Decisional JUSTIFICATION - Sovereign SANCTIFICATION

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, are they chosen, then called?

Yes. Chosen in eternity past (Eph 1:4; 2 Thess 2:13); called in time.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Not much difference is there?

Yes, there is a significant difference.

"Many are called; but few are chosen."

DOesn't deal with salvation as we are talking about it here.

The ones that are chosen are the ones that believe.

True, but in Scripture they believe because they are chosen.

Salvation is by faith and faith alone.

Spoken like a true Calvinist.

Effectual calling is just another term for God's grace which can be rejected.

No it's not. When I, as a Calvinist, tell you what effectual calling is, don't pretend that you as a non-Calvinist who doesn't believe it anyway knows better than I do. I may not know much, but I do know what I believe.

God cannot force anyone to be saved. It is against His nature to do so.

Again, spoken like a true Calvinist.

Does man make a decision to be saved? Yes he does. And it is his own decision.

Absolutely ... again, spoken like a true Calvinist. But why does he make that decision? Because he was chosen and given a new nature by God.

I don't follow after a man's system of theology, and therefore refuse to be boxed in by one man's system of theology.

Then you and I have something in common, as do most Calvinists. I don't know of any Calvinists who follow a man.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Kinda takes "decisional justification" right out of the equation for you, then, doesn't it?

I am not familiar with "decisional justification."

I would guess by that profession that you had no choice and no "hand" in becoming a pastor?

You would guess wrong.

But the conscience isn't totally hardened all at once, is it.

Nope, it isn't.

Every new sin is another new denial of God saying you should do good and not sin.

Basically yes.

And of course, all this leaves out the case in which one has resisted the gospel 1000 times and then on the 1001st time, believes. What happened there? God suddenly "elected" or "regenerated" an "elect" saint whom He wouldn't regenerate 15 years ago? What does that tell you?

That God works the way God wants to work for his own glory.

PL, I'm not going to badger you anymore.

You're not badgering me. I walk away when I get tired of it and come back sometimes.

Your truth is quite obviously good enough for you. What's true for me obviously doesn't apply to you.

There is no "true for me/true for you." Truth is truth and we are required by God to submit to it whatever it is.

 

[skypair]

I am not familiar with "decisional justification."

I guess you didn't read the earlier posts. The OP was in response to the "Decisional Regeneration" thread (As you can see, my thought is "Decisional Justification -- Sovereign Sanctification"). My hypothesis -- in fact, my theology -- is that we must choose to be justified with God before we are saved/elect and regenerated.

My theology is that this is so plain in the OT where there was no "regeneration." Regeneration to them would have meant resurrection from the dead, Mt 10:28. Thus, the way to salvation is first, being declared righteous in Christ thereby being reconciled to God -- or what we call justified -- having our "dead" souls revived and "perfected."

The line of reasoning is that the ordo saludis is justification - sanctification - glorification. However, Calvies start the ordo with sanctification, with indwelling of the Spirit/regeneration which misses a step in the ordo saludis.

I suppose they do this by maintaining that someone who is "elect" is already reconciled to God because God chose them and, therefore, has given or bestowed on them His righteousness therein.

I've been "pushing" this all along, PL, that we must be saved soul, spirit, and body. If the soul dies on acount of sin (Ezek 18:20), then it would seem clear that the soul would have to be reconciled and in some kind of relationship to God before He would indwell it. It would also seem that it having been us who broke the relationship in sin, it would need to be us who turns back to the relationship whereby we may be indwelt. That's the "decisional justification" half of thread title.

The "Sovereign Sanctification" is classic Calvinist -- we are given faith, Holy Spirit indwelling, eternal life, etc. sovereignly by God. We are also given into Christ's kingdom, the church, for sanctification through discipleship or "being reconciled to God, we are much more saved by His life." Rom 5:10 (which concept, as I recall, you don't like but there it is -- justified, then sanctified).

