Regeneration

Well, according to a quick Google search, you are the preacher.

 

Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake this evening, but I fail to see how you conclude from that link that the poster here is the author there.

 

The OP makes many assertions, and many of those are spot on! So lets review just a few from the Opening paragraph.

1) If, in regeneration, there was no change.... Here we have a premise, regeneration results in a change in the inner man. This is true, and can be supported biblically. We are no longer by nature, children of wrath, no longer spiritually dead, we have been born anew as spiritual children of God which gives the right to become physical children of God at Christ's second coming. Regeneration means originated anew, thus a spiritually dead human spirit, separated from God because he/she was conceived in iniquity is made alive together with Christ. Thus we are regenerated when and only when, God puts us spiritually in Christ. Not in Christ = spiritually dead; In Christ = Spiritually alive, born anew, regenerated.

2) The OP equates regeneration with the fruit of the Spirit. This misses the mark. After we are put in Christ, and regenerated, having undergone the Circumcision of Christ where our sin burden is removed, then and only then are we sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit. So the biblical view is the fruit of the Spirit is the result of (a) having been changed by regeneration, and (b) having been indwelt with our Helper.

3) The next point is bogus and Calvinist screed. Romans chapter 7 presents the struggles Paul experienced before, repeat before, he was set free from this wretched condition.

4) Ditto (i.e. Calvinist screed) for the claim "regeneration" occurs in individuals before God credits their faith as righteousness and puts them in Christ.

 

I wonder why people can't simply speak in plain language. Everything is clouded in mystical talk and ambiguity.

This is akin to the liberal politicians promising "change" without spelling out what IS the change.

Everyone wants to talk about the byproducts of the change, without detailing the substance of it. This "sermon" is just as ambiguous as an Obama speech.

 

Was thinking the same thing. Also, there are hundreds of words there very little substance. No meat, no pointed statements of fact, no focus, no brevity of sentences, no coherent progression, no conversational tone, no delineation of Bible verses from human prose...

I hope you "no" what I'm trying to say.

Theologically, there isn't much to complain about. Author is obviously a Calvinist, but to his credit, masks it well.

 

How can you deduce that by what was given?

 

How can you NOT deduce masked Calvinist doctrine by what was given?

 

If it was a sound and valid teaching from the scriptures in regards to salvation, how could it not be calvinistic though?

 

If it was a sound and valid teaching from scripture in regards to salvation, how could it be Calvinistic? If scripture says "from" Calvinists say "before."
If scripture says chosen through faith in the truth, Calvinism says chosen NOT through faith in the truth. If scripture says chosen rich in faith, Calvinism says chosen TO BE rich in faith. On and on, rewrite after rewrite, Calvinism is unsound and invalid view of salvation.

 

I see this brother has a son, Michael, who at the time this profile was written lived in Texas. One of our elders at Lexington when we were members there was Elder Michael Gowens; probably not the same, but curious how they may be related.

I agree. The 'imagination change' that comes from 'the work of the law written in the heart' results in the inclination to 'do by nature the things of the law'. IMO, at it's most basic level this is manifested by an inherent desire to 'do no ill' to one's fellow man, as laid out in Ro 13:8-10, Mt 19:18-19, and other places.

 

Are you saying that those holding to calvinism then are teaching a false Gospel?

 

Van says a lot of things. Sadly, most of it is waist deep errors we have to wade through.....

 

For the most part, Van is right on.

Regeneration literally means to be made "alive again", exactly what Jesus said of the prodigal son when he repented in Luke chapter 15.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

You could substitute the word "regenerated" in both these verses and it would be absolutely accurate, when the prodigal's father forgave his sins he was made "alive again".

Of course, this scripture utterly refutes Original Sin. The prodigal son was not born dead in sin as OS falsely teaches. The sheep in Luke 15 was not originally lost, but in the shepherd's flock. The woman originally had ten pieces of silver, none were originally lost.

Jesus knows proper doctrine, and these parables show that men are not born dead in sin, but upright as Ecc 7:29 says. But all men like sheep go astray and are joined to a citizen of that far country (the devil) as the prodigal son was. This is when men become "dead in sin" and become "children of wrath".

But when any man repents, he is then RETURNED to the Shepherd of his soul, Jesus Christ. He is regenerated or made spiritually alive again.

1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

The scriptures are absolutely clear to the honest heart.

 

Are you saying that those holding non-Calvinistic views are teaching a false Gospel?

Shuck and then jive, make one slanderous charge after another, then present even more disinformation.

Calvinism teaches unbiblical and mistaken doctrine, as demonstrated by scripture.

1) Unregenerate men were "entering heaven" thus demonstrating total spiritual inability is mistaken doctrine. (Matthew 23:13)

2) People are chosen through faith in the truth, thus demonstrating unconditional election is mistaken doctrine. (2 Thessalonians 2:13)

3) Christ died as a ransom for all, thus demonstrating limited atonement is mistaken doctrine. (1 Timothy 2:6)

4) People were blocked as they were entering heaven, demonstrating irresistible grace is mistaken doctrine. (Matthew 23:13)

 

Matthew 23:13 does NOT mean what you kept saying that it does, and again, if jesus death was for all sinners, and he paid their sin debt in full, and by you, God desires all to get saved, why not have all saved?

 

Matthew 23:13 says unregenerate men were entering heaven, yet we blocked by false teachers. You deny it means what it says.

Calvinism must deny verse after verse after verse because it is unbiblical.

Next note the disinformation asserted by the Calvinist, that Jesus death removed the sin burden from all men, rather than providing the propitiation or means of salvation for all men. Only those whose faith God credits as righteousness are baptized into Christ, where they undergo the Circumcision of Christ, and have their sin burden removed.

Calvinism is defended by misrepresenting the views of non-Calvinists, rather than addressing the scriptures that teach Calvinism is based on mistaken understandings of scripture. All they say is "it does not mean" what it says. LOL