Featured When were the saved regenerated by God?

It's much like in child bearing. A baby has life before it ever leaves the womb. God gives life to the dead, quickens them, the new birth....born from above...


Just because a man has zero say in this shouldn't make one mad....

 

Sounds cute, but it still doesn't answer the fact that either scenario of regeneration preceding conversion is unscriptural on one account or the other.

I don't think anyone has said otherwise. isn't that called a straw man?

I don't believe anyone is mad, and I don't believe I've stated that man "has a say"

I'm speaking plainly about two things:

1) What IS this thing we call regeneration

2) How can a man be ungodly after "all things" become new?

You have answered neither

 

Look, I have answered these before, unashamedly so. I am not wasting my time in doing it again, only for you to refute them.


The new birth, regeneration, being born from above, changes man's will. Their will before this took place, was fallen, and there was no desire to come to God. No amount of gospel calling will change this. The effectual/irresistable calling, however, does. This opens the heart, the eyes, and ears to feel their need for salvation, to see their lost condition, and to hear what the preaching is saying.

All of this leads to one being placed in Christ.


I know you'll reject this, but these are my beliefs....

 

:wavey:scriptures...this is good...:thumbsup:now we are getting somewhere,

okay...now you are getting involved....good verses:applause:

 

James L

You are over thinking this.

there is a time when we are dead in Adam, and outside of Christ.

The Spirit draws us effectually to Jesus.....

At one moment in time the Spirit of God quickens us..... in the words of col.1

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


it is not like we are there with a stop watch, 10:02...being drawn, 11:31 still dead in sin but being convicted, 11;42...regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit....11;43 openly confessing Jesus as Lord...etc


If you go in a dark room and flip the light switch on...at one point it was dark, and then it is light....do you analyze that? did it turn light when you thought about flipping the switch? when you flipped the switch, when the filaments got heated by electric current, when the molecules were affected, or the light rays entered your eyes, or your optic nerve???

with time lapse photography and a science nerd.... and going frame by frame you can break down the component parts, and it is okay to do some of that....but what are you looking to do???

 

This whole shebang was good, we have to deal with the bold part. You quoted 3 confessions, the first two of which I have experience with and embrace for the most part.....the third one, I am not personally familiar with.

Your issue, if I am understanding it correctly, is the "recreated/regenerated/enlightening/death to life/quickening/renewing of the will" part occurring and then God justifying the person.

God sets us apart, chooses us before the foundation of the world, setting His love and affection upon us.
We are called in His time, from death to life....and that is when the act of regeneration happens. We are given the heart of flesh, we are raised up, enabled to put our faith in Christ and repent of our sins. This makes us justified. Justified means that we are made right in Christ, it is our legal standing before God, no longer condemned.

This takes place at once, it is bam bam bam!! To break it down in the order of salvation makes it appear to have a larger timeframe, which is not so. The regenerated man is immediately quickened. He is now able to respond and his response is to put his faith in Christ and repent of his sins. It is like flipping the switch on a wall for a light...as soon as you do, the light goes on...but really, what is happening is the flip is switched, the electricity is moving through the wires to the outlet, then through the cord, then to the lightbulb..but it appears to all happen at once, simultaneously.

 

That is hilarious we both used the same analogy. I think that is a sign lol

 

a good providence...lol..you posted a minute ahead of me, so....I give you the :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

I think it's hilarious that you both used the same analogy, too. You know why?

because I am an electrician, and an expert troubleshooter. Do I analyze electricity? YES, I analyze that. Quite frequently, as a matter of fact

I have to, because there is an ORDER that has to be followed when I'm troubleshooting. Something doesn't work right? There is a progression of thought. One thing leads to another

Sometimes, I walk around looking...for an hour or more. Analyzing the order. People have asked "Are you going to DO anything?"

Yes, right after I've analyzed the order and all the what-ifs. Then I might take apart one junction box and find a loose wire nut. Looked like a very simple fix, why did I have to think so hard? Because there is an order, and analyzing it helps me minimize how many things I have to take apart to find the problem

It matters not whether it appears instantaneous that you flip a switch and the light magically comes on, there is an order. BAM, BAM, BAM....right? You still have the first BAM before the second.

The order of electricity can be displayed in line diagrams and schematics. And a schematic can look more confusing than Greek, if someone is not familiar with the order and how to read the symbols

And optic nerves? How about the difference between photopic and scotopic perception? There is an order, and each one relates to the Kelvin scale differently. Starts to sound like Japanese if someone's not familiar with the order.


Icon loves to tell people they're confused, as if he's got some celestial schematic that nobody else understands

But let someone come along with an analytical mind, and then he wants to say I overthink it.

It's nothing but a copout. You guys can't see where your supposed order is against scripture. And here I come along to try to explain it, and you both revert to an analogy about which I am probably 1,000 times more informed than either one of you.

That's awesome. Maybe even providence

 

We did give you an order and we tried to illustrate with the electricity analogy. It could have been baking a pie, how to give a hair perm, how to do gel nails...the point is not which analogy we chose, the point is we were trying to illustrate not only the order but the speed of which it occurs.

