Regeneratoin

[OldRegular]

Allan

You say, quoting Dagg

Even in the restricted sense, in which it denotes the beginning of the spiritual life, faith, in the sense in which James[140] uses the term, may precede.

The reference to James is as follows:

James 2:17. Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

You neglect to mention the statement following the above quote. Strange!

But a faith which exists before the beginning of spiritual life, cannot be a living faith.

Furthermore you completely ignore what Dagg has to say about the New Birth.

Contentious!

 

[kyredneck]

...that regeneration precedes faith....

An example of 'legitimate spiritualizing'....... because I have a 'pointer' from the NT (The new is in the old concealed: The old is in the new revealed)

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life. Jn 3:14,15

From another thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1468107#post1468107

The context of these words are defined by Jesus, Jesus is God, "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.....

8 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live. Nu 21

Note that the brazen serpent was lifted up for those that were bitten.

17.........They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Mk 2

It is the Spirit working within His children that causes them to feel their need for Him.

..........another example of regeneration before belief.

Fortunate indeed are those that have been made to feel the serpent's awful sting. Fortunate are those that hunger and thirst after righteousness.

 

[kyredneck]

Sorry but this is wrong. The passage you cite has nothing to do with regeneration, but that even carnal men (nations) that did not receive the law like Israel, nor were close enough to hear or know of it still had with in the conscience a basic understanding of the law of God in their hearts. This is why they being a law unto themselves are judged according to these basic premises of the Law because they can't even keep the knock-off twisted version of it.

Again, that passage has nothing to do with regeneration.

From another thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1476951#post1476951

I'm sorry but that is just so wrong. The context in Ro. 2 is not about some sense of right or wrong in fallen man but about evidence of the Spiritual birth through their deeds:

(for when Gentiles [NON-JEWS] that have not the law do by nature the things of the law......... they show the work of the law written in their hearts [I.E. AGAPE, which is the fruit of the Spirit and which is the fulfillment of the law,] ........ Ro 2:14,15

If therefore the uncircumcision [NON JEWS] keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? Ro 2:26

but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter;..... Ro 2:29

So now the inevitable question. If all this time NON JEWS who had not the law could still be children of God.......... What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Ro 3:1

The answer:

Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God. Ro 3:2

And:

who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Ro 9:4,5

 

[Allan]

Allan

You say, quoting Dagg


The reference to James is as follows:

James 2:17. Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

You neglect to mention the statement following the above quote. Strange![

Nothing strange about it as it has no bearing on my point regarding his statement except to show that he is somewhat conflicted with himself on the subject. He doesn't even qualify his statement which in fact contracts his previous point that faith may precede the beginning of spiritual life. His poiont from James it appears was that faith that does nothing is not "LIVING" faith, he does not state they do not 'have faith'. James is talking about a living or active faith in contrast to a dead unmoving faith that really isn't faith at all - just an opinion. A living faith simply means if it is faith it takes action.

Furthermore you completely ignore what Dagg has to say about the New Birth.

No, I understand fully what he says about the new birth. It is most intersting that Calvinist always think they need to 'interpret' what other Cals write, like the Charismatics with tongues that only they can understand. It is as if no Cal can wite in a simple yet educated manner that allows other to understand them. He wrote what he wrote and meant just what he said. Further more you still ignored his own statement regarding the restricted sence being the 'beginning of spiritual life and that faith precedes it, yet you catch his problematic statement of contradiction and no qualification of it, and cling to it as if it is all that he said.
I'll post it again so you can see it:

Even in the restricted sense, in which it denotes the beginning of the spiritual life, faith, in the sense in which James[140] uses the term, may precede. But a faith which exists before the beginning of spiritual life, cannot be a living faith.

He acknowledges that faith may indeed precede the beginning of spiritual life but he can not bring himself to come straight out and specifically state it so you see him trying to rationalize the last sentence of the statement to not go to far out there. It shows that his theology and scripture are having some issues.

Contentious!

Not at all, just giving facts.

 

[Allan]

Forget it.

 

[kyredneck]

forget it.

Good choice.