Anyway, since I'm up I thought I would give the whole briefing since there are parts you appear to have missed.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

I guess you didn't read the earlier posts. The OP was in response to the "Decisional Regeneration" thread (As you can see, my thought is "Decisional Justification -- Sovereign Sanctification"). My hypothesis -- in fact, my theology -- is that we must choose to be justified with God before we are saved/elect and regenerated.

I am familiar with decisional regeneration. I think the term is confusing. But your bolded statement is incorrect on several counts. First "saved/elect" is, as you know (or at least should know), an incorrect equation. You have been shown over and over again that Scripture never equates election and salvation. So you should stop equating them and bring your views into line with Scripture. Second, Scripture makes plain that election is in eternity past and therefore before you were alive and before any choice could be made. So election cannot be based on man's decision.

My theology is that this is so plain in the OT where there was no "regeneration." Regeneration to them would have meant resurrection from the dead, Mt 10:28. Thus, the way to salvation is first, being declared righteous in Christ thereby being reconciled to God -- or what we call justified -- having our "dead" souls revived and "perfected."

There was regeneration in the OT because regeneratino is giving spiritual life to the spiritually dead. Jesus in John 3 says that a teacher of the OT should have known about regeneration. Matthew 10:28 has nothing to do this topic, howerver.

The line of reasoning is that the ordo saludis is justification - sanctification - glorification. However, Calvies start the ordo with sanctification, with indwelling of the Spirit/regeneration which misses a step in the ordo saludis.

I have never seen a Calvinist start the ordo with sanctification. Most start with election, and all that I have ever seen have the middle order as "justification-sanctification-glorification." So on this, I think you are simply misinformed.

I suppose they do this by maintaining that someone who is "elect" is already reconciled to God because God chose them and, therefore, has given or bestowed on them His righteousness therein.

You suppose wrongly. I have never seen a Calvinist do this. Election is not reconciliation to God. They are two different things in Scripture.

If the soul dies on acount of sin (Ezek 18:20), then it would seem clear that the soul would have to be reconciled and in some kind of relationship to God before He would indwell it. It would also seem that it having been us who broke the relationship in sin, it would need to be us who turns back to the relationship whereby we may be indwelt. That's the "decisional justification" half of thread title.

I don't know anyone who would dispute this, at least as I understand what you have said. We must turn from sin to the Savior. We must choose that. As you should know, the discussion is about why some choose and others do not.

The "Sovereign Sanctification" is classic Calvinist -- we are given faith, Holy Spirit indwelling, eternal life, etc. sovereignly by God.

I don't think this makes much sense.

 

[skypair]

There was regeneration in the OT because regeneratino is giving spiritual life to the spiritually dead. Jesus in John 3 says that a teacher of the OT should have known about regeneration. Matthew 10:28 has nothing to do this topic, howerver.

Not only did he not know about it, the 12 disciples didn't know about it until Christ died. And beyond that, the disciples of John the Baptist didn't know about it in Acts 19! Regeneration is giving of life by the Spirit. In OT parlance, He would be given to raise them from the dead postrib. In NT parlance, it means we are given "the washing of regeneration" when we believe.

I have never seen a Calvinist start the ordo with sanctification. Most start with election,...

OK, makes my point then. Because "election" is sanctification of our lives on earth whether by leading of the Spirit, ministry, discipleship, etc. --- the process by which we are given the "mind of Christ." So it appears to me that "election" operates as a substitute for or an ommission among Calvinists for "justification" (which is reconciliation with God). Perhaps you could tell me about justification as you see it in the ordo saludis -- when it happens relative to regeneration for instance. And does it mean something other than what I describe?

I'll give you a break, though. You may not have any idea of how justification works if 1) you never before thought of it as reviving the soul and 2) if you never had a concrete idea as to how it differs from sanctification which is of the spirit.

You suppose wrongly. I have never seen a Calvinist do this. Election is not reconciliation to God. They are two different things in Scripture.

OK, so reconciliation is just missing as a step preceding sanctification? Cause I can see how God would give the Spirit to His own child but I can't see how He would do so before the child knows he/she is a child.

