Decisional Regeneration: Stated and Refuted

[Allan]

You seem to misunderstand, Deut was written to a jewish audience, not to unbelievers. quite different.

Apparently you need to re-read Duet..

Just because a person was a jew did not make them believers.
They were not 'believers' because God told them to choose between Him and pagan gods.

Deu 30:17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;

Deu 30:18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, [and that] ye shall not prolong [your] days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

It was time for them to choose whom they would serve just as those prior this new generation had done.

Notice here as well:

Deu 30:9 And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers:

Deu 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, [and] if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

You see it was this that Paul was referencing when stating that the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth:

Deu 30:11 ¶ For this commandment which I command thee this day, it [is] not hidden from thee, neither [is] it far off.

Deu 30:14 But the word [is] very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
....
Paul here states
......
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

The NLT puts verse 11 this way:

"This command I am giving you today is not too difficult for you to understand or perform.

NASB

For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Brother, I wasn't saying that 'you' were avoiding it..

Order is important for the understanding of the operation or process of salvation.
I'm sure you would agree that if you believed regeneration actaully preceded faith you would have to change much of your theological understanding, would you not?

I do believe that scripture teaches faith precedes regeneration but that also they happen almost instantaniously but that faith can only be accomplished by the work of the Holy Spirit in revelation and conviction.

I am not sure I would have to change my theological understanding if I conluded from the Scriptures that regeneration precedes faith. I think I would if I changed my belief that faith precedes regeneration.

Where does the Scripture teach about this order?

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No, it is a presupposition to assume it does not when the context and explictness of the passages dicates otherwise.

What I showed is exactly what God stated. It is stated plainly "choose.. that you may..." Nothing in the passage declares that man can not choose as God is revealing and convicting but in fact states they 'can' and in fact that only when they choose to believe they will love Him, obey Him, have life, ext..

I disagree. Your claim is that nothing in the passage declares that man can not choose. That is the presupposition that man can choose. Ability is presupposed one way or the other. In other words, its not the non-calvinist not presupposing and the calvinist presupposing. That is a prejudice to the argument. BOTH are presupposing. The question is whose presupposition is biblically correct regarding man's ability.

RB

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan

Sorry about that.

No problem.

I don't study JM's teaching so I can't say whether I agree with him or not. I suppose there are a great many things I agree with him about and many things I don't. But to answer you other questions here, no I don't believe salvation "just happens" In fact, I don't believe anything "just happens" or is outside the Sovereign Decree of God. Nor are people saved apart from the Lord's appointed means. Nor am I saying people do not have free will. I am saying people do not have an absolute free will. If they did, they would be God. I have never stated that choice is not involved in the process. I have stated that salvation of anyone, its cause, is the will of God, not the will of man.

Well then, if people do have a free will (so to speak), and choice is involved in the process, then I still have to ask, what is decisional regeneration? The article didn't give a solid definition. And why do you disagree with it if you believe choice is involved in salvation?

Consider one biblical text. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. Hebrews 10:9

I think we are both agreed that this passage is referencing the Lord Jesus Christ and is a quote of OT Scripture. This is a prophecy of the Son of God speaking to God the Father stating that He has come to do the will of the Father. We both could multiply numerous Scriptures from the Gospels showing that Jesus came to do the will of the Father.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10:10

And I agree with all of this. But what does it have to do with "decisional regeneration"?

It is not by the will of man that we are sanctified, or set apart, but by the will of the Father. Again, we both could multiply many Scriptures that show that in Jesus doing the will of the Father including the unfailing and unfrustratable salvation of a people. Unless, of course, we suppose that God's will can be frustrated.

Well, I don't really think that whether or not God's will can be frustrated is part of the decisional regeneration discussion, unless I'm missing something. (But if I must answer you in this matter to satisfy your OP, look at Luke 7:30 and examine the Greek word for counsel there).

If Bro. A. and Bro. B. both agree that choice is involved, and that the Holy Spirit is the One Who regenerates, but Bro. A. emphasizes man's part more and Bro. B. emphasizes God's part more, why does Bro. B. (the OP article) accuse Bro. A. of believing in "decisional regeneration"?

