The Propagation of the New Birth

[kyredneck]

We are saved, receiving ternal life here and now,

Scripture is quite clear, those receiving Him, those coming to the light, God has already wrought within them. Ye MUST be born from above.

Those believing on Him already have eternal life:

He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life;......Jn 3:36

.....He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life,...Jn5:24

... He that believeth hath eternal life. Jn 6:47

Belief on Christ is the biggest indicator one can have that one has been born of God.

 

[DaveXR650]

Anyway. This thread was a good summary of a clear understanding of how the doctrines of grace are properly understood as related to evangelism. You have it right and I can tell you many on this side of the ocean agree. I will indeed look up and read the complete blog on it. (By the way, I read and really liked your series on the history of Christianity in England and recommend that too.) Thanks, @Martin Marprelate , for your contributions to this site.

 

[kyredneck]

my main man Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said that you are born again before you believe.

Sproul: 'Regeneration Is Immediate'

Schreiner: 'Does regeneration necessarily precede conversion?'

Founders.org - 'The Old Southern Baptists'

 

[DaveXR650]

Those believing on Him already have eternal life:

"What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ because you are already saved".

Wait. It doesn't say that, does it? One of the big mistakes we make in theology is to have verses mean something that fits our theology - when the purpose of the verse was not really to prove that point. The verses you listed do explicitly say that a saved person is one who believes. That their purpose to us was to show the order of salvation is very weak in my opinion.

Belief on Christ is the biggest indicator one can have that one has been born of God.

Again. I agree 100 percent. It proves nothing about the order, although that may very well be the correct assessment of the order. What make this a little more difficult to understand is that "belief" when meaning saving faith is more that bare belief. Part of saving faith involves trust and a commitment or a closing with Christ as Lord and Savior. That involves your conscious mind and will. That is something you do. But on the other hand, theology aside, how do you decide that something is true? How do you become convinced? Is it enough that your rational mind evaluate the warnings and propositions of the gospel and then you really can will that this be true? Or is that a supernatural work. I say it is supernatural. Where I think strict Calvinists have a slight error is that I believe you can be convinced supernaturally that this is true, become aware of your condition and danger, and yet there is still a chance that you can evaluate this and love the world or your sin, or be too much interested in the flesh - and decide not to come to Christ for salvation. I could be wrong but that to me is the only way to take into account all the verses that show salvation as all God's initiative and yet have the guilt of refusal be truly on the one who refuses.

Now, a strict Calvinist will simply frame this as the rational mind that evaluates the propositions of the gospel and then comes to Christ has done so because he was just born again. And I have no problem with that either. By the way, Thomas Schreiner, who you quoted, was at our church a few years ago. If you ever get a chance to hear him do so.

By the way, Martin's post and assessment of all this was very good and I disagree with you in that I am the Calminian, not him.

 

[kyredneck]

"What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ because you are already saved".

Wait. It doesn't say that, does it?

Wait. Are you still gomming up that word 'saved' by using it only in the 'eternal sense'? What is it that the jailer was asking for at this tumultuous time in his life? To go to heaven? He and his family?

 

[kyredneck]

I am the Calminian, not him.

I've known that about you from the beginning. But no 'Calvinist' that I know of blames Christians for others going to hell. That's the awful lie that I grew up under in a hyper-evangelical SB church. @Martin Marprelate is no 'Calvinist'. He should stop putting on airs that he is.

 

[Charlie24]

I've known that about you from the beginning. But no 'Calvinist' that I know of blames Christians for others going to hell. That's the awful lie that I grew up under in a hyper-evangelical SB church. @Martin Marprelate is no 'Calvinist'.

I think that teaching has its place but it falls on the authority given by God.

An example from Scripture.

God told Ezekiel if he did not warn the wicked of Israel with His message and those wicked died in their sins, God will require the blood of these people at his hand.

This drops in the local pastors lap, and I don't envy that position in the least.

I don't know exactly what the "requiring of the blood at your hands" means in detail but I've never wanted to know.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It's not 'new', it's 'from above', it's very old, and every saint that ever was has been 'born from Jerusalem above', the mother of us all.

The preaching of the gospel has absolutely zilch to do with 'propagating' this quickening from God. Only the heavenly born have ears to hear and eyes to see. The preaching of the gospel is foolishness to all the rest.

You are correct that anothen is usually translated as 'from above' in the New Testament. The one place where it clearly means 'again.' is in Gal. 4:9.
The reason why almost every Bible version translates anothen as 'again' is that Nicodemus understaood our Lord to mean that. "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" (John 3:4). Therefore either translation is possible, but certainly 'from above' is very possible. It is God who must give us new birth (c.f. 1 Peter 1:3).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So you could be responsible for someone going to hell, while you yourself goes to heaven?

@Martin Marprelate has indicated in the past that 'slacking soul-winners' will be responsible for some burning in hell. Is that what you believe?

But no 'Calvinist' that I know of blames Christians for others going to hell. That's the awful lie that I grew up under in a hyper-evangelical SB church. @Martin Marprelate is no 'Calvinist'. He should stop putting on airs that he is.

I don't recall saying those words. However, I do commend you to Romans 10:14-17, and also to Esther 4:14. God will save all his elect, but He will do it through the preaching of the Gospel (Mark 13:10; 1 Cor. 9:16).
FWIW, I am a Calvinist in the footsteps of Bunyan, Carey, Spurgeon and countless others, and I am not the least ashamed of it. I would sooner by far be called a Calminian than Hyper-Calvinist, though I am neither. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[JesusFan]

So you could be responsible for someone going to hell, while you yourself goes to heaven?

@Martin Marprelate has indicated in the past that 'slacking soul-winners' will be responsible for some burning in hell. Is that what you believe?

No, but could miss out my eternal reward of not sharing in the privilege to be used by God to give that other person the good news, for if I refuse to do that, Gid will get someone else to get them that saving message if they were to get saved

 

[JesusFan]

I don't recall saying those words. However, I do commend you to Romans 10:14-17, and also to Esther 4:14. God will save all his elect, but He will do it through the preaching of the Gospel (Mark 13:10; 1 Cor. 9:16).
FWIW, I am a Calvinist in the footsteps of Bunyan, Carey, Spurgeon and countless others, and I am not the least ashamed of it. I would sooner by far be called a Calminian than Hyper-Calvinist, though I am neither. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Jesus stated and commanded that thru his name salvation would be preached and taken out to all people, so just do not see Hyper Calvinism has a "leg to stand on here"