Featured Please explain this.

I can't help but think this may be due to a misunderstanding of what it means to pray "in the Name of Jesus."

It does not mean we must end every prayer with "in Jesus Name."

The phrase "in the name of" is a way of stating authority. For instance, those of us who are old enough remember the old Keystone Cops serials at the movies on Saturday. The inept cops would chase a criminal while yelling "Stop in the name of the Law!" Nobody assumed the cop was named John Law. It was a statement of authority. "By the authority of the law I demand you stop" would be a good paraphrase.

When we pray "in Jesus' Name" we are praying with His authority. Matthew 28:18 tells us "Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.""

Jesus told us, in John 14:13 "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

This is a statement of authority. Jesus tells us that, if we are in Him, and He is in us, we can ask using His authority, for our prayers to be answered.

For those not in Christ there is no such authority. We have fellowship (in prayer) with the Father because of our position in Christ.

1 John 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us. Yes, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

"In Christ" = pray with Jesus' authority to the Father with access due to our position in Him.

"Not in Christ" = no such authority to address the Father regardless of what words are tacked onto the end of the prayer.

 

What about them?

 

I agree faith unto salvation is of God. I disagree that regenerate man has no faith until it is gifted of God as I disagree that the Bible makes the distinction you claim here. Instead I believe that salvation as a whole (to include regeneration) is the mercy of the Father on the grounds of the Cross and in Christ, through faith worked by the Spirit in the lives of those who believe (Ezk. 36; Eph. 2). Where we disagree is I view faith as a continual work of the Spirit rather than a "gift" in the form of a product of regeneration.

Please provide the passage that has God regenerating men and afterwards gifting them with faith.

 

Faith is not the product of regeneration. It is a co-result of God's Grace. Beware of the logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

There is none. And I don't think anyone in this thread is making such a claim. As regeneration and faith are both results of God's Grace their advent in the life of a person is simultaneous. (At least from a human perspective. Remember, the Ordo Salutis is logical not temporal.)

 

Verses 4 and 5 of what chapter of which book?

 

The claim was that "regeneration leads to salvation". I disagree that salvation can be divided into such distinct microdoctrines. So there are at least two positions here regarding the "placement" of regeneration, probably more as I find "order" here to by necessity be dependent steps (calling it "logical" instead of "temporal" Does not change the fact that what is presented remains chronological....remember the example of calling the dogs tail a leg).

But however we decide to word it, I disagree that "regeneration leads to salvation" and am asking for a passage that supports that statement.

 

I agree that his position is but an extention of a Calvinistic doctrine, but I don't think all Calvinists hold that error.

 

In that case, yes.

 

That is correct. Regeneration is a punctiliar event that leads to a life long salvation.

It can be said that birth leads to life, but birth is not all of life.

 

Using that analogy (of physical birth), would you say that birth precedes life?

I agree that the work of God in the event of our salvation can be viewed (and often is) as "being saved" while leading to a life long salvation which in turn culminates in the final state of "saved".

What I object to is the claim that "logical orders" are not chronological in nature (they are). I do not mean this to be derogatory as I believe we, by necessity, can only tackle such an unfathomable subject as God's redemption of man by using such "logic". The problem is not using regeneration to illustrate the necessity of God's work of re-creation. The problem is when such "logical orders" become such dogmatic "truths" that one can state regeneration is necessary before a lost person can be saved.

To illustrate, another "logical order" is that spiritual life is dependent on faith in Christ (Jn. 11:26; 14:6; 5:40; 10:28; 1 Jn 5:11-12) and one without faith is "spiritually dead". Regeneration, then, follows faith as one cannot be made "spiritually alive" without faith in Christ (John 11:26).

My point is not that that illustration is correct, but that "logical orders" are not doctrine that can be applied throughout Scripture. They are used to speak of aspects of salvation, but taken too far they only result in a denial or downgrade of other aspects of salvation.

To clarify: It is false to say that regeneration leads to the event where a lost person is saved. But I completely agree that the moment God saves us is an event leading to a life long salvation.


Now, if SovereignGrace is referring to life long salvation, or even that final state of salvation, then I agree with him. If he is referring to regeneration being a step towards the lost being saved, then he is wrong. As he has not clarified, I'm sticking with the last explanation because it seems to me to fit the conversation (but I also remain open to his clarification).

 

How can there be chronology when there is no chronos? There is no time in eternity where salvation originated, exists, and finds it completion, in the mind of God.

And one cannot have faith when spiritually dead, and enemy and hater of Christ.

 

Oxymoron.