"Believing is the consequence of the new birth"

[Silverhair]

The Bible says much, but it does not say what your theology says...and that's where the problem lies...not with the Bible, but with you.

Austin which of these verses is not in your bible?

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES ON HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME."

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

 

[KenH]

His view on the sovereignty God there can be no such thing as "free will."

On that matter I agree with Vincent Cheung. If God is not always sovereign, then who else is also capable of sovereignty? Satan? Humans?

 

[KenH]

Well if you follow vincent chung then it is no wonder that you have such a distorted view of the bible.

It would be inaccurate to say to that I "follow". I very much have enjoyed the sections that I have read in his systematic theology so far when I have looked up a topic here and there in it. I hope to read the entire book at some point. Also, I want to read his book, "The Author of Sin". - The Author of Sin (vincentcheung.com)

 

[KenH]

You run into problems when you start looking for the "deeper" meaning of the text.

Wow! I have never heard of anyone who calls himself a Christian encouraging people to not delve more deeply into the Word of God.

 

[KenH]

There is a prerequisite for which God will give the new birth. John 1:11-12. Matthew 7:21. 2 Corinthians 4:3. Mark 1:15. And it is not a work.

John 1:13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

"which were born" is past tense and indicates that it precedes what happens in John 1:12.

 

[KenH]

Many just read Jer 18:1-10 but you should read on and take in 11-13.

The same use of the potter imagery is in the New Testament, as well.

Romans 9:19-24 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[Silverhair]

Wow! I have never heard of anyone who calls himself a Christian encouraging people to not delve more deeply into the Word of God.

Delving more deeply into the word of God is good thing, but that does not mean changing the meaning of the text or of words in the text.

Thinking you can find a deeper, hidden meaning to the words of scripture is what the Gnostic's did. Some on here seem to advocate that method of bible study.

 

[Silverhair]

The same use of the potter imagery is in the New Testament, as well.

Romans 9:19-24 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

That is good of to point that out, I mean, who knew that Paul was referring to Jer 18. So now that you have posted that text what is your point? God is sovereign, YES. He is longsuffering, YES. Some are going to destruction, YES. Some will be saved, YES. That God will save both Jews & Gentiles, YES.

What is not found is that only a select few will be saved, nothing in the text says man can not turn and trust in the Son.

 

[37818]

On that matter I agree with Vincent Cheung. If God is not always sovereign, then who else is also capable of sovereignty? Satan? Humans?

God is absolutely sovereign. There are also the distinct Persons who are that God. Three distinct wills with one common will.

 

[37818]

John 1:13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

"which were born" is past tense and indicates that it precedes what happens in John 1:12.

No. John 1:11 preceded John 1:12. The belief in John 1:12 preceded the receiving which was preceded by the new birth. The authority to become children of God preceded becoming children of God in John 1:13

 

[KenH]

Delving more deeply into the word of God is good thing, but that does not mean changing the meaning of the text or of words in the text.

I agree.

 

[KenH]

What is not found is that only a select few will be saved

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

The Bible says few.

 

[KenH]

God is absolutely sovereign.

I agree.

 

[KenH]

No. John 1:11 preceded John 1:12. The belief in John 1:12 preceded the receiving which was preceded by the new birth. The authority to become children of God preceded becoming children of God in John 1:13

I disagree with your interpretation.

 

[AustinC]

Austin which of these verses is not in your bible?

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES ON HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME."

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

All the verses are in the Bible, as are all the verses surrounding the individual sentences you pluck, out of context, on a regular basis.
Silverhair, we have had this conversation on multiple threads and in everyone of them you show no concern for the context around them. Therefore, you interpret God's Word incorrectly and lift up human will over God's will consistently.
Muslims and cults use your method of scripture quotation. That should be a red flag to you.

 

[Silverhair]

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

The Bible says few.

My reply was to Romans 9:19-24 but you do not deal with that but jump to another verse that surprise I agree with. You are being to say the least disingenuous in your response. Is that only way you think that you can support your view?

 

[KenH]

. You are being to say the least disingenuous in your response.

Not being disingenuous at all. You're apparently having a difficult time handling the fact that your free-will arguments are being shown to be so weak when compared to the Word of God.

 

[Silverhair]

I disagree with your interpretation.

So you disagree but you do not give an alternative understanding of the text. So that must mean that you do not have one and are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

 

[KenH]

So you disagree but you do not give an alternative understanding of the text. So that must mean that you do not have one and are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

I already disproved his argument by using the Bible in post #205 above.

 

[Silverhair]

All the verses are in the Bible, as are all the verses surrounding the individual sentences you pluck, out of context, on a regular basis.
Silverhair, we have had this conversation on multiple threads and in everyone of them you show no concern for the context around them. Therefore, you interpret God's Word incorrectly and lift up human will over God's will consistently.
Muslims and cults use your method of scripture quotation. That should be a red flag to you.

I have on multiple occasions said you should point out where that verse I post does not fit the context, You still have not done so. So all we get from you is blow and bluster.

Actually your Calvinist view has more in common with the Muslims and cults as they are the ones that hold to determinism.

When the bible says "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God" Eph 2:8 That does not require interpretation. When the bible says " For "WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED." Rom 10:13 That does not require interpretation.

Now Austin show us how those verses do not fit the context as you are so quick to say.