Choose which you believe to be right

Wes.

Matt 18:3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

I never said there was! It was you that said there wasn't.

Of course it stands.

Smoky round here isn't it. See you Yanks should have signed up to Kyoto! Try answering the question;
This still stands why don't you attempt to knock it over. He knew what we would choose because He destined, decreed, determined, appointed, and settle beforehand what we would choose. He foreordained especially by divine decree and eternal purpose. That is what 'predestine' means.
You must believe what the words say, you will have no excuse on that day. He has made it simple. He uses the word predestine because He meant to say predestine.
Matt 18:3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Leave my nose out of this!

johnp.

 

That is not mine to do is it?
The scripture references you not predestination. Why do you not accept the meaning of the word 'predestine'. Seems such a long time ago.
This still stands why don't you attempt to knock it over. He knew what we would choose because He destined, decreed, determined, appointed, and settle beforehand what we would choose. He foreordained especially by divine decree and eternal purpose. That is what 'predestine' means.
You must believe what the words say, you will have no excuse on that day. He has made it simple. He uses the word predestine because He meant to say predestine.

johnp.

 

Exactly. With the knowledge of your choice and my choice, he was able to destine, decree, determine, appoint, and settle our eternal destination. We were, indeed, predestined based upon our free choice.

Choice and predestination are not mutually exclusive - both are shown clearly in the text. Predestination is not seen in the Bible as a divine, 'You're going to Hell just because I say so," or 'You're going to Heaven just because I say so."

 

Hello ScottEmerson.

What bible? If that is true you have a wonky bible man! Take it back and get a proper one. "Ehp 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will-- 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
EPH 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory."

RO 9:10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
RO 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
RO 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

We can take either or both passages apart if you like.

johnp.

 

Wes.

I'm beginning to wonder to be frank!
My post posted 20 February, 2005 08:54 in a reply to ScottEmerson's line; "And predestine doesn't mean "forced a choice upon."
My reply to that is;
Predestine means to destine, decree, determine, appoint, or settle beforehand : foreordain especially by divine decree or eternal purpose.
To his next line which was;
"If God knew what our end-decision was from the beginning, he could have, thus, predestined it."
My reply to that is;
He knew what we would choose because He destined, decreed, determined, appointed, and settle beforehand what we would choose. He foreordained especially by divine decree and eternal purpose.
The question;
What's your beef about predestine man? Damage your ego does it? It's meant to.

I refuse to stop quoting scripture to you.

johnp.

 

It is interesting that scriptures tell us "My word sent forth does not return void". Meaning, as I understand it, that wherever God's Word goes, souls are transformed. So, it all comes back to "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Seems pretty clear that regeneration cometh by the word of God! So there is no difference in the positions of Calvinist's and Non-Calvinist's.

That being true, Why don't we simply drop the titles and be just plain Christians? Why do we have to continuously and repeatedly subdivide ourselves into fragments of "Christianity"? </font>[/QUOTE]Well then, what would we argue about on the Internet?

There is a big difference - Calvinists believe that the Holy Spirit is the decisive agent in salvation, and non-Calvinists believe that man is the decisive agent in salvation. That's a pretty big difference.

 

Didn't read all of the posts, but I could not vote because I don't believe you can take regeneration and the new birth as two different things. They are exactly the same act.

Now, if you would like to talk regeneration vs. conversion, which I think is what you're meaning to say, then my answer is yes, regeneration must occur before you can believe. A dead person can not believe.

If we are spiritually dead before regeneration, then we have no ability to have faith because faith is an inward feeling that occurs from the spirit. If the spirit is dead, then it is just like a dead body. A dead spirit can no more ask for salvation than a dead person.

 

Yes, indeed, he chose both the Jews and the Gentiles to be His children.

Yes - those whom he foreknew (that comes first, remember - Romans 8) he did indeed predestine. He chose to ordain adoption for all of those who would choose to accept him.

His love is indeed free.

Yes, from the very beginning, God set up the plan by which all those who chose to believe would be destined for adoption and heaven.

We refers to the Jews who believed before the Gentiles.

