Born Anew?

[Martin Marprelate]

Particular Baptists of yesteryear who warned against these 'regeneration before faith' & 'born again before faith' & etc. contrivances:

Charles Spurgeon, "The Warrant of Faith"

"If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is already saved! It is unnecessary and ridiculous for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved, when he is saved already, being regenerate!"


Abraham Booth, "Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners":

"the page of inspiration does not warrant our supposing, that any one is born of God, before he believes in Jesus Christ....To contend, indeed, that regeneration must be prior to faith, and to justification, is like maintaining, That the eldest son of a nobleman must partake of the human nature, before he can have that filial relation to his father, which constitutes him an heir to the paternal estate, and entitles him to those honours which are hereditary in the family. For the human nature, derived from his parents, and the relation of a son, being completely of the same date; there is no such thing as priority, or posteriority, respecting them, either as to the order of time, or the order of nature. They are inseparable; nor can the one exist without the other---Thus it is, I conceive, with regards to regeneration, faith in Christ, and justification before God. For, to consider any man as born of God, but not as a child of God; as a child of God, but not believing in Jesus Christ; as believing in Jesus Christ, but not as justified; or as justified, but not as an heir of immortal felicity; is, either to the last degree absurd, or manifestly contrary to apostolic doctrine."


The 1689 London Baptist Assembly

"none can be said to be actually reconciled, justified, or adopted, until they are really implanted into Jesus Christ by faith; and so by virtue of this their union with him, have these fundamental benefits actually conveyed unto them. And this, we conceive, is fully evidenced, because the scripture attributes all these benefits to faith as the instrumental cause of them, Rom. iii. 25. v. 1, 11. Gal. iii. 26. And gives such representation of the state of the elect before faith, as is altogether inconsistent with an actual right in them. Eph. ii. 1, 2, 3, 12."

Spurgeon et al believed what (almost?) all Calvinists believe: that the Gospel must be preached to all, in the hope and expectation that God will open the hearts of His people to receive the words spoken to them (Acts 13:48; 16:14).
The idea that the Gospel should be preached only to the elect is plainly crackers, but no more so that hoping that those dead in trespasses will somehow make themselves alive.

 

[Charlie24]

Spurgeon et al believed what (almost?) all Calvinists believe: that the Gospel must be preached to all, in the hope and expectation that God will open the hearts of His people to receive the words spoken to them (Acts 13:48; 16:14).
The idea that the Gospel should be preached only to the elect is plainly crackers, but no more so that hoping that those dead in trespasses will somehow make themselves alive.

Does God make the decree of whose heart will be opened from the hearing of the Gospel, or is that responsibility left to man to make his own choice as to whether he will accept it or not?

God formed planned and initiated salvation for man without any help from man. Is man saving himself by saying yes, Lord I believe?

 

[kyredneck]

Does God make the decree of whose heart will be opened from the hearing of the Gospel,

Yes!

26​	But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.
27​	My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

 

[kyredneck]

it's the hearing of Gospel that draws man to Christ.

47​	He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

 

[Charlie24]

Yes!

26​	But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.
27​	My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Ok, like we haven't been through this before!

That belief is what you will answer for when you stand before Christ, and I will answer for mine.

 

[Charlie24]

47​	He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

Carry on, K. We are all responsible for what we believe.

 

[kyredneck]

Ok, like we haven't been through this before!

That belief is what you will answer for when you stand before Christ, and I will answer for mine.

I’m not worried. I believe the scripture, you do violence to it. Maybe he’ll excuse you on account of your CDS.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Does God make the decree of whose heart will be opened from the hearing of the Gospel, or is that responsibility left to man to make his own choice as to whether he will accept it or not?

Both of those. The inability of man is not organic, but moral. To explain this, if a person had to walk on the ceiling in order to be saved, that would clearly be unfair. Mankind is simply not physically constituted to walk on the ceiling. But man's inability is not organic or constitutional, but moral. 'And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men preferred darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.' People will not come to Christ (John 5:40), not because God prevents them - quite the opposite - but because they want to do their own thing the way they want to. Read Jeremiah 42:1 - 43:7.

In the face of this, God has chosen a vast crowd of people (Rev. 7:9), given them to the Lord Jesus to redeem (John 6:39 etc.) at a terrible cost, and to the Holy Spirit tp lead to salvation (Gal. 4:6 etc.) and seal to the day of redemption (Eph. 1:13-14).

God formed planned and initiated salvation for man without any help from man. Is man saving himself by saying yes, Lord I believe?

No, because salvation belongs to the Lord (Jonah 2:9: Rev. 7:10) - all of it from start to finish, and that is true of our repentance and faith as much as anything else (Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; Acts 11:18; 13:48; 28:28).