I don't know anyone who would dispute this, at least as I understand what you have said. We must turn from sin to the Savior. We must choose that.

So we do choose Christ? That is a decision we can make?

I don't think this makes much sense.

Granted, "sovereign sanctification" is a new term but it encompasses all the things that God alone does in salvation which is right up the Calvinist's "alley." I thought you would recognize it and, recognizing it, would say, "Yeah, we do start there or with election in the ordo saludis." (If you were strict Calvinist or Reform, anyway). But I don't want to go making accusations.

skypair

 

[MB]

Hi Sky;
Tell me what's the difference is between works for Salvation and it being all of God?
The reason I have to ask is that you don't seem to understand that Salvation is all of God. If so then no matter what man's decision is towards believing in Jesus Christ man's thoughts or decisions just do not matter. If man believes the doctrine of Jesus Christ it is not because man decided to, but because the man has been convinced by God's work.

You stand on;
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

This is true every word of it. We must believe but it's how we come to believe that is the work of God. If you decide to believe then it is no more a work of God, but your own work.

You seem to disagree with scripture and it says very plainly;
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

To say that you are saved because you chose to believe makes scripture wrong and we both know scripture is not wrong. We may not fully understand it but it is never wrong.
Salvation is not by decision of our will.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Belief being the work of God; How is it we can claim that we decided to believe? Our belief is not our work but God's work. Can you do God's work before you believe? In order that you can make such a decision?
MB

 

[skypair]

Hi Sky;
Tell me what's the difference is between works for Salvation and it being all of God?
The reason I have to ask is that you don't seem to understand that Salvation is all of God. If so then no matter what man's decision is towards believing in Jesus Christ man's thoughts or decisions just do not matter. If man believes the doctrine of Jesus Christ it is not because man decided to, but because the man has been convinced by God's work.

Well, I hope I can clear it up for you. raying:

First, I notice that you preface everything with "all of God." Then you go on to say that man doesn't "decide" to believe although man must be "convinced." Why would he need convincing if he doesn't need to decide anything? The simple truth of the matter is you are trying to apply "all of God" (false premise) to an illogical grid rendered illogical by the assumption of your false premise.

Of course, men need to decide or choose to believe! If they don't choose to believe then they remain in unbelief. Of course, the Holy Spirit has to convince them! That is what preaching is for. God has provided all "rescue gear" and thrown it out where we can reach it. We need to realize the direness of our straights and grab hold of what God has provided.

I'm sure you have heard this illustration of "all of God:" "God not only throws the lifesaver out to you but jumps in the water, puts you in it, and hauls you out of danger." Well, if He was going to do it that way, He wouldn't need a Lifesaver -- He could just swim out and pull you back with Him. That's, in a nutshell, why "all of God" is wrong. The way God has designed it, YOU have to grab the Lifesaver.

If you decide to believe then it is no more a work of God, but your own work.

Again you are explaining a logical situation so it fits into the context of an unfounded assumption.

You seem to disagree with scripture and it says very plainly;
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

No, I don't disagree. GRACE is the gift of God. It is given, as the verse says, "through faith." That is, through OUR faith/belief. Saving grace and it's accompanying gifts are never present where there is no belief -- decision to believe and trust.

We may not fully understand it but it is never wrong. .

There is the key to our difference, isn't it.

Salvation is not by decision of our will.

Salvation is the outcome of a positive decision to believe. But the decision is whether we believe the gospel and whether we will repent to God from our sin. Now it's not that salvation is not a consideration that helps convince us. But it is not the primary issue as being declared righteous before God is. If we get reconciled to God, we know where that "path" leads.

Belief being the work of God; How is it we can claim that we decided to believe? Our belief is not our work but God's work. Can you do God's work before you believe? In order that you can make such a decision?

God's work is to convince, as you said. Our work is to choose between the options we see. Many people who hear the gospel believe it but think that maybe there is another way that this church is not telling me about. Believing this idea that one can believe but not "do" constitutes another way, IMO. Salvation is "sealed with a kiss," if you will. How many does it take to kiss? TWO, right? :thumbs: Each choosing to kiss the other.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Not only did he not know about it, the 12 disciples didn't know about it until Christ died. And beyond that, the disciples of John the Baptist didn't know about it in Acts 19! Regeneration is giving of life by the Spirit.