"You" refers to the Gentiles, and specifically those who were part of the church in Ephesus. Do you not notice that the belief in Christ comes BEFORE any type of marking or seal - the belief comes before the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit.

Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated doesn't come from Genesis, but from Malachi, many, many generations after the birth of Jacob and Esau. The passage here is referring to the nation of Israel and the nation of Edom. God called his people, Israel, whom He loved. Romans 9 refers to the inclusion of the Gentiles, and if you read all of Romans, you see that Paul is very interested in the Jewish and Gentile relationship with God.

And God chose to have mercy on the Gentiles - again, it is referring to a group, NOT individuals, just as verse 15 refers to nations, not specific people.

I already have. I know these are what Calvinists consider to be bulwarks, but careful reading, comparing, and examining contexts show that these passages most definitely do not say what Calvinists are trying to get them to say. Yet another example of Calvinist eisegesis.

 

Drive by...

Calvinism says God determined who would coose, thereby making the choice FOR them.

Scripture has God saying...

"Choose you this day whom ye will serve..." thereby ALLOWING us to choose freely.


I'll go with Scripture.

vroom! Jim keeps on driving by...

In HIS service;
Jim

 

You said that this means Jesus is telling us that we are the ones that have to change ourselves. However, that's not what He is saying. He simply says, "Unless you change." This is simply about the necessity of change, not the ability to change. Your argument is circular, and begs the question of moral ability.

That is, by definition, postdestination, because the destining is logically after the choice. You are saying that foreknowledge is knowing beforehand what we will choose and destining based on that. The problem is the "foreknow" in the NT is used of God as a VERB, not a noun, and this VERB means the same as "yada" "to know" in Hebrew, which we sometimes translate as "choose/chose" (Amos 3:2). God foreknows, e.g. eternally knows and relates to people not objects. A choice is an object, not a person. Your concept of foreknowledge is not the biblical concept of the verb "prognosko" when used of God in the New Testament or "yada" in the Old. It always refers to His covenantal commitment to His people, not His knowing ahead of time who will choose Him and who will reject Him. It is active, not passive, covenantal, intimate, solitary on His part, and involves choosing by Him and only by Him. The direct object of "foreknow" in the text you cite is a personal pronoun referring back to the elect of verse 28. When used of men as subjects of the verb, not God, in the New Testament, this word does mean passive, objective knowledge of events and objects like choices.

No, Calvinism says that man chooses freely because God enables him to do this based on His sovereign choice of them from eternity past.

What about Moses, what nation does he represent? V. 15, "For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

God declares to Moses that He has mercy and compassion on whom (SINGULAR) He wants. The word "whom" here is in the singular, not the plural, designating individuals. Therefore, God is declaring that He displays His mercy and compassion upon the individuals of His choice.

What about Pharaoh? Did he represent a nation? No, nowhere is that even in the text. If what is true of Jacob and Esau is true in your view, it must also be true of Pharaoh.

V. 17, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you (SINGULAR) up, to demonstrate My power in you (SINGULAR), and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.'"

V. 18, "So then He has mercy on whom (SINGULAR) He desires, and He hardens whom (SINGULAR) He desires.

Since election is "The act of God’s free will by which before the foundation of the world he decreed his blessings to certain persons," we see that Paul here says that God is merciful to whom (SINGULAR) He wants. This definitely teaches us that God elects for blessings those whom He desires.

From a dear friend of mine that has just rebutted this same tired worn out argument about nations only:

There is no doubt that God is telling Rebekah that two nations will arrive from her womb. There is also no doubt that God is saying that ”the {people descended from} older will serve the {people descended from} younger”.

But does that answer the question that is asked, “Is Paul Talking about a corporate election as he cites this passage?” The answer is no: it does not answer that question. It escapes answering the question by failing to observe a basic tenet of sola Scriptura: the word of God is the best interpreter of the word of God; tota Scriptura is necessary to rely on sola Scriptura.