Now, Charlie, I know that we don't agree on this, but I don't believe that Arminianism vs Calvinism is a matter of salvation. In 1938, a chap called George Campbell Morgan was the minister at Westminster Chapel in London. Knowing that he was coming to the end of his ministry, he looked for a man to follow him who would continue his faithful Bible ministry. He set his sights on Martyn Lloyd-Jones and eventually brough him to the Chapel to be his co-pastor. Now Campbell Morgan was an Arminian and Lloyd-Jones was a Calvinist, but according to Lloyd-Jones' biography, the two men got on together extremely well until Campbell Morgan retired after a few years.

I will defend my position, but I really don't believe there should be the amount of animosity that there is about this subject on the B.B.. Pelagianism vs. Hyper-Calvinism might be another matter, of course.

 

[Charlie24]

I’m not worried. I believe the scripture, you do violence to it. Maybe he’ll excuse you on account of your CDS.

That's good that you're not worried about it.

The Lord want's us to confirm what we believe with Him.

He doesn't want us in agony over what's to come.

 

[Charlie24]

Both of those. The inability of man is not organic, but moral. To explain this, if a person had to walk on the ceiling in order to be saved, that would clearly be unfair. Mankind is simply not physically constituted to walk on the ceiling. But man's inability is not organic or constitutional, but moral. 'And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men preferred darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.' People will not come to Christ (John 5:40), not because God prevents them - quite the opposite - but because they want to do their own thing the way they want to. Read Jeremiah 42:1 - 43:7.

In the face of this, God has chosen a vast crowd of people (Rev. 7:9), given them to the Lord Jesus to redeem (John 6:39 etc.) at a terrible cost, and to the Holy Spirit tp lead to salvation (Gal. 4:6 etc.) and seal to the day of redemption (Eph. 1:13-14).

No, because salvation belongs to the Lord (Jonah 2:9: Rev. 7:10) - all of it from start to finish, and that is true of our repentance and faith as much as anything else (Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; Acts 11:18; 13:48; 28:28).

Now, Charlie, I know that we don't agree on this, but I don't believe that Arminianism vs Calvinism is a matter of salvation. In 1938, a chap called George Campbell Morgan was the minister at Westminster Chapel in London. Knowing that he was coming to the end of his ministry, he looked for a man to follow him who would continue his faithful Bible ministry. He set his sights on Martyn Lloyd-Jones and eventually brough him to the Chapel to be his co-pastor. Now Campbell Morgan was an Arminian and Lloyd-Jones was a Calvinist, but according to Lloyd-Jones' biography, the two men got on together extremely well until Campbell Morgan retired after a few years.

I will defend my position, but I really don't believe there should be the amount of animosity that there is about this subject on the B.B.. Pelagianism vs. Hyper-Calvinism might be another matter, of course.

I agree it's not a matter of salvation.

What disgusts me is the conclusion of the 5 points that Calvin taught, and many others have added to.

Calvin taught double predestination, that is the basis of the 5 points.

If God chose a certain elect, by default He has chosen for some to perish in Hell when He could have chosen them as the elect but chose not to.

Second, another conclusion to the 5 points is OSAS. It's wrong and comes from the teaching of Calvin in his 5 points.

 

[Charlie24]

I agree it's not a matter of salvation.

What disgusts me is the conclusion of the 5 points that Calvin taught, and many others have added to.

Calvin taught double predestination, that is the basis of the 5 points.

If God chose a certain elect, by default He has chosen for some to perish in Hell when He could have chosen them as the elect but chose not to.

Second, another conclusion to the 5 points is OSAS. It's wrong and comes from the teaching of Calvin in his 5 points.

What I'm saying Martin, is that the predestination taught by Sovereign Grace (double predestination) is a direct assault on the character of God.

I don't like it, and I get upset and angry when it crosses my mind.

 

[kyredneck]

Sovereign Grace (double predestination) is a direct assault on the character of God.

I don't like it, and I get upset and angry when it crosses my mind.

Perfectly ‘natural response’ from ‘the natural man’. Nothing unique about it.

 

[Charlie24]

What I'm saying Martin, is that the predestination taught by Sovereign Grace (double predestination) is a direct assault on the character of God.

I don't like it, and I get upset and angry when it crosses my mind.

@Martin Marprelate

Think about it! If God denied Moses the physical entrance into the Promised Land and gave him death for not giving the Lord the glory for providing the water in wilderness, how does He feel about one believing God has sent untold numbers to Hell and would not open their hearts as He supposedly did with others, simply because He chose not to do it?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree it's not a matter of salvation.

What disgusts me is the conclusion of the 5 points that Calvin taught, and many others have added to.

Calvin taught double predestination, that is the basis of the 5 points.

If God chose a certain elect, by default He has chosen for some to perish in Hell when He could have chosen them as the elect but chose not to.

Second, another conclusion to the 5 points is OSAS. It's wrong and comes from the teaching of Calvin in his 5 points.

So I suppose the peace offer has been rejected.
I wonder much of Calvin you have read? I am hoping that you are better than @Silverhair who rants against Augustine and Calvin without knowing anything about what they wrote. I am no Calvin expert, but I can give you some quotes if you like.

I agree it's not a matter of salvation.

What disgusts me is the conclusion of the 5 points that Calvin taught, and many others have added to.

Calvin taught double predestination, that is the basis of the 5 points.

If God chose a certain elect, by default He has chosen for some to perish in Hell when He could have chosen them as the elect but chose not to.

Second, another conclusion to the 5 points is OSAS. It's wrong and comes from the teaching of Calvin in his 5 points.

First of all, will you please tell me how more people get saved under Arminianism than under Calvinism?
Secondly, it seems to me that Arminianism says that God doesn't love anyone enough to save him.
Thirdly, God says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.' If that disgusts you, then you are disgusted with God.
Fourthly, the Bible and Calvinism speak of the "perseverance of the saints (Matt. 24:13),' not OSAS (see the WCF and 1689 Confessions). Believers will persevere , but it is also necessary that they do (John 10:27-28)

@Martin Marprelate

Think about it! If God denied Moses the physical entrance into the Promised Land and gave him death for not giving the Lord the glory for providing the water in wilderness, how does He feel about one believing God has sent untold numbers to Hell and would not open their hearts as He supposedly did with others, simply because He chose not to do it?

I think I aleady answered that a while ago. If a king saw twenty people being taken off to execution, having been justly convicted of vile crimes, and he decided to pardon ten of them, what injustice has he done to the ten he didn't pardon? They were going to be executed; they are still going to be executed. How are they any worse off? The more interesting question is, how just is it to pardon the ten equally guilty ones? But that has to do with the cross (Romans 3:26).
.

 

[Charlie24]

So I suppose the peace offer has been rejected.
I wonder much of Calvin you have read? I am hoping that you are better than @Silverhair who rants against Augustine and Calvin without knowing anything about what they wrote. I am no Calvin expert, but I can give you some quotes if you like.

First of all, will you please tell me how more people get saved under Arminianism than under Calvinism?
Secondly, it seems to me that Arminianism says that God doesn't love anyone enough to save him.
Thirdly, God says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.' If that disgusts you, then you are disgusted with God.
Fourthly, the Bible and Calvinism speak of the "perseverance of the saints (Matt. 24:13),' not OSAS (see the WCF and 1689 Confessions). Believers will persevere , but it is also necessary that they do (John 10:27-28)

I think I aleady answered that a while ago. If a king saw twenty people being taken off to execution, having been justly convicted of vile crimes, and he decided to pardon ten of them, what injustice has he done to the ten he didn't pardon? They were going to be executed; they are still going to be executed. How are they any worse off? The more interesting question is, how just is it to pardon the ten equally guilty ones? But that has to do with the cross (Romans 3:26).
.

SH and I see things just about the same!

I was just being honest on what disgusts me with Sovereign Grace, I can't help who doesn't like it.

I've read quite a bit of Calvin and agree with most of what he has said.

It's the predestination part that I take another path.

Predestination is Biblical but how Calvin came to his attack on the character of God, admitting what double predestination means is appalling.

 

[Silverhair]

So I suppose the peace offer has been rejected.
I wonder much of Calvin you have read? I am hoping that you are better than @Silverhair who rants against Augustine and Calvin without knowing anything about what they wrote. I am no Calvin expert, but I can give you some quotes if you like.

First of all, will you please tell me how more people get saved under Arminianism than under Calvinism?
Secondly, it seems to me that Arminianism says that God doesn't love anyone enough to save him.
Thirdly, God says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.' If that disgusts you, then you are disgusted with God.
Fourthly, the Bible and Calvinism speak of the "perseverance of the saints (Matt. 24:13),' not OSAS (see the WCF and 1689 Confessions). Believers will persevere , but it is also necessary that they do (John 10:27-28)

I think I aleady answered that a while ago. If a king saw twenty people being taken off to execution, having been justly convicted of vile crimes, and he decided to pardon ten of them, what injustice has he done to the ten he didn't pardon? They were going to be executed; they are still going to be executed. How are they any worse off? The more interesting question is, how just is it to pardon the ten equally guilty ones? But that has to do with the cross (Romans 3:26).
.

Well @Martin Marprelate it would seem I know more of Calvin and Augustine than you do as I have not been taken in by the false teachings they both promoted.

I am also quite certain that Dr. Ken Wilson knows more of Augustine than you or any of your Calvinist hero's do.

You can continue to ignore the facts of history but it will not change the facts.