Probably not. The concept of decisional regeneration and the term was coined by the author of the article, nor do I think you will find one instance in a systematic theology or otherwise of someone affirming the concept under the said term. Nevertheless, what the article states and present experience bear out the truth of what is being proposed, namely, that salvation is preaching as hinging on the choice, or decision, of a person, making regeneration a decisional act. Have you not seen this? I have....I have done this in the past in my witnessing. We go out, preach the Gospel, reason with some soul, and try to get them to "make a decision for Jesus." Once they do, as long as they prayed and asked sincerely, we welcome them into the kingdom of God. Men like Rick Warren have gone further suggesting a mere whisper of a few words is sufficent to save a man and he welcomes them into the Kingdom.

Actually, the term was not invented by the author of the article (unless you just forgot the "not"), but has been around a long time. It didn't make sense the first time I heard it and still doesn't.

But what you are describing doesn't describe what I do anyway. I may tell someone they have to decide about Jesus Christ, but I don't believe that regenerates them (and again, show me someone who believes that, or I'll continue to believe it is a straw man), and after they pray (if I ask them to pray) I carefully examine them as to whether or not they were sincere and the Holy Spirit was working.

If I am not mistaken, Jack Hyles was quoted postively in the article. I agree that regeneration is the act of the Holy Spirit. And I agree we can take comfort that when we preach the Gospel by the Holy Spirit we are not beating the air so to speak. I also gain a large amount of confidence that the salvation of man does not depend on his ability to choose to Christ while in an unregenerate state, at enmity with God, unable to understand the Gospel being blinded by satan, and dead in their trespassaes and sins. I am full persuded that God by the preaching of the Gospel to sinners calls men, women, and children to Himself and will certainly accomplish that end through Jesus Christ.

RB

And I agree with this paragraph as far as it goes (Except that Jack Hyles was quoted negatively. But let it be.), except that I don't believe in irresistable grace. But technically, that is not really part of the OP!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No problem.




Well then, if people do have a free will (so to speak), and choice is involved in the process, then I still have to ask, what is decisional regeneration? The article didn't give a solid definition. And why do you disagree with it if you believe choice is involved in salvation?



And I agree with all of this. But what does it have to do with "decisional regeneration"?


Well, I don't really think that whether or not God's will can be frustrated is part of the decisional regeneration discussion, unless I'm missing something. (But if I must answer you in this matter to satisfy your OP, look at Luke 7:30 and examine the Greek word for counsel there).

If Bro. A. and Bro. B. both agree that choice is involved, and that the Holy Spirit is the One Who regenerates, but Bro. A. emphasizes man's part more and Bro. B. emphasizes God's part more, why does Bro. B. (the OP article) accuse Bro. A. of believing in "decisional regeneration"?



Actually, the term was not invented by the author of the article (unless you just forgot the "not"), but has been around a long time. It didn't make sense the first time I heard it and still doesn't.

But what you are describing doesn't describe what I do anyway. I may tell someone they have to decide about Jesus Christ, but I don't believe that regenerates them (and again, show me someone who believes that, or I'll continue to believe it is a straw man), and after they pray (if I ask them to pray) I carefully examine them as to whether or not they were sincere and the Holy Spirit was working.

And I agree with this paragraph as far as it goes (Except that Jack Hyles was quoted negatively. But let it be.), except that I don't believe in irresistable grace. But technically, that is not really part of the OP!

It's possible I didn't understand the author of the article. I thought he originated the term because I had not heard it elsewhere. I think what is meant by decisional regeneration is that the hinge of regeneration turns on man's choice. So, get a man to make a choice, and poof, they are born again. That is what the article is against and what I think is wrong too.

I don't think the article is arguing against people who say descision regenrates anymore than an article that could be written to refute baptismal regeneration. Do baptismal regeneration advocates teach the water regenerates? I don't think so. Nor do decisional regeneration advocates teach the decision regenerates, but that a person is regenerated on a decision. i.e. God is waiting for them to make their choice, and once they do...poof.

Hope that helps.

RB

 

[webdog]

To Allan and John of Japan,

I'm glad both of you acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit in conversion. The only reason I even brought this up is that your views in this area seemed to vary from most non-Cals.

The impression I get is that most non-Cals present the gospel to the lost as solely their choice, independently of any work by the HS. Thus soul-winning is reduced to strategies, methods and powerful tools, designed to bring the lost person to a "decision." Or, to lead them to the point of praying a prayer.

Now i could be wrong about that, but that's the impression I get. And I hasten to say that, given what you have written, it certainly is not true of you, John, or Allan.

And I'm sure that non-Cals will say that my impression is wrong. They do believe the HS has a role. Yet their soul-winning methods don't seem to reflect that belief.