By asserting that the passage in Genesis in its primary context only refers to the positions of two nations, the non-Reformed advocate forgets that the passage in Romans has the authority to inform our view of Genesis. I want to underscore this point by demonstrating other places where Paul does this again – where he makes a point critical to Christian theology which is not necessarily evident in a first-pass, one-context reading of the OT. In Hebrews 9, Paul (if you want to debate it’s Paul, that’s fine: start a new thread) spends half of the 28 verses in this chapter describing the work in the temple that the priest did for the sins of the people. But he then takes the detail of that work and says

Heb 9: 23Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

In this, Paul says that what was imperfect but present in the Old Covenant is manifest and made clear in the New Covenant.

Moreover, in Heb 1, Paul says this:
Heb 1: 7Of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire."

8But of the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."

10And,
"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end."

Now think on that: no Jew would look at these passages and deny that they are about God Almighty – but Paul here says, “wait: these are not just about God the Father, but implicitly about God the Son, the savior Jesus Christ” – and the Jew plainly would deny any such thing. If we take the approach that the passage in the OT can only mean what it meant to the Jew who first wrote it or first read it and not what Scripture itself reads the passage to mean in a later revelation, we are left without some of the greatest passages on Christology in the NT.

All of that is said to indicate that Paul is making a different application in Rom 9 than was made in Gen 25. That application can be summed up in a single phrase which he himself uses: “in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call”. That purpose of “election” was evident in the birth of Isaac (not in the birth of Ishmael), and was made evident in the birth of Esau and Jacob.

“But,” comes the objection, “Aren’t Jacob and Esau types, or patriarchs, of two people? Doesn’t that indicate that God is electing nations and not individuals?” They certainly are patriarchs of two peoples. The problem is that Paul has already eliminated the idea that this patriarchical relationship is the basis of salvation, the basis of the promise: he has already said as much, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” Who is “Israel” here – the nation? No: it is [/i]Jacob.[/i] There can be little doubt that in v. 6 Paul is talking about the individual persons descended from one man (Jacob, who is called Israel {Gen 32}), as he is talking about the individual persons descended from one man in the conclusion of the sentence in v. 7 (Abraham).

God makes a promise to Abraham that is manifest in Isaac; God makes a promise to Isaac, and it is manifest (not in the son Isaac loved more, but) in Jacob – and God’s promise is not because of something Jacob did, but before either Jacob or Esau had done anything at all. Consider it, please: if Paul were talking about the election of the nation in Jacob, Paul would here be saying, “God chose Israel before the nation had done anything good or evil.” The reader must consider that Paul has already said, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”. Paul has already said that the fulfillment of God’s promise is not in every Jew but only in those who are Jews inwardly. If Paul is here asserting that His promises are fulfilled in all of the Jews – all those descended as a nation from Jacob – then he is simply ignoring or overturning what he has already said. Even if you stipulate that Paul is denying the corporate election of the Jews, you still have Paul overturning the principle of corporate and national election that is necessary for this to be about the election of the Gentiles as a group as well. It would make no sense to deny the corporate election of Jews, which is made clear in the text and then affirm corporate election for Gentiles, because the operative principle of corporate election itself is here denied!

The purpose of Paul so far is undeniable: to enumerate that God did not make a promise or an election of a “nation” in the sense that all the descendants of Abraham of Isaac were shoo-ins. Paul is saying that God’s promise is fulfilled in all who are of like faith to Abraham, Isaac and Israel. The text itself is an argument against corporate election, e.g. the election of nations? Because Paul is addressing an issue raised in the first six verses. The argument is not simply that God has saved the Jews and will also save the Gentiles: it is that the Jews are not saved by the law any more than the Gentiles are only condemned by the Law – but that God alone saves men apart from their works.

To somehow contrast this foundational principle of the faith to merely “God saved the Jews and now will save the Gentiles” overlooks the entire substance of Paul’s argument.

When we read that, Paul realizes there is an objection:

Rom 9: 14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?

