2 Peter 3:9

[Robert Snow]

No, it is not possible for someone who has never heard the Gospel to be saved. In their assertion to the contrary, the Primitive Baptist (and all manner of hyper-Calvinists) are incorrect.

Thank you. I agree!

Now, it is not as simple as "hearing" the Gospel. As I've described before, the Gospel is, basically, the match and the regenerated person is the gas-laden fuel. A non-regenerate person would have no fuel and the flame of the match would die out on the cold hearth that is the unregenerate person.

Odd analogy, but if I understand what you are saying, I agree!

By the way, in proper Calvinist understanding, regeneration is not the same as salvation. Regeneration necessarily leads to salvation but it is through the means of the Gospel being preached (either in written or vocal form).

On this point I disagree. I believe they are the same event.

So, to use the above analogy again, God, in the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, places fuel in the once cold and dead person and the Gospel comes by way of a preacher and the lit match of the Gospel combines with the God-prepared fuel and takes hold and the fire of a believer burns brightly.

But, none of this happens without the Gospel being preached. After all, Paul says, "And how are they to hear without someone preaching?," implying they won't. The Gospel must be preached.

I do not completely agree.

I believe that when the Gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit will illuminate those who have a willing heart and then this person has a choice to make, accept or reject the Gospel of Christ.

 

[kyredneck]

Is it possible for someone who never heard the Gospel to be saved? Can or will you answer this question?

...No, it is not possible for someone who has never heard the Gospel to be saved. In their assertion to the contrary, the Primitive Baptist (and all manner of hyper-Calvinists) are incorrect......

I challenge either of you to prove from the scriptures that the Greek word 'sozo', translated 'save' [read deliver] is synonymous with the birth from above, or the acquiring of eternal life. I personally know of only two instances in the NT in which I am convinced that the word in intended in the eternal sense:

....made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved) Eph 2:5

to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor 5:5

 

[The Archangel]

Thank you. I agree!

Odd analogy, but if I understand what you are saying, I agree!

On this point I disagree. I believe they are the same event.

I do not completely agree.

I believe that when the Gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit will illuminate those who have a willing heart and then this person has a choice to make, accept or reject the Gospel of Christ.

Glad to see there is some agreement. I'm glad to see it can be demonstrated to you that not all Calvinists reject missions work. In fact, many (the vast majority) embrace it strongly.

As for regeneration and salvation...the Calvinist understanding is that they are different, whether you agree or not is irrelevant. You may disagree with the theology, which we know you do, but that doesn't change the Calvinist understanding.

Second, as related to heart, the Calvinist says the natural man needs a new heart because the natural heart desires "only evil continually" and "desperately evil." So, the question is how can a desperately evil, only-evil-continually-heart desire God? Not to mention such a heart will not seek God, but will only seek its own sinful desires.

So, when we read Ezekiel 36, it is plain that God is granting new hearts and that is what we refer to as regeneration.

Regeneration is not a making alive of the whole. It is a making alive of the heart (not the organ...but the center of the person) and, once the Gospel is added, Salvation occurs and the whole is made alive.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I challenge either of you to prove from the scriptures that the Greek word 'sozo', translated 'save' [read deliver] is synonymous with the birth from above, or the acquiring of eternal life. I personally know of only two instances in the NT in which I am convinced that the word in intended in the eternal sense:

....made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved) Eph 2:5

to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor 5:5

Can you elaborate on this challenge for me? Where are you on this and are you asking me (us) to prove or disprove your position? Or, are you asking us to state a "new" position?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

Can you elaborate on this challenge for me? Where are you on this and are you asking me (us) to prove or disprove your position? Or, are you asking us to state a "new" position?

Blessings,

The Archangel

The Primitive Baptists, as did other Baptists of the past [see: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1619153#post1619153 ], make a clear distinction between regeneration [the birth from above] and conversion [gospel, timely, on going, deliverance in this time world]. See also: http://www.sovgrace.net/index.php/t...-born-again-the-doctrine-of-effectual-calling

Example, Paul tells Timothy:

Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee. 1 Tim 4:16

Are we to assume that Timothy was not yet regenerated? No, we must conclude from this that the salvation Paul is referring to here is not a 'one time event', but it is an on going affair.

Another example:

So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; Phil 2:12

Are we to assume from this that regeneration comes from our works? No, the deliverance spoken of here is a personal, on going affair between each believer and his Lord.

Another one from the literal translation:

for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us -- those being saved -- it is the power of God, 1 Cor 1:18 YLT

The gospel is the power of God to 'those being saved', again NOT a 'one time event'.

Regeneration IS a monergistic, one time event. Solely 100% accomplished by God. Our salvation is an on going affair in this temporal realm until the day we leave it, and it is synergistic, and it is God's good pleasure to save those believing through the preaching of the gospel.

