Featured A Kind Of Review

....and therein lies the fallacy of 'means regeneration'

Go, rehearse to yourself passages such
as Jn 1:13, and then explain the above statement.

 

You miss the point. No one is saved by the preacher. Salvation is through the preaching of the gospel. I am not saying that Rice's teaching was conducive to sound spiritual growth. I am simply saying that the preacher does not save. Christ saves through the proclamation of the gospel. I was saved in a radical Pentecostal church. I do not doubt my salvation one iota. God was gracious and removed me from that environment even though the majority of what was taught in that church was false.

 

No, you miss the point by conflating regeneration and salvation.

 

Rippon, Is there some point to this critique of JRR?
If so what is it?

HankD

 

OP should have said, "both men were deceased..."

If you like I can follow you around and correct your spelling.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

I am fairly confident I know what both are. Regeneration is a sovereign and monergistic work of God that precedes faith. It is when God makes the sinner capable of understanding and believing the Gospel. Without the ability to understand the Gospel, no person can be saved. Because sinful man is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), God must take unilateral action to change the condition of the human heart. Once regeneration has been accomplished the sinner believes, by faith. It is at that point, justification by faith, that salvation takes place. While that is part of the order of salvation, any time difference between the two is indistinguishable.

 

I don't want to speak for them but I believe Primitive Baptists question the traditional timing of regeneration.

Perhaps in the womb like John the Baptist? I mean he was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Or maybe that was just a figure of speech?

Personally (can't exactly prove it) I believe the elect are predisposed from birth to spiritual "things".


HankD

 

I know that my Presbyterian friends cite John the Baptist as a defense for en utero regeneration. I believe that the Holy Spirit coming upon the unborn John the Baptist was an unusual occurrence.

 

Did Dr Rice have valid points should be the main consideration!

 

I fully agree with you here, and think that ANY author could have their works combed over and finds items to find fault with! ONLY the authors of the scriptures will avoid that...

 

Yes, in the same sense that the persons who believed in jesus as messiah and yet had to wait for the Apostles to come to have the Spirit indwell them was a special case, as God was showing that non jews were saved also by Jesus.

 

The Gospel message is what the Holy Spirit uses to bring a sinner to Jesus and get saved, and the one saved by that would be the elected one that the Holy Spirit regenerates and grants saving faith too.

 

That's a very good articulation, 'predisposed'.

 

It was a Calvinist [Arthur Crawford, Riverside Bible Church, a profound Bible teacher] that first aroused my own interest and research into the topic, which ultimately led me to the Primitive Baptists. His view on [direct, immediate] regeneration was nearly identical to the Old Baptists.

Lol, you perked my interest:

Puritan Board Regeneration and Salvation
"...is it then possible for a person to be regenerated for years before they exercise faith, or does a spiritual "critical mass" take place in the sense that once regeneration has occurred faith is almost instantaneous?"

From past discussions I know you place no more than a couple nanoseconds between regeneration and belief. I'm of the persuasion that the heart change occurs long before belief.

 

I do not place even nanoseconds between regeneration and belief (faith). The only reason I use chronological language is to separate the components of the Ordo Salutis.

 

...ever parroting the status quo of your system. You ever follow up on thoughts original to YOU?

You said:
"I have no doubt there are souls in glory because of his preaching"

If you had said:
"I have no doubt there are souls in 'the kingdom here on earth' because of his preaching", I would've never remarked.

WHERE IN SCRIPTURE is it stated that the preaching of the gospel sends folks to heaven? And I'm not referring to the 'quality of' eternal life. We DO have 'foretastes of Glory Divine' while in this time realm.

My question is, where do you get the idea that YOUR preaching is populating heaven?

 

I guess you are assuming I believe only preaching the gospel guarantees going to heaven. The preaching of the gospel is the ordinary means of salvation. Preaching does not negate believing.