Now why is that question evident? Why would Paul bring it up? It is because some Gentiles are saved? No: it is because some Jews are not saved. It is a reiteration of the theme in Rom 1-2-3 that man is not saved by his works, which Paul expands here to be that man is not saved by his father’s works, either. The book of Romans is a great revelation of the Gospel because it is consistent to exclude all man’s boasting in the face of God’s perfection. Man cannot be justified by what he does – because his work is unrighteous. Man also cannot be saved by what God promises to somebody else – righteousness is not a birthright. What Paul says in 9:13 is that God chooses those whom He will “love” by His own counsel and not by what man does to draw attention to himself. That is the basis of the question “is there injustice on God’s part?” -- not that God has somehow also saved the Gentiles, but that some of the sons of the patriarchs are not saved at all in spite of the promises made. In that, Paul continues:
By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Paul here underscores that it is strictly God’s prerogative to have mercy, and that man does not earn or deserve mercy. How does he do that? By referencing Gen 33:19, which I provide here in context:

17And the LORD said to Moses, "This very thing that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name." 18Moses said, "Please show me your glory." 19And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD.' And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live."
When God says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” is God saying something about any nation? Of course not: God is showing a particular mercy to a particular man for God’s own purpose. Juxtaposed against that is the example of Pharoah:
16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
On the one hand, God shows mercy to Moses, and on the other, God raises Pharoah up to demonstrate God’s power.

I’ll tell you from a personal standpoint that I cannot comprehend how anyone can read this passage and demand that it mean, “God only provides the opportunity to be saved, but man makes that possibility of salvation into an actual salvation.” This is unequivocal that what man chooses to do – by his will, by his exertion or work – has nothing to do with being saved: only God’s mercy – only God’s mercy – saves anyone.

In that, Paul knows exactly what the next objection from the listener must be:Who personally can resist the will of God? Now: why make that objection is Paul is only talking about nations here? Why worry “who” personally can resist the will of God if Paul’s argument so far is about nations and not about individuals? How does this question make any sense at all if Paul means, “What nation can resist his will”? An especially in the context of his reply:
20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?

Paul cannot be talking about corporate election if the thing making the objection is the personal individual.

Of course, the objection can come, “Well, Paul is talking to some person, right? Isn’t he just responding to the hypothetical reader just like anyone might in raising the objections to his point?”

I say: sure. It is possible if you do not read the rest of the verse:

Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"

Paul is here making it clear that the individual has objected, but that it is the individual that has been molded and is subject to God’s purpose.

Paul begins to transition away from talking about the nation of Israel and toward the individual in vv. 6-9. The whole point of those verses is actually that salvation is not a national experience. He says not all Jews are saved just because of their nationality. Each must be saved as an individual.

You will also notice that vv. 10-24 discuss individuals, not nations. Paul mentions Rebekah, Jacob, Esau, Moses and Pharaoh. God specifically addresses Pharaoh as an individual, not the nation of Egypt, saying “I raised you up for this very purpose” that I might harden you so my name might be proclaimed (v. 17). Despite the possible thrust of some of the Old Testament passages toward nations, it does not appear to be Paul’s meaning in this chapter. He does not specifically mention nations at any point.
And again, the “objects of mercy prepared beforehand for glory” are not nations. In v. 24, Paul actually explains that they refer to “us, whom he called.”

 

Regeneration and indwelling/sealing are not the same. You're begging the question here that they are one and the same event. Citing Ephesians 1:13 does not help you one bit, especially in light of I John 5:1.

Ephesians 1:13 is also being read in isolation. It says, "Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit." Indeed, but again, what about context?. There are other verses which seem to qualify this one. Ironically in the context of the same passage two verses earlier it reads, "... also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will." (Eph 1: 11) Verse five even says, "In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved...." You see, these verses, in the same context, teach that the grace of God preceded our faith. Freely bestowed means "without conditions" or not because of something He was responding to in us like foreknowledge of our choice ... rather the text says that it was according to God's good pleasure alone. You would have thought Paul was clear enough in this passage leading up to belief, but God's free grace seems to be casually overlooked by many. (Hendryx).