If you are just going to toss that aside because you do not like the choice of analogy and you refuse to see the order laid down in Scripture, then there is nothing more to discuss. Our comments are falling on closed ears.

I have given you Scriptural support and I am sure others have too, if you refuse to see it or even consider it, then nothing more can be said. You are digging your feet in and not even approaching the verses to address your issues with them. You mention not a single one in this post. Your choice of course, but that brings this dialogue to an end.

 

I notice that you did not deal with the main point I made in my post, namely total depravity.

A question for you. Do you believe that an unregenerate person is completely fallen in his nature and incapable of exercising saving faith apart from being made able to do so by a work of the Holy Spirit?

Your answer to this question is key in my being able to determine what you actually believe about this topic. I thank you in advance for answering it plainly.

As for the Confessions, I am acquainted with all three. There are differences between them. But since the majority of posters on this board do not subscribe to these confessions, an exegetical defense of our position seems prudent.

I agree with your assessment.

This is only true in a highly qualified and narrow sense. The Arminian believes that the sinner exercises saving faith on his own. It is not something gifted by God (Eph. 2:9). As a consequence of this view the sinner can choose to believe or choose not to believe. God is relegated to a passive role in justifying sinners. Instead of a Great Savior, He becomes a Great Negotiator. He woos the sinner. He cajoles him. He entices him. But He dares not violate his free will.

The Reformed position is categorically and materially different. God is not wooing, cajoling, or enticing sinners. God reaches into the miry clay and saves them because they are incapable of saving themselves (c.f. Jer. 38:6-13). As Ezk. 36 points out, God first makes this man capable of believing because his very nature his changed. This man then believes. This man will believe because he has been predestined before the foundations of the world for eternal life (Eph. 1:5). Does this man freely believe as an act of his will? Certainly. But under the Reformed understanding of scripture this man can do nothing other than believe. He desires nothing more than to believe. Because it is his desire he believes freely.

In your response to the question as to whether you are familiar with the term "ordo salutis" you said, "Very familiar". However I do not think you understand it from a Reformed point of view. I attempted to explain some of the component parts in my previous response. Let me do so again.

First, I believe repentance does proceed saving faith and justification. But I also believe that the person who is in the process of the ordo salutis is no longer ungodly once he has been regenerated. Prior to their justification the Elect have been wayward sheep (John 10:16). As sheep they have always been part of the flock of the Shepherd. The problem is that, as wayward sheep, they are not with the flock. Would we refer to such individuals as ungodly? Absolutely. They are ungodly because their call has not yet been accomplished in time. They are still in their sins. When God's timetable for bringing a member of this wayward flock comes to pass, the process of the ordo salutis is nearly instantaneous. The Holy Spirit doesn't regenerate the person, take a five month hiatus, and then return to finish the process. Once the Holy Spirit moves upon the immaterial part of man the entire process is accomplished. As I pointed to in my previous post, God is a God of order. For that reason I believe there is a logical sequence in the ordo salutis. The reason I do not believe the person being brought to faith in Christ is in some ungodly limbo between regeneration and justification is because a) they are sheep b) regeneration has already changed them. Justification is the legal declaration whereby they are pronounced righteous. I don't want to say that justification is the by-product of regeneration. That would improperly downplay justifications's significance. But it is at the point of regeneration that the sinner is made new. This is the historic Reformed view.

 

But there is disagreement among Protestants, as to whether there can be a large interval of time between regeneration and justification. Just because you are trying to emphasize the instantaneous approach, doesn't negate ordo salutis

Is there an order, or not? We both agree there is. And when there is an order in time, there are intervals (whether it is years or milliseconds). It can be laid out in a schematic, like this:




Looks like an electrical line diagram. It's not my fault that you picked an analogy in an area of my expertise.

I actually love the analogy of electricity. It bolsters my case and not yours...but only if you actually understand electricity and how it flows

That's why I've been asking - WHAT IS REGENERATION ??


If you look at how scripture defines regeneration, you would hopefully see that it cannot precede justification. But nobody has addressed my concern over the silly notion that regeneration is merely a change of disposition. The three confessions I quoted say as much, and every line Protestant thought supports the same verbiage.

You guys simply want to skirt the issue I've raised, and that is - What Is Regeneration, and When Does It Happen ??

That is, after all, the nature if this thread. If you want to actually discuss that issue, I'd be happy to post scripture. But so far, there has been every attempt to deflect from the MAJOR concerns I've raised about your position

You're right that I'm digging my heels in. I refuse to be dragged along into a haphazard discussion about all this order, and analogies, and empty philosophy without trying to wrangle you guys back to the issue at hand


Simply address my concern, and then we can get to the scriptures. So I'll ask again - If the ordo salutis is correct, that regeneration precedes faith, then in that interval between regeneration and justification, is a man godly or ungodly?