 

[The Archangel]

The Primitive Baptists, as did other Baptists of the past [see: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1619153#post1619153 ], make a clear distinction between regeneration [the birth from above] and conversion [gospel, timely, on going, deliverance in this time world]. See also: http://www.sovgrace.net/index.php/t...-born-again-the-doctrine-of-effectual-calling

Example, Paul tells Timothy:

Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee. 1 Tim 4:16

Are we to assume that Timothy was not yet regenerated? No, we must conclude from this that the salvation Paul is referring to here is not a 'one time event', but it is an on going affair.

Another example:

So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; Phil 2:12

Are we to assume from this that regeneration comes from our works? No, the deliverance spoken of here is a personal, on going affair between each believer and his Lord.

Another one from the literal translation:

for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us -- those being saved -- it is the power of God, 1 Cor 1:18 YLT

The gospel is the power of God to 'those being saved', again NOT a 'one time event'.

Regeneration IS a monergistic, one time event. Solely 100% accomplished by God. Our salvation is an on going affair in this temporal realm until the day we leave it, and it is synergistic, and it is God's good pleasure to save those believing through the preaching of the gospel.

All good points, friend. I think the "answer" (if you want to call it that) is in the concept of the "already-not yet." I think this is exemplified in Paul's discussion in Ephesians of the Holy Spirit being the down-payment of our inheritance.

Of course we who are saved must exhibit fruits of repentance and faith (and Sanctification). While we are being sanctified (passive, being done to us), we are to actively participate in our own sanctification as well. Our obeying God and doing His will must be matters of our will, not accidents, on our part.

But, again, I think the answer is in the idea that we are already saved in once sense, and we are not yet saved in another. The "already-not yet."

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

All good points, friend. I think the "answer" (if you want to call it that) is in the concept of the "already-not yet." I think this is exemplified in Paul's discussion in Ephesians of the Holy Spirit being the down-payment of our inheritance.

Of course we who are saved must exhibit fruits of repentance and faith (and Sanctification). While we are being sanctified (passive, being done to us), we are to actively participate in our own sanctification as well. Our obeying God and doing His will must be matters of our will, not accidents, on our part.

But, again, I think the answer is in the idea that we are already saved in once sense, and we are not yet saved in another. The "already-not yet."

Blessings,

The Archangel

Archangel, just know that the Primitives see that the Greek word 'sozo', translated 'save' [read deliver] is NOT synonymous with the birth from above, or the acquiring of eternal life, and that they are consequently labeled as 'hyper' or 'anti-mission' and just generally spoken of wrongly from HOI POLLOI that does not understand their soteriology.

 

[The Archangel]

Archangel, just know that the Primitives see that the Greek word 'sozo', translated 'save' [read deliver] is NOT synonymous with the birth from above, or the acquiring of eternal life, and that they are consequently labeled as 'hyper' or 'anti-mission' and just generally spoken of wrongly from HOI POLLOI that does not understand their soteriology.

OK. Point taken. Please help me figure out why this matters. Maybe I'm dense and not seeing it.

Is "Birth from above" what would be understood as regeneration?

Thanks for your help!

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I may be "swatting the hornet's nest" with a very short stick when I "hook horns" with you Brother, bu I do want to address this statement.



I do not feel that these two scriptures are a false comparison. John 6:44 says this right here:

NIV 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

ESV 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

NASB 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

RSV 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

YLT 44 no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;

I showed you several different translation of John 6:44 and they all say pretty much the same thing.

Now how can anyone correlate John 6:44 with Matt. 19:16-22?

Here is Matt. 19:23-30:

23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.I don't know of any "A's" who would disagree with this. You can put NOTHING between you and God.

25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.Again, no "A's" would argue with the "C's" about this. It's that we "A's" hold to the statement "they chose to forsake all", whereas it seems that the "C's" believe they(elect) are COMPELLED to do this.

30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

So to me, verses 23-30 have no bearing on verses 16-22 as far as who can and can't come. That rich young man even stated, "Good Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus then told him what he must do, and when He told him to sell his worldly possession, that's when the "rubber met the road", and he wheeled around and left. Jesus then tells His Disciples who can't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. It's not because of their riches that they go there, but they put their trust in those riches, and want to live "high on the hog" and do things their own way.

This man came to Jesus, regardless what belief system any of us have. He called Him "Good Master", and Jesus in turn told him what he must do, and he left. Even stated that Jesus loved him. So again, can anyone correlate Matt. 19:16-22 with John 6:44??

i am I am's!!

Willis

The problem is not the individual verses. The problem is the context in which the verses appear.

You are assuming that the "drawing" of John 6 is the same as the Rich Young Ruler coming to Jesus in Matthew 19. Again, these contexts are completely different and this one verse from John is not intended to and does not directly inform the passage from Matthew.

Therefore, a discussion of each individual passage must precede any discussion of if or how they relate to one another. In other words, one must define the apple and define the orange before comparing them to one another.

The Archangel

 

[Dr. Bob]

Past pages limits on this thread.

Perhaps a NEW THREAD on "sozo" et al might be an option. :thumbsup: