Decisional Regeneration Take 2

That has been my point to.

If a person is regenerated/born again, there is no need for faith since they now have the Holy Spirit residing in them and their relationship to and with God has been reconciled.

Then need for faith isn't (as they state) a means since the work of salvation is already done.

IF a person is regenerated (in the Calvinistic sense) by God before faith, they are made alive unto God because they has been reconciled unto God by Christ's propitiation BEFORE faith.

For this to be true:
1. Then they are ALREADY sanctified - or set apart for and by God ; being pure
2. and to be sanctified you must be Justified
....a. that he might be righteous (or in a right relationship with God).
3. And all of these are done by the Holy Spirit indwelling the Non-BELIEVER (as of yet).

But unfortunately the indwelling Holy Spirit, sanctification, justification, and righteousness are all imputed ONLY AFTER Faith is excersized.

No matter how it is set forth by them the facts of the process are (IMO) irrefutable regarding regeneration/born again IS the EVENT of Salvaiton and not the precurser to it. Otherwise you have the cart before the horse.

If faith is the means of salvation then it is not the Calvinistic paradigm which is accurate regarding faith as the means but the Non-Cal view. WHy?

Because you can not be regenerate (which MUST include justification and sanctification and the infilling of the Holy Spirit) before faith.

It is by faith we are justified (Rom 3:28)
It is by faith we are sanctified (Acts 26:18,)
It is by faith we are righteous (Rom 3:22, Rom 4:5)
It is by faith the propitiation (substituationary death) is applied to man (Rom 3:25)
It is by faith we receive (obtain) the indwelling Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14)

All of these show (and other verses as well) that unless faith is FIRST excerized there is no new birth which constitutes all of the above; For they are all BY FAITH.

 

Minds me of sex before marriage:

They claim the only way to "hear" God is to be regenerated into a "spiritual man," 1Cor 2:14-15. Well, that also claims that they are "one with God" before the "faith" vows of marriage.

Prov 5:3-14, "For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil: 4 But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a twoedged sword..." And 20-23 "...and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins. 23 He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray."

I was thinking last night that we sanctify ourselves to the woman we married. Hopefully, none have married the wrong woman here.

skypair

 

That is your bone. But I would not question their salvation however if were you, simple because they (in our opinion) have a different order regarding aspects of salvation and or theological structure.

We differ on mechanics of the truths we (theological sides) both affirm. We might have different orders of their operation, and that is so because of how we the mechanics of operation not because we disbelieve what they are.

I will not go as far as you have been, but will say only that they differ due to misunderstandings or over emphasis of scritpure (which I'm sure most say the same of us)


The issue I see which is the problem, is not the immutable truths but the mechanics where-by we grasp their functions. And yet all I can say is that the same God who led me and thousands of other to the Non-Cal view has also led thousands toward the Cal view. God has always had both in the Church, and it is there and believed by believers because that is what God desires them to understand.

 

Synergism, Monergism

I should have a fair amount of time to write today, but before I jumped in I just want to be sure I understand your position on the matter.

You all are teaching that man is in such a state, which we all unregenerate, that he is the inability to first come to God. You believe that God must first come to the man/draw and then man responds to God in repentance and faith, is born again, and continues in the faith.

Also, in talking with other brothers in the Lord I may have fallen short in my communications about faith being the gift of God. It may have been understood of me that I was saying the God believes for the Christian, rather than the Christian's faith being his. I am mulling over an illustration (which usually fall short to some degree, unless they are God's) that a brother used. Understanding faith encompassed in the gift of His grace is like eyesight. The Lord has made the eye and we do not have it of ourselves, it is the gift of God, but it is our sight.

Similiarily, faith is the gift of God, and that not of ourselves, but it is our faith.

More on regeneration later.

 

I do not speak for the others but I will try my best give a decent answer to you.

That is a basic outline, but I will say a tenitive 'yes' for a now and clarify as we go along - if that is alright?

The illistration sounds ok to me, because to me it sounds like:
Faith is something all men already have (like eyes) but man has not come to the realization it is there until God "open his eyes" (so to speak) and he use it properly.

The problem isn't about faith being a gift from God. The issue is over the fact man had faith and uses it continually but upon the wrong things as man does not and will not seek the truth himself that only comes from God.

Faith CAN BE SEEN as a gift of Gods grace but only regarding the fact if it were not for God grace our faith would never be placed in Him. But NOT as though it was something we never had (the ability to believe)

 

I am always willing and committed to letting someone define their own beliefs, not me define it for them. The outline I proposed may work, on the surface, now for your assent, but things could be said later that you would wish to remove it and I will not hold you to your assent in this to try to gain some sort of silly advantage in the discussion.

If the illustration I used leads only to the conclusion that men had faith already, then I am not ready to use it yet. It may indeed fall short of my purpose in using it. But I will keep thinking about it.

I am not sure I comprehend what you mean when you compare man having faith already, and linking that with his ability to believe. It seem contradictory to me to suggest that man, before the operation of God, has faith and thus the ability to savingly believe the Gospel, but to also affirm that if it were not for God our faith would never be placed in Him. Perhaps you can help me understanding your thinking in this regard. In the meantime I will be working on a post.

BTW, thanks for standing up publically and showing that while Calvinists and Non-Calvinists may have disagreements on serious points of doctrine, it need not be a judgment for either side to call into question the other's salvation. And we know both sides have made, and continue to make, that mistake.

In speaking as a convinced Calvinist, I affirm that I have many Evangelical Amrinian brethren who are truly born of God, glorify God, live holy lives, love our Lord Jesus Christ, and love the brethren. And I say I love my Evangelical brethren very much.

RB

 

Of course, there are some Sovereign Grace advocates who don't think it is regeneration that precedes faith, rather they think it is the effectual call that precedes faith. I know Pastor Larry holds to this.

Whether it is regeneration or the effectual call, I don't think there is any real "lag time" between that and faith. With no real lag time between the two, then the question becomes moot. Regeneration/Effectual Call is always accompanied by faith.

 

Regeneration and Conversion

I am thankful to the Lord that this topic has come up, and that I have been intelligently challenged in my position. It has helped me dig deeper into the matter than I have gone before biblically, reasonably, and theologically. For that I thank the brethren who have become iron to me to sharpen iron. (please don't misunderstand this statement with a hidden purpose to bring embarassment to you that your challenged has further solidified me in my understanding of Scriptures which are contrary to yours. I mean it as a genuine thanks).

Let's first define our terms:

Regeneration: the new brith.

Conversion: Repentance and faith.

As I have reflected on God's work in salvation and man's response to His work, espeically in terms of regeneration and conversion, I kept thinking in terms the work being nearly, if not completely, simultaneous. I was glad to find that I am not alone in this thinking (I worry about a opinion when I am the only one with it!)

James P. Boyce, founder and former professor of Systematic Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1887, wrote,

"At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects [regeneration and conversion] we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration. It is not strange, therefore, that they are often confounded." - Abract of Systematic Theology, Ch. 32.

More recently, Wayne Grudem writes in his systematic theology,

"Effective calling is this God the Father speaking powerfully to us, and regeneration is GOd the Father and God the Holy Spirit working powerfully in us, to make us alive. These two things must have happened simultaneously as Peter was preaching the gospel to the household of Cornelius, for while he was still preaching, "the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word" (Acts 10:44) - Grudem, Systematic Theology, Ch. 34, p. 700.

If they happen so close to each other that is either impossible to distinguish the order of events, or else truly happen simultaneously, why then insist that regeneration precedes conversion?

Regeneration may be rightly defined as the work of God in man to change his heart from stone to flesh by His Sovereign will, while conversion is the act of man turning towards God "with the new inclination of his new heart." (boyce)

Both Boyce and Grudem argue that conversion is the result of regeneration, so in this sense it follows, or comes after. Concernign conversion Boyce writes, "It is both the act of God and of man co-operating with him." In explaination of this Boyce wrote, "The new heart is prepared to turn to God and does actually so turn. Without regeneration, the sinfulness of man keeps him away from God, causes him to set his affections upon self and his own pleasure, and to find gratification in things which are opposed to God and holiness. The regenerated heart has new affections and desires and is, therefore, fitted to seek after God and holiness."

Boyce adds much Scripture reference to these statements which I will post in a seperate post, both of regenreation and conversion.

On what ground can we make these claims? They must be grounded of course in Scripture both by precept and example, neither contradicting each other. We have seen in Acts the operation of God to Cornelius and his house. We heard the sound of the wind, but did not know where it comes or where it goes. And they indeed were born of God. And how were they born of God? While Peter was preaching the Gospel.

It is not the teaching our Lord to understand that we enter the kingdom of God by believing and then being born again. But, "Unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5 We enter the Kingdom of God when we are made Christians and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Romans 14:17

We must be converted, repent and believe, to enter the Kingdom of God, yet Jesus teaches us that we must be born again before we can see the Kingdom.

We are agreed (I think) that man is unable to come to Jesus without and initial work of God. John 6:44, 6:65. But what does this work look like?

Acts 16:14 "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul."

Is it not clear from this passage that the reason Lydia attended (heeded) to the things which Paul preached was because the Lord opened her heart? Grudem on this point contrasts this with 1 Cor 2:14 and Romans 3:11

The context of this chapter is the Gospel, v. 1-2. The subject is the Corinthians faith v.5 which did not stand on the wisdom of men, but the power of God. Paul's preaching was not in man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the power of God.

Paul says he spoke wisdom, not the world's wisdom, but God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God had ordained before the world began. v.7

And now the contrast:

1. Which none of the princes of the world knew. Had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord, that is the Jews, Gentiles, and Pilate. (Acts 4:27).

2. "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." It does not enter the heart or understanding (eyes and ears) of a natural man the mysterious hidden wisdom of God which is in Christ. BUT

3. "God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."

4. And, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

5. Yet the Apostles spoke and preached the things of the Spririt of God having received the Spirit of God and knowing the things that are given freely to us of God. v. 12

It is necessary to grasp the meaning of this passage, knowing it has been misused by many to tell Christians they may not know the things of heaven! But we do know the things God has freely given us of Him because the Spirit of Christ dwells in us, and we have the mind of Christ.

But not the natural man, that is, man in his natural and unregenerate state. He doesn't recieve these things, and as is plainly written, "neither can he" This is clearly and solid biblical ground for understanding the total inability of man.

But then, how is it brethren, that we see men respond to the Gospel call, repent and believe on Christ, submit to the ordinance of baptism, attend to the preaching the Gospel, live holy and exemplarary live, and many other fruits they show proving that they are in Christ.

Truly they are not in Christ of themselves. "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." 1 Cor 1:30-31

OF HIM are we in Christ Jesus. He has begotten us again by the living and abiding Word of God implanted in our souls! 1 Peter 1:23 It is of the will of God we are begotten, and NOT the will of man or the will of the flesh. John 1:13 Therefore the doctrine and practice of decisional regeneration is excluded. James the Apostle says the same,

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." James 1:18

Of this work, begetting, being born again, born of the Spirit, is the Sovereign work of God done according to His will and not man's. Grudem defines it as, "the initial work of God in which he imparts spiritual life to us. Then we can emphasize that we do not see regeneration itself but only the results of it in our lives, and that faith in Christ for salvation is the first result that we see."

Is this hidden, mysterious work of God's Spirit truly something we do not see happen, but only see the results, biblical? YES! It is the very teaching of the Son of God, for says He,

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." John 3:8

This of couse does not mean we cease "Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21 and commanding every man to repent and believe the Gospel that they may be saved.

Finally, and I do appreciate Grudem's work on this subject, he finishes with the biblical fact that genuine regeneration MUST bring results in life. I before listed a few things from 1 John that plainly teach what the results are of those born of God, which includes faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Let me share them again.