You are correct about the definition, but incorrect about who knew about it. The fact is that Jesus remarks on the incredulity of an OT teacher not knowing about regeneration. Jesus indicates that he should have known about it from the OT.

Because "election" is sanctification of our lives on earth

Not in the Bible it isn't. YOu don't get to redefine words. Election is never sanctification. Election is to salvation.

You may not have any idea of how justification works if 1) you never before thought of it as reviving the soul and 2) if you never had a concrete idea as to how it differs from sanctification which is of the spirit.

I am well aware of how justification works. I don't need a break from you on it. What we need is for you to get your theology from Scripture.

OK, so reconciliation is just missing as a step preceding sanctification?

No. Reconciliation is covered in justification which is before sanctification in the Ordo.

Cause I can see how God would give the Spirit to His own child but I can't see how He would do so before the child knows he/she is a child.

So did you give things to your child before he or she knew she was a child? I have a two year old and one on the way and have given and will continue to give to my children things before they know they are children.

So we do choose Christ? That is a decision we can make?

It is a decision we can make after God gives the new nature. Reading MB, he is kind of equivocating on the definition of "decision" but he is saying the same thing.

Granted, "sovereign sanctification" is a new term but it encompasses all the things that God alone does in salvation which is right up the Calvinist's "alley." I thought you would recognize it and, recognizing it, would say, "Yeah, we do start there or with election in the ordo saludis." (If you were strict Calvinist or Reform, anyway). But I don't want to go making accusations.

From what you have said here, I don't think any Calvinist would agree with you. I don't agree with what you say because it simply isn't in the Bible.

 

[MB]

Well, I hope I can clear it up for you. raying:

First, I notice that you preface everything with "all of God." Then you go on to say that man doesn't "decide" to believe although man must be "convinced." Why would he need convincing if he doesn't need to decide anything?

Once convinced there is no decision if that man is
thoroughly convinced. Once convinced you already believe we do not decide to become convinced. After belief all there is ,is submission. Submission is the result of defeat. In that your reasons for rebellion have been defeated.

The simple truth of the matter is you are trying to apply "all of God" (false premise) to an illogical grid rendered illogical by the assumption of your false premise.

Tell me then, is this passage wrong?
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

By making a decision to choose between Salvation and rebellion you claim works for Salvation. You claim that you chose to believe when this is a works based belief. Here is why. It is work to believe because it is God's work. Even though it is you who has decided to do so. Can you deny that you believe because you chose to? and if so can you prove that believing is not a work? If you can't then you have to admit that you believe in works for Salvation.
There is no difference between this and believing you have to give up or surrender all. You believe the latter is works for Salvation as well, what's the difference? None I can see.

Of course, men need to decide or choose to believe! If they don't choose to believe then they remain in unbelief. Of course, the Holy Spirit has to convince them! That is what preaching is for. God has provided all "rescue gear" and thrown it out where we can reach it. We need to realize the direness of our straights and grab hold of what God has provided.

Tell me is being convinced believing? If so when did you decide to become convinced?

I'm sure you have heard this illustration of "all of God:" "God not only throws the lifesaver out to you but jumps in the water, puts you in it, and hauls you out of danger." Well, if He was going to do it that way, He wouldn't need a Lifesaver -- He could just swim out and pull you back with Him. That's, in a nutshell, why "all of God" is wrong. The way God has designed it, YOU have to grab the Lifesaver.

Wrong according to scripture. You admit your saving your self. It's all of God because scripture says so.

Again you are explaining a logical situation so it fits into the context of an unfounded assumption.

Your arguing against scripture. You are denying the truth of scripture to hang on to what you believe is your part of Salvation. When you haven't a part in it.