And John, I'm curious. I know you rely on the Scriptures to guide how you present the gospel to the Japanese. My question is, has your experience in Japan had any effect on how you witness to them? Are you doing the same things today that you did at the beginning of your ministry there? No agenda here, just asking.

Most non cal's who aren't arminian believe just this. Count me in. All men are presented with Truth, and that truth can only come through God's revelation to mankind. The response to that truth, and who can respond is where we part ways.

 

[webdog]

I disagree. Your claim is that nothing in the passage declares that man can not choose. That is the presupposition that man can choose. Ability is presupposed one way or the other. In other words, its not the non-calvinist not presupposing and the calvinist presupposing. That is a prejudice to the argument. BOTH are presupposing. The question is whose presupposition is biblically correct regarding man's ability.

RB

I'm sure Allan will answer this, but choice by defnition means to have the option not to. The only presupposition is the actual definition of what it means to choose. It takes a greater presuppostion on the reformers part to come to the opposite conclusion, that when told to choose by someone who has the power to grant that choice, the choice is not possible.

 

[Allan]

I am not sure I would have to change my theological understanding if I conluded from the Scriptures that regeneration precedes faith. I think I would if I changed my belief that faith precedes regeneration.

Yeah, that is what I meant :laugh:

Where does the Scripture teach about this order?

RB

Since the order is primarily a 'logical one' regarding your theology, it begins with researching and examining not only what it does but also HOW it does this without making a person justified, sanctified, filled with Holy Spirit.. They are alive and are In Christ. But scripture states that one is only 'in Christ" at salvation and therefore one can only be spiritually alive if one is saved.

I wrote out a whole page on scriptures that show faith precedes regeneration..
But I figured if you took all the passages you understand about regeneration 'in your view' and substituted salvation for it, you can't help but see it. It is the misunderstanding of 'born', 'born-agian', and of couse regeneration that criples the common sense of the context.

I'll pose this question to you if I may..

From what are you saved if you are regenerate?



Subquestions that will shed more light to the above question:

If you are regenerate - are you not a new creation and thus no sin nature (old things are passed away - no more)?

If you are regenerate - are you not spiritually alive?

If you are regenerate - are you not 'in Christ'?

If you are regenerate - can one walk/live in righteous God honoring faith now if there was say a possibility of a 10 year span before salvation? (I know of some Calvinst who do believe in prolonged regeneration)

If you are regenerate - does one believe apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit since they are new creation and spiritually alive?

If you are regenerate - are you not in a reconciled relationship with God?

So in light of the above, if one is already regenerate but not yet saved (regardless of time between) - from what is one now needing to be saved?? Or better - What is the need for repentence and faith if one is already regenerate? What does salvation do that regeneration has not already done?

That person is already justified and sanctified before God.

This is why I ask the 'How does it work" question regarding regeneration due to the regenerating work of God.


..........

Additionally, you can not have resposibility without abilty unless you are speaking of injustice. It goes against the nature and meaning of the word "resposibility". God is just and all that He has stated about justice comes from His very being. Thus He can not go against Himself. To remove ability but make one responsible is unjust in accordance with God's own standard and very nature.

 

[skypair]

If I understand you correctly, because you said "In the OT..." you mean the Law of God.

You misunderstand. The law never saves. What I would say is true in both Old and New Testaments is "decisional JUSTIFICATION," not "decisional regeneration" in either. In the NT, regeneration is given according to God's promise 1) AFTER one believes unto justification and 2) simultaneous with the gifts SANCTIFICATION including faith, indwelling Spirit, new birth, resurrection, etc.

Do you think you can follow that one? If I may revert to a previous argument I have made, your soul has to be JUSTIFIED -- reconciled to God -- decisionally BEFORE your spirit can begin to be sanctified by the indwelling Spirit of the "new creation."

I have never met anyone, until you, that denied regeneration for OT saints.

Well, then, you ought to listen all the more closely and make sure that you don't believe it also. Were the OT saints indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Was He even 'given' before Christ arose? Was it ever said of them that they were "new creatures?" "born again?" given "gifts of the Spirit as was prophesied in Joel 2:28?" Was it ever said that they had the "washing of regeneration?" Or that they would be raptured rather than resurrected back to the earth as Job 19:25-28, Psa 50:3-5, Dan 12:2, etal. suggest?

