth, at the physical Calvary, with a physical blood.
Some of them were already regenerate at the time of the cross, but those after the cross, to be born in a future time, were not, they were alienated from God because of their relationship to Adam, and though they have been covered by the blood of Christ, they are to be regenerated, NOT BY THE GOSPEL, but by the Holy Spirit.
Preachers of the gospel are not Omnipresent, and therefore, it follows that if the redemption and regeneration of the elect of God is through the gospel, there are many who slip through the fingers of God among those whom He loved and knew from the foundation of the world.
Further, if the gospel is the agent of regeneration and not the Holy Spirit Himself, then the Bible is false when it states in Revelation 7:9 "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;" because that would limit God's redemption and God's people to a geographical and chronological scope.
God would have no people among the Eskimos or their ancestors, He would have no one among those outside of the middle east, or what we call Bible lands, and he definitely would have no one among the languages and kindreds outside of Israel and its ancestors.
winman posted a lot of verses, but really all his verses prove is that there was a form of the gospel down through generations and time, and I can give him a verse along that line (Isaiah 40:1), but none of those verses prove that it is the gospel that saved or regenerates.

 

[Darrenss1]

YES!!!! The Gospel has a function as far as regeneration! That's what we've been saying all along--it is not that God regenerates the beer-drinking, football-watching man with the football game he is watching or the beer he is drinking. God regenerates with the Gospel, for it is the Gospel that tells the unregenerate man of his condition and his need for a Savior.

Regeneration must precede redemption but the Gospel (along with the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the Gospel) is a tool in the "process" of regeneration.

But whichever way we look at it, we both agree that the Holy Spirit is the one directly responsible for regeneration, right? I see regeneration connected to the indwelling Holy Spirit, for that reason I identify that the ones whom ARE regenerated are believers because they have the indwelling Holy Spirit. I don't want to backtrack and restate what I said before for the sake of time but that is the relationship I see between those regenerated and those that aren't. Generally speaking I would never assume an unbeliever is regenerated, even if I for some reason sided with the Calvinist position. Neither would I think that someone is saved and they didn't know it, that being they have made no confession/repentence/faith towards Christ and they are saved (??). Calvinist don't know the identify of the elect anymore than an Arminian knows whom might respond to the gospel, the gospel goes out to any and everyone and some believe, some reject and some find it meaningless and do nothing.

Darren