No, I don't disagree. GRACE is the gift of God. It is given, as the verse says, "through faith." That is, through OUR faith/belief. Saving grace and it's accompanying gifts are never present where there is no belief -- decision to believe and trust.

The grace is the gift of the faith you claim as your own. If you have to work for it, it is no longer a gift. Nor is it undeserved. The gift becomes your due salary for doing the work. Like I said works for Salvation.

There is the key to our difference, isn't it.

Key? Grace isn't the gift talked about but is Salvation and the faith needed to believe. Which is why it isn't our decision. Both faith and Salvation are the gift.

Salvation is the outcome of a positive decision to believe. But the decision is whether we believe the gospel and whether we will repent to God from our sin. Now it's not that salvation is not a consideration that helps convince us. But it is not the primary issue as being declared righteous before God is. If we get reconciled to God, we know where that "path" leads.

Sadly you still miss it. Being convinced is believing Believing is not Salvation because.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Those who hold the truth in unrighteousness are those who have not submitted to the righteousness of God. Submission is the result of the defeat of our rebellion. When we submit we give up because of our conviction. What we give up is our rebellion. This is called repentance and yes repentance requires a decision. A decision to give up the rebellion.

God's work is to convince, as you said. Our work is to choose between the options we see. Many people who hear the gospel believe it but think that maybe there is another way that this church is not telling me about. Believing this idea that one can believe but not "do" constitutes another way, IMO. Salvation is "sealed with a kiss," if you will. How many does it take to kiss? TWO, right? :thumbs: Each choosing to kiss the other.

skypair

We still disagree about options.
The options I see are to rebel or not.
Your's is to be saved or not.
Mine is being saved by God and your's is being saved by your decisions.
You will never be able to justify the saving of yourself by yourself. Neither could I.
MB

 

[skypair]

The fact is that Jesus remarks on the incredulity of an OT teacher not knowing about regeneration. Jesus indicates that he should have known about it from the OT.

Jesus incredulity was that Nicodemus didn't realize that the "resurrection of the just," the "regeneration," was the "born again" experience of the OT Jews.

Not in the Bible it isn't. YOu don't get to redefine words. Election is never sanctification. Election is to salvation.

Well, that is the issue, isn't it. We can both show that it is God's choosing -- we just can't show one another "choosing to what."

No. Reconciliation is covered in justification which is before sanctification in the Ordo.

Well thank you. Now maybe we can discuss how we get reconciled/justified.

So did you give things to your child before he or she knew she was a child? I have a two year old and one on the way and have given and will continue to give to my children things before they know they are children.

Well, congratulations! :godisgood: And here I thought you were an "old man!" Why you're probably younger than my misguided assoc. pastor nephew! :laugh:

Now do you mean before they were born? That's really tough, PL. I had things ready to give them -- a football, a college education, etc. Was I able to give it to them? No. Not in any sense that they understood what I was doing.

It is a decision we can make after God gives the new nature. Reading MB, he is kind of equivocating on the definition of "decision" but he is saying the same thing.

Yeah, that's "after God sanctifies us with the Holy Spirit while we are yet sinners," then we can decide, right? Decide what? What's left to decide if we are already saved?

Just be advised, FWIW, the way you describe it that is a "career" decision, strictly temporal. I'm really having a hard time convincing myself that embarking on the "life of Christ" is going to justify one with God like choosing to die with Him will. But maybe that's just me.

From what you have said here, I don't think any Calvinist would agree with you. I don't agree with what you say because it simply isn't in the Bible.

Yeah -- I just dreamt it up last night, PL. Did I tell you about the turnip truck I just fell off of?

I'll say it again -- you gotta choose to be justified "in Christ" and then God will SOVEREIGNLY give you sancitification. If you start with the Holy Spirit indwelling/regeneration, your theology done missed the point of the gospel.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, that is the issue, isn't it. We can both show that it is God's choosing -- we just can't show one another "choosing to what."

Now, I am goign to ask the BB this question...which is true...the above statement, or

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

First, we need to admit that the statements are contrary to one another. On the one hand skypair says it can't be shown what God is choosing. On the other hand the Scripture plainly teaches God has chosen "brethren beloved" to salvation through sanctification.