If regeneration occurs is the result of faith, then regeneration is result of works too resulting in regeneration by works, especially since you equate salvation/justification and regeneration!:

The most literal reading of 1 John 5:1 is "every one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (perfect passive, "has been born of the agency of God...not the agency of man...the agency of God...man is passive, not active in the voice of the verb, indicative mood, this is a real action, a fact, an actuality, not a hypothetical, potential, theoretical, or rhetorical action). When verbs are passive, that means the object of the verb is being acted upon by another. The person believing (pres. active indic.) that Jesus is the Christ (or all that are believing or each one or every one believing...) has been born of God. Now, this alone is not enough to conclude, in my opinion, that regeneration precedes faith. Simply, it would be eisegesis to draw any conclusion from this verse if this verse was alone. It is, however, not alone. Grammatically and contextually, 1 John 2:29 is an exact parallel from which we conclude that practicing righteousness is a result of the new birth.

1 John 5:1 is also used by Arminians to assert the truth of regeneration through faith.

However, that would require an active or at least middle voice verb. Middle voice is extremely rare in koine. In fact, middle voice is usually the last grammatical choice when parsing a verb form. We tend to find active or passive verbs. I know of nobody that looks at 5:1 or 2:29 and says gegennhtai is middle voice. It is most definitely passive.

Now, keep in mind, the verb "to be born," gegennhtai, e.g. is born of Him, is passive. They did not cause their own birth. God caused their birth. Just as John 6:37 says those who are given to Christ by the Father come to Him. "All that the Father gives me will come to me." There is not an exception to this. We come after being given by the Father to Christ. I believe, by comparing this with the construction of 1 John 2:29...same author, same topic, same letter, same theme, same grammatical construction, we have overwhelming evidence that regeneration precedes faith, unless, of course, we believe in salvation by works, which, I would hope no Protestant would believe.

My question is, "Is this consistent?" Yes, it most certainly is consistent.

Look at 2:29. "If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him." Now, we're not Catholic, and, consistently, we all agree that righteousness is a product of the new birth, e.g. regeneration results in righteousness in the life of the believer. This means that in 1 John 5:1, "believing" in Jesus as the Christ is the result of being born of Him. Why? Because it is inconsistent to say otherwise. Why reverse the logical/temporal order? Nothing in the text demands it. In order to reverse the order and argue for an asymmetrical parallel, one must find something within the text that would lead one to do that. That evidence simply is not there. Let's look more closely at the grammatical constructions of the two clauses under our scrutiny:

2:29 "everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him."

and

5:1 a "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God."

Literally,

Every one practicing righteousness has been born of Him (God)

paV o poiwn thn dikaiosunhn ex autou gegennhtai

Every one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (Him).

paV o pisteuwn oti IhsouV estin o cristoV ek tou qeou gegennhtai

See the grammatical parallel is exactly parallel. In Greek it is also exactly parallel. Therefore, we are certainly and undeniably dealing with one of John's parallel statements.

The verbal constructions are exactly parallel. Again, going back to the Greek, we can see that "everyone who practices righteousness" is a present participle. In 5:1, the one believing is also a present participle.

So we have:

Every one practicing righteousness
present participle

has been born of Him (God)

and

Every one believing that Jesus is the Christ
present participle

has been born of God (Him)

Thus, as you can see, we have different verbs, same verb forms.

In both passages the same verb for "to be born," gegennhtai is used and the form is the exact same form, perfect passive . (In fact, exegetically, this is the very reason we teach from this verse that righteousness is a result of being born again).

So we have:

Every one practicing righteousness
present participle

has been born of Him (God)
perfect passive

and

Every one believing that Jesus is the Christ
present participle

has been born of God (Him)
perfect passive

Thus, as you can see, we have different verbs, same verb forms, and same verb, same verb forms. Whenever there is that exact a grammatical parallel, we generally conclude the relationships between the verbs/ideas expressed are the same or similar, unless there is some other warrant within the text to do so. In this case, I do not see any such textual/contextual warrant.

Thus, the question the Arminian must answer, is simply "Why do you reverse the logical/temporal relationships between faith and regeneration?" Does not exegesis determine theology? It seems to me the only reason one concludes that this verse somehow proves the concept that regeneration is the result of faith is one thing, tradition, a theological presuppostion. Say what one will about the Reformed position, with regard to this text, the conclusion we reach concerning the logical/temporal order that regeneration precedes faith is derived from consistent exegesis of these texts. One simply can not lay charge to exegeting our tradition into these texts.