 

[David Lamb]

Spurgeon et al believed what (almost?) all Calvinists believe: that the Gospel must be preached to all, in the hope and expectation that God will open the hearts of His people to receive the words spoken to them (Acts 13:48; 16:14).
The idea that the Gospel should be preached only to the elect is plainly crackers, but no more so that hoping that those dead in trespasses will somehow make themselves alive.

I agree. I seem to remember reading that a woman once asked Spurgeon why he didn't preach only to the elect. He replied along these lines (I don't remember the exact words): "Madam, if you go around all the people and lift their coat-tails, and there is a letter "E" marking out the elect, then I will gladly do as you suggest."

 

[Van]

Very much germane. Either we were born spiritually dead - in which case we needed to be born of the Spirit - or we were born spiritually alive, in which case no new birth is necessary.
However, in John 3:7, our Lord tells Nicodemus, "Marvel not that I say unto thee, ye must be born again." "Thee" is singular. Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin. The Lord Jesus calles him, the teacher of Israel (v.10). He must have been steeped in the O.T. Scriptures. If ever someone could do without a new birth (or birth from above) it was Nicodemus. But it wasn't just Nicodemus who needed that new birth. "Ye" is plural. It's not just old Nic, who showed himself hopelessly at sea in the conversation (vs. 4, 9); everyone must be born again. Your uncle Dick, your auntie Sue, cousin Harry, the guy next door - everyone needs to be born anew. Why? Because without it, they will not so much a see the kingdom of God (v.3), much less enter it (v.5).
That is why Paul tells the Ephesian Christians, whom he describes in Eph. 1:1 as 'saints ..... and faithful in Christ Jesus' that they were originally 'dead in trespasses and sins (2:1) and, 'by nature children of wrath,' just like everybody else (2:3). So how were these people brought to spiritual life? Were they able to respond to the milk of the Gospel, and then did God decide whether their faith was 'righteous' or not? No! 'But God, who is rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)....' (Eph. 2:4-5). Grace is the undeserved favour of God, and had we done any single thing to merit our salvation, it would have been works, not grace, and therefore a matter of debt (Romans 4:1-8).

1) We were conceived in a spiritually dead state? Yes
2) When we were made alive, together with Christ, did we stop being spiritually dead, and become spiritually alive? Yes
3) If a person had been chosen as God's own possession, would they be children of wrath? Nope. So no individual was chosen for salvation before God credited their faith as righteousness. That is the issue.
4) Is the issue individuals were saved by grace through faith? Nope. But the false claim, saved by grace then given faith is an issue.

 

[Van]

We till the ground, we plant the seed, we water, but God alone causes the increase: He alone calls out some from the realm of darkness into His marvelous light. So why till the ground, prepare the field, plant and water if it serves no purpose in harvesting the fields white for harvest? Do we not serve as ambassadors, awakening the lost to their dreadful situation, heading for destruction and unable to save themselves?

Yes, those fields white for harvest are spiritually dead, separated from God, just as the physically dead are separated from the physically living. But they have the opportunity to obtain access to God's grace by trusting in the name of Christ Jesus.

Does scripture say we must be born anew in order to believe, or we must believe in order to be born anew? We must believe, and have our faith credited by God has righteousness in order to be born anew by the grace of God.

John 1:12 NKJV
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

When and if God credits the faith of a lost person as righteousness, that gives the person the "right to become" children of God. The claim we become children of God and then "receive Him by trusting in His gospel" is absurd nonsense.

Therefore, the opportunity for the grace of salvation is spread through the evangelism of believers. some till the ground, some plant the seed, others water, but it is God alone who causes the increase.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

3) If a person had been chosen as God's own possession, would they be children of wrath? Nope.

Actually, yep. Ephesians 2:3. 'Among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath.' Now 'we all' in this epistle are Paul and 'the saints who are in Ephesus and faithful in Christ Jesus' (1:1). But those same people are those whom God 'chose ... in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love' and predestined to 'adoption as sons by Christ Jesus to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will' (1:4-5). So although we were children of wrath, nevertheless God chose us for His own possession. On what basis? 'According to the good pleasure of His will.' Please read this through again carefully and follow The Holy Spirit's logic.

'no individual was chosen for salvation before God credited their faith as righteousness. That is the issue.

It is absolutely the issue, but you are quite wrong. We were chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world, although God knew we would spend many years lost in wickedness and unbelief, under His wrath. But although people are elect before they believe, no one is justified before he believes.

4) Is the issue individuals were saved by grace through faith? Nope. But the false claim, saved by grace then given faith is an issue.

We are not saved and then given faith. We are given faith and then justified and saved by grace through faith. But the whole of our salvation, every last bit of it, is of God (Jonah 2:9; Rev. 7:10).