I go with 2 Thess 2:13. How about you?

RB

 

[skypair]

Once convinced there is no decision if that man is thoroughly convinced. Once convinced you already believe we do not decide to become convinced.

Oh? It's NOT up to us to decide whether we believe something or not? Do you detect a flaw in your reasoning as PL has yet??

After belief all there is ,is submission. Submission is the result of defeat. In that your reasons for rebellion have been defeated.

It is work to believe because it is God's work even though it is you who has decided to do so.

See what I mean. You deny that decision is involved and yet here you say that it is us that has to decide. And then you compound your error by saying that beleiving is a "work" when Rom 4:5 says otherwise.

There is no difference between this and believing you have to give up or surrender all. You believe the latter is works for Salvation as well, what's the difference? None I can see.

I DO see that as a "condition" of salvation. I do not say that belief is a "work."

Tell me is being convinced believing? If so when did you decide to become convinced?

Being convinced is believing -- repenting (surrender, if you will) toward God is "authentication" of belief and justification/reconciliation before God.

You admit your saving your self. It's all of God because scripture says so.

Do I say I can save myself without God's Provision? I don't think so.

If you have to work for it, it is no longer a gift.

What are you talking about "gift?" "The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life." What? To just anybody?? No, MB -- to BELIEVERS!!! to SONS!!! How can you keep denying that there is a condition you MUST meet?? Acts 4:12 -- "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved!" Don't just "look at" the blood -- APPLY it!

Those who hold the truth in unrighteousness are those who have not submitted to the righteousness of God.

True. They have not believed on Christ through repentance.

This is called repentance and yes repentance requires a decision.

Thank you. I would say that the decision is to receive Christ, though. It is not merely to give up rebellion because many do that and turn to some other false god whilest reforming their lives in a manner that they are convinced saves them.

We still disagree about options.
The options I see are to rebel or not.
Your's is to be saved or not.

Well, the "Object" is the same -- Jesus, right?

Mine is being saved by God and your's is being saved by your decisions.

There is an interesting passage of scripture regarding this that both Catholics and Reformers loved to use. Remember when Jesus said of the 2 swords "it is enough?" Remember when He spoke the parable in Luke that said "compel them to come in?" The early church and especially Catholics and Reformers took these to mean that God and the church were to "overpower" the lost on behalf of God. The 2 swords were thought to be religion and state. The "overpower" was that the church was the state. IOW, bring them into the church = bring them into the kingdom of salvation.

Your theology reflects that same notion. Do you accept it? Catholics sent priests to the "New world" with armies of "enforcers." The Reformers tried to set up state religions, as in Geneva, by which "all are pressed into the kingdom," Luke 16:26. Does this reflect your thinking?

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Jesus incredulity was that Nicodemus didn't realize that the "resurrection of the just," the "regeneration," was the "born again" experience of the OT Jews.

So let's see if I understand. Jesus incredulity about Nicodemus was that Jesus was talking about regeneration and was surprised that Nicodemus didn't understand something else? Please, Skypair. The regeneration of the OT was not the resurrection of the just in any case. I swear you just make it up as you go.

We can both show that it is God's choosing -- we just can't show one another "choosing to what."

As was pointed out, "chose you to salvation" is pretty clear. Not sure how that confuses you.

. Now maybe we can discuss how we get reconciled/justified.

Through faith (Rom 5:1). No discussion needed.

And here I thought you were an "old man!" Why you're probably younger than my misguided assoc. pastor nephew!

Don't jump to conclusions. I might be older than you think.

Yeah, that's "after God sanctifies us with the Holy Spirit while we are yet sinners," then we can decide, right? Decide what? What's left to decide if we are already saved?

If by "sanctify" you mean as it is used in 1 Peter 1:2, then yes. If you mean as it is used in a verse like 1 Thess 4:3, then no. But being sanctified (in the 1 Peter 1:2 sense) is not the same as being saved. this continues to be one of your main problems ... You call everything being "saved" and the Bible doesn't do that.

Just be advised, FWIW, the way you describe it that is a "career" decision, strictly temporal. I'm really having a hard time convincing myself that embarking on the "life of Christ" is going to justify one with God like choosing to die with Him will. But maybe that's just me.

Not sure what this means.

Yeah -- I just dreamt it up last night, PL.

That wouldn't surprise me. I know you are kidding, but I am not. I seriously do not know where you come up with this stuff at.

I'll say it again -- you gotta choose to be justified "in Christ" and then God will SOVEREIGNLY give you sancitification.

I don't disagree with that. We do choose to be justified in Christ. It is the product of a new nature. Sovereign sanctification however is a term that has no support.

If you start with the Holy Spirit indwelling/regeneration, your theology done missed the point of the gospel.

There you go again confusing things. Indwelling and regeneration are not the same thing.

 

[skypair]

I don't disagree with that. We do choose to be justified in Christ. It is the product of a new nature. Sovereign sanctification however is a term that has no support.

There you go again confusing things. Indwelling and regeneration are not the same thing.

Lar, obviously we are using entirely different vocabularies. Or either you are making a distinction between regeneration and indwelling that I do not see.

To me, regeneration is done by the HS entering and reviving a person from spiritual death. You seem to be using the term regeneration to describe "filling" of the Spirit which IS a different thing.

However, then you say our decision is a product of the "new nature." We have the new nature because we are regenerated and indwelt, right?

Well, I guess I could go back and say that the new nature comes as a result of decision and justification and salvation and then comes sanctification through faith and regeneration but what would be the use. Even though "sovereign sanctification" is in my vocabulary alone, I would have thought you would understand it right away from your perspective.

I guess it's like the original image of us -- when the disciples went fishing with Jesus in one of the boats. It wasn't so much that there were lots of fish being drawn into the net. It was that one boat had Jesus and the other didn't and their pulling in different directions allowed many fish to get away through the broken net.

Notice in John 22 how the fishing goes during the "tribulation" imagery.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Lar, obviously we are using entirely different vocabularies. Or either you are making a distinction between regeneration and indwelling that I do not see.

We are using different vocabularies, since you seem to be making up your own rather than the one that is typically used in theological discusison. And there is a distinction between regeneration and indwelling.

To me, regeneration is done by the HS entering and reviving a person from spiritual death. You seem to be using the term regeneration to describe "filling" of the Spirit which IS a different thing.

Nope, as i defined regeneration, it is the giving of spiritual life to the spiritually dead. That is the way it is defined in theology.

However, then you say our decision is a product of the "new nature." We have the new nature because we are regenerated and indwelt, right?

No. Some equate the new nature with regeneration, and I don't quibble too much with that. Indwelling is logically subsequent to that.

Notice in John 22 how the fishing goes during the "tribulation" imagery.

Perhaps the problem is that you are using another Bible. My Bible doesn't have John 22 in it.

 

[skypair]

Nope, as i defined regeneration, it is the giving of spiritual life to the spiritually dead. That is the way it is defined in theology.

But the indwelling Spirit is not what is given in regeneration? The Holy Spirit is spiritual life, isn't He?

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

But the indwelling Spirit is not what is given in regeneration?

Yes, the Holy Spirit is given in regeneration, but remember that the Ordo is not a chronological division, but a logical or causal order.

The Holy Spirit is spiritual life, isn't He?

No, the Holy Spirit is God who gives life.

 

[MB]

Oh? It's NOT up to us to decide whether we believe something or not? Do you detect a flaw in your reasoning as PL has yet??[\quote]
I don't speak for PL He is quite capable to speak for himself. I detect a flaw in your reasoning in that you have failed to prove with scripture that Salvation isn't all of God as per Eph 2:8-9. You have failed to prove that the work of belief in Jesus Christ is man's work when the Bible plainly states that belief is the work of God. You have claimed that you helped God in your own Salvation and you cannot show with scripture that this is so. It is clear to me that this is believing that man is his own co-redeemer. It's clear to me this is works for Salvation. A man cannot do the works of God before Salvation. A man before Salvation isn't filled with the Spirit so that he could do the work of God.

After belief all there is ,is submission. Submission is the result of defeat. In that your reasons for rebellion have been defeated.

See what I mean. You deny that decision is involved and yet here you say that it is us that has to decide. And then you compound your error by saying that beleiving is a "work" when Rom 4:5 says otherwise.

You should read more carefully then because that isn't what I said at all.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 4:5 does not say that belief is not a work. It says the man does nothing, and his faith is still counted for righteousness. This is because His faith is a gift, a gift that is directly the result of being convinced by God.

I think PL is right in that you are making this up as you go along. Stop trying to make scripture agree with you and start agreeing with scripture.

I DO see that as a "condition" of salvation. I do not say that belief is a "work."

No you don't which is the problem you have because you are in denial that Christ is right and you're wrong. Christ said it is a work and one that man does not do.
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent

Who's work is it in this verse? Is it the work of God or, your own work? There's a choice for you.

Being convinced is believing -- repenting (surrender, if you will) toward God is "authentication" of belief and justification/reconciliation before God.

Repenting is turning from your sin. Surrender is giving up to God all that you are and have. The disciples did it and the richman couldn't do it because of his own rebellion in this case most likely selfishness. There is no denying the disciples gave up or forsaked all.

Do I say I can save myself without God's Provision? I don't think so.

No It seems you believe you are your own co-redeemer.

What are you talking about "gift?" "The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life." What? To just anybody?? No, MB -- to BELIEVERS!!! to SONS!!! How can you keep denying that there is a condition you MUST meet?? Acts 4:12 -- "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved!" Don't just "look at" the blood -- APPLY it!

I'm not my own co redeemer. I can't apply the blood and neither can you. Salvation being a gift means there is only one condition and that is that you do not reject the gift.

True. They have not believed on Christ through repentance.

Repentance is not belief. Repentance is turning from your sins. it is not deciding to sin any longer. It's a change of direction. It's a decision to not sin any longer.

Thank you. I would say that the decision is to receive Christ, though. It is not merely to give up rebellion because many do that and turn to some other false god whilest reforming their lives in a manner that they are convinced saves them.

Swithching to other god's is not repentance because other god's is still rebellion against the one and only God. Rebellion is still rebellion as long as it is sin.

Well, the "Object" is the same -- Jesus, right?

There is an interesting passage of scripture regarding this that both Catholics and Reformers loved to use. Remember when Jesus said of the 2 swords "it is enough?" Remember when He spoke the parable in Luke that said "compel them to come in?" The early church and especially Catholics and Reformers took these to mean that God and the church were to "overpower" the lost on behalf of God. The 2 swords were thought to be religion and state. The "overpower" was that the church was the state. IOW, bring them into the church = bring them into the kingdom of salvation.

This is making the Church a co-redeemer. It is not. We are saved by Christ alone no other path will work.

Your theology reflects that same notion. Do you accept it? Catholics sent priests to the "New world" with armies of "enforcers." The Reformers tried to set up state religions, as in Geneva, by which "all are pressed into the kingdom," Luke 16:26. Does this reflect your thinking?

skypair

I haven't even remotely suggested such a thing and you know it. I believe that if the body of Christ does increase, it isn't because of man but God.
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
MB

 

[zrs6v4]

is it possible that God makes some accept grace and others He gives a choice? theres nowhere in the bible where it says things are fair correct?
For me it seemed like a choice, but the decisions was already on my heart that I couldnt resist at the same time, if that makes sense..

it seems there are many things to go back and fourth on, but is it possible that God has the authority to chose between the decisions? would you call it unfair if He said you have the choice and to the other He forces? its like Pharaoh, did he have a choice whether or not to let the Hebrews go? He did, but at the same time God had complete control.. Its kind of beyond comprehension and it will make your brain pop, I guess.

how can God be 3 people yet one at the same time? (retorical ?)