Both groups teach, as Protestants, from 2:29 that practicing righteousness is a result of being born again. On this there is no dispute. We do teach this. Every pastor, teacher, and seminary professor I have ever heard has taught in part using 1 John 2:29 that practicing righteousness is the result of being born again. Since practicing righteousness is, indeed, one of the tests for a true believer that John lays out in this epistle, since he is dealing with Gnostic/Judaizer hybrids that were not practicing righteousness, we have more than sufficient warrant to do this. Also, another one of the tests John lays out is the test of faith in Jesus as the Christ, e.g. believing. Again, there is no soteriological or exegetical dispute from either party about this. We know that John is saying here that practicing righteousness is a result of the new birth, (which we call "regeneration" in theological jargon), because his point is to put this forth as a test by which his readers can know a true Christian, one who is not a mere professor of Christ, but a true convert, a true disciple of our Lord. In other words, if he was not saying that practicing righteousness is the result of regeneration, e.g. being born again, the statement would be meaningless as a test for assurance of our own salvation or the validity of another's profession of faith.

However, one group teaches, from this text, 5:1, that being born again is the result of believing. The other group, using consistent exegesis, teaches that the believing is a result of regeneration, again, because the test John has laid out is just that, e.g. faith in Christ is proof that one is regenerate. In short, the grammatical constructions does not allow for the assertion that regeneration is the result of faith. It supports conclusively regeneration preceding faith, for, if practicing righteousness is the result of being born again, then believing in Jesus as the Christ is the result of being born again, particularly if one looks at 2:29 and believes, as we both do, that practicing righteousness is a result of regeneration. The language simply can not support the theological conclusion that regeneration results from faith, particularly from this text.

If we conclude a logical and even temporal order from 2:29 in the relationship between the practice of righteousness in the true believers life and regeneration (which we all do), then we have every right to draw the same conclusion regarding the relationship between believing that Jesus is the Christ and regeneration from the corresponding verse, 5:1, particularly when John is using this statement as a test for personal assurance and a test for fellowship. We know we are born again because we believe. We know others are born again, because they believe. Why? Because believing is the result of the new birth, just as practicing righteousness is also the result of the new birth. If we say that believing causes the new birth, then we must necessarily conclude, if we are going to consistent, that practicing righteousness is also a cause of the new birth. Such a statement would rightly be quickly condemned as false teaching.

Why then does the Arminian hold to this position? T R A D I T I O N. If one clearly and unequivocably draws a conclusion regarding the logical and temporal order from 2:29, then consistency demands one draw the same conclusion regarding the logical and temporal order expressed in 5:1. Even if one does not draw such a conclusion, per se, from those texts, it is certain that one reads a logical, temporal order in 2:29. Again, there is no reason, other than the satisfaction of your own soteriological system which you must bring to the text, to insert a reversed order into 5:1, when the linguisitic and therefore exegetical parallel is exactly the same.

Another objection one might make is "Regeneration is the result of saving faith, but John is not talking about saving faith here, he is talking about persevering faith, e.g. continuing faith, and we have no qualm that continuing, persevering faith is a result of regeneration." Again, then, that does nothing to support the theological contention that regeneration is the result of saving faith. In fact, it removes one of the proof texts, in fact one of the major ones, Arminians use to make that very assertion. That too, then, would be the readiing of the text done in order to satisfy one's theological presuppostions, nothing more.

The question then becomes, "Is this 'saving' faith?" I believe it is, because the object of the faith is the person of Jesus as the Christ, which we know is the key proposition one must believe in order to be justified by the agency of faith. There is nothing in this text that indicates otherwise, and I do not find any evidence in Scripture that saving faith is anything less than an ongoing action. In fact, the participle "believing ones" in John 3:16, pisteuwnv, which we all agree has is "saving faith," is the same form as here, pisteuwnv Moreover, this believing is put forth as a test for knowing if an individual is, in fact, saved, e.g. justified. One that is believing, e.g. in possession of and exercising "saving faith," e.g. believing Jesus Christ is born again, has been born again; e.g. does so because one has been born again. In the same way, one that is practicing righteousness is doing so as a result of being born again. Regeneration precedes practicing righteousness. Regeneration precedes saving faith. Grammatically, I see no warrant, and contextually I see no warrant in this epistle for concluding otherwise in 5:1.