The answer to all those is "no." There is not even a hint of such "mysteries" being revealed as to what they mean nor occurring in the OT.

Ergo, decisional JUSTIFICATION and sovereign SANCTIFICATION. Soul, then spirit, then body till we are "wholly blameless unto the coming of our Lord." 1Thes 5:23

Great example here of theology gone amuck. You seem to have an entirely different salvation for OT saints.

Different in OPERATION, yes. They had no Jesus Christ --- only the promise of His coming, and that as KING to His KINGDOM. That is why the OT gospel was the "gospel of the kingdom." But they did have to be justified with/reconciled to God for salvation through faith, same as us. When they are resurrected, they will be sanctified by the indwelling Spirit. In fact, they will be "born again" much as Jesus was born as a baby -- of the Spirit and their, let's say, "buried DNA" literally!

... stop characterizing it [God's Sovereignty] as pagan fate vs. free-will.

But it is SO easy to see it that way! You have a god like the Greeks who does all according to his own will with no regard or respect of man. Some Greeks, without any choice on their part, were even "revealed" to be the sons or daughters of male and female gods. Hopefully not to get carried away but how many of y'all have I heard who seem to think they were "born again" that way -- "born from above." Instead of agreeing that the "died in Christ" in order to be reconciled to God, it's as if they were "born of God" right from the get-go -- sons by birth, just like the Greeks (so many as were so said to be born anyway). Not decisional at all but merely "fate."

Foreknowledge presupposes God's Decree

Then it presupposes something that isn't in scripture.

All things happen because God decreed they would happen, therefore God foreknows.

If that is the case, then there is a God higher than your God Who was omniscient in the real sense of knowing so that the decrees would all be in synch with the myriad of people and decisions that would be made by "natural men." Or else you would be saying that your God positively decrees in evil, even specific sin, to accomplish His purposes.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Allan,

I will get to your questions in a bit. But I wanted to reply to this:

Additionally, you can not have resposibility without abilty unless you are speaking of injustice. It goes against the nature and meaning of the word "resposible". God is just and all that He has stated about justice comes from His very being. Thus He can not go against Himself. To remove ability but make one responsible is unjust in accordance with God's own standard and very nature.

I disagree that you cannot have responsibility without ability. I think God has every right, and is just in doing so, to command manking to obey His laws and to obey the Gospel even if they do not possess the ability to do so because of how they have corrupted themselves. Your comment implies (so it seems to me) that God removed their ability. He did not. Mankind lost this ability in the fall.

You are left with the glaring reality, testified by both natural law and divine law, that all that God has commanded has NOT been kept by anyone save the Lord Jesus Christ. None have kept the law. There is none righteous. Yet the Lord commanded us to keep His law either by revelation or conscience and man will be justly condemned by either the one or the other.

The same is true of the Gospel. Mankind is commanded to obey it but doesn't not have the ability in himself (in Adam) to obey it. Yet God is perfectly just and right to command men to repent and believe the Gospel.

God has given enough revelation to mankind to condemn him. i.e. natural law. But it requires special revelation to redeem him. i.e. the Law of God and the Gospel. God is perfectly just in leaving some men and even whole nations in their sins unto their just condemnation. He is not obligated by justice to save any one of them. That He does do so is a demonstration of His mercy and grace.

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You misunderstand. The law never saves. What I would say is true in both Old and New Testaments is "decisional JUSTIFICATION," not "decisional regeneration" in either. In the NT, regeneration is given according to God's promise 1) AFTER one believes unto justification and 2) simultaneous with the gifts SANCTIFICATION including faith, indwelling Spirit, new birth, resurrection, etc.

Do you think you can follow that one? If I may revert to a previous argument I have made, your soul has to be JUSTIFIED -- reconciled to God -- decisionally BEFORE your spirit can begin to be sanctified by the indwelling Spirit of the "new creation."

Well, then, you ought to listen all the more closely and make sure that you don't believe it also. Were the OT saints indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Was He even 'given' before Christ arose? Was it ever said of them that they were "new creatures?" "born again?" given "gifts of the Spirit as was prophesied in Joel 2:28?" Was it ever said that they had the "washing of regeneration?" Or that they would be raptured rather than resurrected back to the earth as Job 19:25-28, Psa 50:3-5, Dan 12:2, etal. suggest?

The answer to all those is "no." There is not even a hint of such "mysteries" being revealed as to what they mean nor occurring in the OT.