And explain how that works in conjunction with these elements:

In regeneration, a man is given a godly disposition

In regeneration, all things become new

God justifies the ungodly

 

In one sense, I agree with you. I agree that unregenerate man is depraved, dead in sins, and incapable of pleasing God.

Where I disagree is that a man "exercises" saving faith. But this goes to the heart of whether faith is an exercise of the will or not. I believe faith is NOT an exercise of the will, for nobody has ever been able to "choose" to believe something.

In this scope, it doesn't matter whether you believe a man is regenerated before he chooses to believe, or if the other side believes a man chooses to believe while he is still unregenerate. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that believing the gospel is an exercise of the will. You agreed with it, too

But where we categorically disagree is the questions I've been asking - What is regeneration?

Regeneration is not a change of will, or a disposition. Regeneration is a cleansing of the inner man, whereby his sins are all removed. See Hebrews 8-10, where the ministry of Jesus is contrasted against the blood of bulls and goats.

Hebrews 8:8-12 quotes Jeremiah 33:31-34, putting this squarely in the same context as Ezekiel 36. A new heart and new spirit. And as the writer of Hebrews progresses, he makes it very obvious - The blood of bulls and goats could NEVER remove sins. The obvious implication is that the blood of Jesus DOES remove sins.

This is regeneration, a removal of sins from the inner man. It is NOT simply a change of disposition. He is an actual new creation. He becomes the righteousness of God. He is, in his inner man, godly.

And considering that regeneration consists of a literal cleansing, whereby a man is made literally righteous, this cannot precede the justification of an ungodly man

 

You may find it odd that, as a Calvinist, I affirm that man does choose. The Apostle Paul affirmed this when he told the Philippian jailer to "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:30). Salvifically speaking, the Greek word pistis is rendered as both belief and faith. Can a person choose without God making them able to choose? No. But that does not negate man's choice.

So, if you agree that, "unregenerate man is depraved, dead in sins, and incapable of pleasing God", how does one come to faith in Christ under your schema?

The distinction between Calvinist and Arminian theology in this area does matter. I've made my case. We disagree. I'm not inclined to go circular on this.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough or improperly explained my position? That is possible. Regeneration is the new birth. The Greek word means to make new. That is what regeneration does. Faith does not come out of thin air. If the unregenerate man lacks the ability to believe (and I believe he does lack that ability; c.f. 1 Cor. 2:14), how does he gain that ability? After all, we are justified by faith, are we not (unless you are advocating the position of Sanders or Wright)? The only way an unregenerate sinner can exercise faith or believe is if God makes them capable of doing so. If man believes after he has been justified then his belief is superfluous. Man believes before he is justified.

Romans 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

At the risk of being redundant, I don't want to keep going back and forth rehashing the same arguments, so unless there is something new to add I'll end my participation here.

Thank you for the discussion.

 

I already addressed this in a previous post which you can find --> HERE. I wrote:

The reason some Presbyterians believe that a person can be regenerate for an indefinite period of time prior to justification has to do with their view of infants/children and the New Covenant. Presbyterians believe their baptized children are members of the New Covenant community. They also believe it is possible to be a member of the New Covenant community (also known as the "visible church") without being justified. This is accomplished through baptism. They call baptized children "covenant children". While they stop short of pronouncing each one of these children as saved, there is a strong belief that many of them will be saved because the promise of Acts 2:39 applies to their children. Consequently they believe that is possible for their children to be regenerate even though they have not yet come to faith in Christ. To be fair, not all Presbyterians believe this, but many of them do. I reject the belief that a person can be regenerate for an indefinite period of time prior to coming to faith in Christ.

 

Rom 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. These two verses seem to indicate everything concerning the saved are past tense.

 

It doesn't help for you to simply quote scripture without showing how you glean your understanding of it.

If you back up to verse 14, and read all the way to 12:2, you will be in the same context for the whole read.

Paul didn't write incoherent drivel, laden with disconnected "passages".
He wasn't hopscotching around in a desultory fashion, he wrote a thorough treatise.

But, what this thread is about...regeneration, and when does it happen.

And I contend that "when" cannot be ascertained apart from clearly defining what it is.

So far, one person has agreed with the Reformed understanding, and two others are ready to throw in the towel without a clear definition.

And I'm still waiting for Icon to distribute some web links.

But ultimately, I would really appreciate some explanation of the scriptures used to support the notion that regeneration is merely a change in disposition.

I would also like an explanation of just how one proposes that a man is made godly in regeneration, yet after that he is still ungodly when he's regenerated.

But nit from philosophy. Sola Scriptura is the battle cry of the Reformers, so why all the philosophical meanderings? Get some scripture in it.

Good grief, it's like pulling teeth around here

 

:thumbs:

Abraham's status prior to Gen 15:6? Bound for hell? I think not.

 

Old School Baptists (see 'Old Schoolism') held to this by reason of sound biblical deduction such as John the Baptist filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb, David made to hope while on his mother's breast, Isaac born after the Spirit by the time of his weaning, Paul separated from his mother's womb to preach Christ among the Gentiles, and other scripture that quite plainly indicates a heart circumcised long before conversion.