Thus, the most consistent exegesis is the one that sees both believing (which both sides of the debate agree is referring to saving faith as well as "everyday faith by which we live" in the way John uses it in this epistle) and righteousness is the result of being born again, (regeneration). The Reformed view on this verse is the most exegetically consistent position, therefore, I do believe that, in context, yes, we can use it to conclude believing that Jesus is the Christ (that thing which is the agency through which we are justified) is the result of the new birth (regeneration) and not vice versa, most especially if we are going to use 2:29 to teach that practicing righteousness is a result of the new birth, e.g. regeneration.

Still have problems? Well, let's peer into Johanine exegesis some more:

Also look at John 6:37.

"All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Again, we have another construction from which we conclude that there is a temporal order being taught. The Father gives to the Son. Those that come will not be cast out, and as v.39 teaches, they will all be raised up on the last day.

Do you believe that there is insufficient information there to conclude the logical / temporal order between the Father giving and those coming? The action of the Father comes before the action of coming to Christ by the individual. It comes before the raising of those persons by Christ. Christ saves them and raises them because they come and because the Father has given them to Him. Is this not a set of clauses that are dependent upon each other for their logical and temporal order. Are they not executed in their grammatical order?

Likewise 6:44 is a similar construction. While we may disagree about the effectiveness of the drawing, I do not think that either of us will dispute that Jesus is very clear that any person that comes to Christ does so because He is drawn by the Father. Surely, 6:44 is sufficient to teach that much! The Remonstrants in the Opinions certainly agreed.

1 John 4:7 presents another test for regeneracy does it not?

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves (Greek: pas ho agapwn) is born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)

Do you agree that there is sufficient textual warrant for concluding that the person that loving (every one who loves) does so, because one is born of God and knows God? By definition, "regeneration" itself is defined as "being born again, being born of God." I know of no text in systematic theology that defines it otherwise. If you are going to say that there is insufficient textual evidence that John's intent is not to teach that regeneration does not precede faith, you must also conclude from all these texts:

There is insufficient textual evidence to conclude that (a) drawing precedes coming, (b) believing precedes being raised again, (c) giving precedes coming and being raised again, (d) regeneration precedes works, and (e) loving the brethren precedes regeneration. In none of these instances does any of the texts support such a contention.

John has a very specific style. He writes in parallel constructions and spells out the relationships between them. John 8:43 is very clear:

Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.

First, note: "Why do you not understand what I am saying?" It is because you cannot hear My word. This is stated verbatim. Jesus says there is a logical and causal relationship between their ability to understand and hearing. They do not understand [/i]because of their inability to hear. Their inability is the reason they can not hear. This is, logically, causal because it occurs in time and not abstractly, and the only difference between "reason" and "cause" is the temporal actuality: one is of abstraction, the other is in practice. John then parallels this with:

8:47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.

John writes a grammatical construction exactly like I John 2:29, 5:1, and 4:7! He first spells out, verbatim, the causal relationship between ability to hear and understanding in v. 43 and endcaps with v.47's end that says "for this reason..." "He who is of God, hears the words of God." for this reason, you do not hear them, because you are not of God. There is a logical, temporal, causal relationship, verbatim. How much more clear could he be?

Again, 1 John 2:29, 4:7, and 5:1 also are this same construction:

He who is of God hears the words of God.

They hear because they are "of God."

You do not hear them because you are not of God

They do not hear because they are not of God

Everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.

They practice righteousness because they are born again.

Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.

They love because they are born again and know God.

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.

They believe because they are born again.

Though 6:44 is not as exact a parallel, we conclude a direct causal relationship between drawing and coming to Christ from that text. Those that come come because they are drawn.