Ergo, decisional JUSTIFICATION and sovereign SANCTIFICATION. Soul, then spirit, then body till we are "wholly blameless unto the coming of our Lord." 1Thes 5:23

Different in OPERATION, yes. They had no Jesus Christ --- only the promise of His coming, and that as KING to His KINGDOM. That is why the OT gospel was the "gospel of the kingdom." But they did have to be justified with/reconciled to God for salvation through faith, same as us. When they are resurrected, they will be sanctified by the indwelling Spirit. In fact, they will be "born again" much as Jesus was born as a baby -- of the Spirit and their, let's say, "buried DNA" literally!

But it is SO easy to see it that way! You have a god like the Greeks who does all according to his own will with no regard or respect of man. Some Greeks, without any choice on their part, were even "revealed" to be the sons or daughters of male and female gods. Hopefully not to get carried away but how many of y'all have I heard who seem to think they were "born again" that way -- "born from above." Instead of agreeing that the "died in Christ" in order to be reconciled to God, it's as if they were "born of God" right from the get-go -- sons by birth, just like the Greeks (so many as were so said to be born anyway). Not decisional at all but merely "fate."

Then it presupposes something that isn't in scripture.

If that is the case, then there is a God higher than your God Who was omniscient in the real sense of knowing so that the decrees would all be in synch with the myriad of people and decisions that would be made by "natural men." Or else you would be saying that your God positively decrees in evil, even specific sin, to accomplish His purposes.

skypair

skypair,

I will get to your post whenever. Frankly, my discussion with Allan is more interesting.

 

[skypair]

You do realize that your reasoning presupposes that ability must be necessary in a person for God to command them to repent, choose, believe, et.

And you realize that believing that man is UNABLE as you so blinds you to free will, even if that is the truth given us in scripture, right?

You are relying on an interpretation that really is a) strongly contradicted elsewhere in scripture and b) makes the gospel "inoperative" as a vehicle for reconciling folks to God.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

And you realize that believing that man is UNABLE as you so blinds you to free will, even if that is the truth given us in scripture, right?

You are relying on an interpretation that really is a) strongly contradicted elsewhere in scripture and b) makes the gospel "inoperative" as a vehicle for reconciling folks to God.

skypair

This proves nothing SP. I could just say your theology has blinded you to the teaching of Scripture, but I won't.

:wavey:

 

[skypair]

skypair,

I will get to your post whenever. Frankly, my discussion with Allan is more interesting.

Thank you. I can see it is also less of a threat to the foundations of your belief. I think, in the end, it is going to come down to dealing with soul and spirit as if they could be "divided asunder" and dealt with separately in salvation.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Thank you. I can see it is also less of a threat to the foundations of your belief. I think, in the end, it is going to come down to dealing with soul and spirit as if they could be "divided asunder" and dealt with separately in salvation.

skypair

Actually, your replies don't threaten the foundation of my beliefs at all sky. Jesus is the foundation. I am very, very secure my friend. I just find your replies so convaluted and sometimes unintelligible, rather than trying to figure them out, I would rather put them off to a later date.

RB

 

[webdog]

God has given enough revelation to mankind to condemn him. i.e. natural law. But it requires special revelation to redeem him. i.e. the Law of God and the Gospel. God is perfectly just in leaving some men and even whole nations in their sins unto their just condemnation. He is not obligated by justice to save any one of them. That He does do so is a demonstration of His mercy and grace.

You have Scripture for natural revelation vs. special revelation? The Bible states that the truth is known to all, that is not natural revelation only. Romans 10:18 alone refutes these separate revelations.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You have Scripture for natural revelation vs. special revelation? The Bible states that the truth is known to all, that is not natural revelation only. Romans 10:18 alone refutes these separate revelations.

If you have already made up your mind on the matter, why would I share the Scripture I believe teaches this? Plus its off-topic.

RB

 

[webdog]

If you have already made up your mind on the matter, why would I share the Scripture I believe teaches this? Plus its off-topic.

RB

So I take it you have none? That would have been easier to say, no?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So I take it you have none? That would have been easier to say, no?

Nope. Have plenty. Why, are you considering that your own view may be incorrect and you need to revise it if shown so by the Scripture?

 

[webdog]

Nope. Have plenty. Why, are you considering that your own view may be incorrect and you need to revise it if shown so by the Scripture?

I doubt it refutes Romans 10:18 which is as plain as day.
You made the claim of two separate revelations, and I called you out on it. Provide it.