It would be meaningless for us to say, "They hear because they are of God but being of God is not logically/temporally antecedent to hearing. It would be meaningless for us to say, "They practice righteousness because they are born again, but regeneration is not antecedent to practicing righteousness. It would be meaningless for us to say, "They love because they are regenerate, but there is not logical/temporal order to loving the brethren and regeneration. It would be meaningless to say "They believe because they are born again," but the logical and temporal relationships are inverse. It would reverse the meaning of 6:44 to say they are drawn because they come. Why be drawn if they can come and are coming? Causal relationships depend on their logical / temporal order. Exegesis determines this order for all of these. There is no reason to draw one conclusion from three of these but not the fourth, unless you have a theological tradition you are trying to satisfy.

Therefore, not only is there a logical and temporal order, there is a causal relationship between regeneration and practicing righteousness, loving the brethren, and believing. Regeneration precedes and is the cause each activity. Works does not result in regeneration. Love is the result of regeneration, and believing is the result of regeneration. Regeneration precedes faith. 1 John 5:1 is clear. If faith precedes and causes regeneration, so must love and so must works!

[ February 21, 2005, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

Now why did you not say that a long time ago Wes. I'll take that as code for you don't have an answer then?

johnp.

 

okay, this is a lot to go through, so I'll get as far as I can now.

I'm not arguing that foreknow is a noun. It is a verb that is based upon being able to see our end from the beginning.

Great idea, but unprovable by Scripture. Not only does he foreknow everything about you and me, but he knows how tall mountains are going to be, the flight pattern of a tse-tse fly, etc.

Exactly. Are you not arguing my point here? God's choosing can be active, convental and solitary and still be based upon what you and I freely choose. I think we're agreeing on this point, but disagreeing on something else. Our choice doesn't force God's hand, per se, but falls exactly in line with the rules that God has creates.

Exactly - God doesn't enable you, thus you have no shot at salvation. God does enable you, thus you have no shot at saying no. Trying to "spin" this doesn't make it not true.

It's wonderful, but go back to where it comes from. This is NOT a salvation passage in the OT.

Jacob and Esau are still refered to as singular, and all throughout Scripture we see where singular nouns can refer to the corporate (see Malachi 1:2-4 again.)

Pharaoah, of course, is Egypt, who God raised up to hold the Israelites in captivity.

The reality is that "Egypt" fits the meaning of the passage much better than "Pharaoh" does, espcially understanding anything about Egyptian culture. Pharoah WAS Egypt.

Again, not a problem, God is merciful to those who choose Him. This passage in no way says that God somehow is merciful independent of anything else.

In other words, I don't like one view of the Scripture that shows that Calvinism is false, so I'll go out of my way to put words in Paul's mouth to try to interpret the OT using another way. That's called eisegesis.

But the problem is that you're not just saying that the passage related to Christ as well (especially since he is, indeed, God); you are rewriting the OT passage to make your view of salvation "fit." Considering the context of the entire book of Romans, it is still clear that the Calvinist is using eisegesis to prove his or her point.

But the "election" that is talked about is clearly seen in Malachi 1. That's like taking the premise and the conclusion, and re-writing it so that the conclusion fits your purposes. That's not what the Bible is about.

Which is why the more that he is defining who has been chosen for salvation.

Israel was chosen, but not all Israelites were believers. In the same way, the Gentiles are now given the choice to follow Christ, yet not all Gentiles are believers.

Paul's entire argument takes up around 11 chapters.

Why not? It's pretty simple, and there are a myriad of theologians who agree.

Paul is developing hypothetical questions that his mostly Jewish audience would have asked. What if "O man" refers back to Paul and is a hypothetical question as Paul uses many, many times in Romans and in other writings?

Incorrect again - the two are not mutually exclusive?

And your problem here is that Jeremiah 18 clearly shows that the vessel has a free will in the matter. Even if God calls judgement upon a nation (there we go - nation again), they can choose to repent, and then God will not bring the judgement that he has promised. His decision is based upon the choice of the nation.

[quoteDespite the possible thrust of some of the Old Testament passages toward nations, it does not appear to be Paul’s meaning in this chapter. He does not specifically mention nations at any point.[/quote]

It's EXACTLY what he's talking about; all one has to do is examine the OT references.

Yes - "us" as a group. The Christians.

 

why do you keep me in the dark then?

johnp.