BECAUSE someone HAS BEEN born again,

1. They do not continue to live a life of habitual sin. 1 John 3:9

2. They love the brethren, one another. 1 John 4:7

3. They believe on Jesus Christ and loves Christ. 1 John 5:1

4. They overcome the world. 1 john 5:4

5. They keep themselves (from sin) and the wicked one does not harm them. 1 John 5:18

So, my understanding that saving faith in Jesus Christ comes after regeneration may be best expressed as the results of the new life God has wrought in us by His will and His Word.

To God be the glory alone for His work of Redemption in His people.

RB

 

Well said, in a short manner.

 

Scriptures regarding the new birth

1. Forms of the verb gennao, which means "to beget."

John 1:13; 3:3, 4 (two places), 5, 6, 7, 8; 1 Cor. 4:15; Philemon 10; 1 John 2:29; 3:9 (two places); 4:7; 5:1 (three places); 5:4, 18 (two places).

2. Compound forms of gennao.

1 Pet. 1:23. "Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth."

Titus 3:5. "He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

3. The word apekuesen is used in James 1:18, and means to bring forth or bear young, and there evidently means to bring to the condition of sonship.

4. Ktisis and ktizo, which mean creation and create, are found in 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:10, 15; 4:24.

5. Sunezoopoiesen, he quickened together with (Christ). Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:13.

In addition to the above uses of single words are the following passages which speak of the word of God as an effective instrument, but not as a creative power. These, however, do not connect this instrument with either regeneration or conversion necessarily; but speaks of it (a) as a means of partaking of the divine nature, 2 Pet. 1:4; (b) as a means of purifying, John 15:3; (c) as a means of Christian defense, Eph. 6:17; and (d) as an instrument of powerful conviction and destruction of the wicked, Heb. 4:12.

II. From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration.

It is true that but few of the passages refer to anything save the work of God; yet these few sufficiently teach the use of the word in regeneration to lead us not to reject, as a part of it, that result of God's act which, in connection with the word, leads to the full union of its subject with Christ through repentance and faith.

The passages in connection with Paul as God's instrument, 1 Cor. 4:15, and Philemon 10, would not be conclusive, but they are made so by others.

However much James 1:18 suggests a different aspect of the work, namely, the bringing forth that which has been begotten, still it so nearly connects that idea with the begetting as to create doubt if the whole work may not be virtually involved.

But 1 Pet. 1:23, by the use of the compound of gennao, shows that all the work of the Spirit, including both the new heart and the leading of it to conscious faith, is properly to be spoken of by the same term as a mere change of heart.

The whole work is thus spoken of, however, because God is operative from the beginning to the end, but this does not prove that he does not operate differently in one part from what he does in the other.

The Scripture attributes the birth to the will of God exclusively, thus showing that in some aspect it is not to be regarded as due to the reception of the truth. John 1:13.

[For sections (3), (4), (5) and (6), see Hodge's Outlines, p. 451.]

(3.) The influence of the Spirit is distinguished from that of the word. John 6:45, 64, 65; 1 Cor. 2:12-15; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6.

(4.) A divine influence is declared to be necessary for the reception of the truth. Ps. 119:18; Acts 16:14; Eph. 1:17-20.

(5.) Such an internal operation on the heart is attributed to God. Matt. 11:25; Luke 10:21; Phil. 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:11; Heb. 13:21.

(6.) The nature of this influence is evidently different from that effected by the truth. Eph. 1:19; 3:7; 2 Tim. 2:25.

(7.) This influence is spoken of as a preparation of the heart for the truth; which, therefore, must be distinct from the truth or its reception. Luke 8:8, 15; Acts 16:14.

This preparation of the heart comes from God. 1 Chron. 29:18, 19; Ps. 119:18; Prov. 16:1; Acts 16:14; Rom. 9:23.

2. The Spirit acts mediately through the word.

(1.) He inspired that word and sends it forth for the accomplishment of the ends designed. John 14:16; 2 Tim. 3:16.

(2.) He aids the ministry and others in making it known. 1 Cor. 4:7; 2 Thess. 3:1.

To the extent that these are his agents he uses the word.

(3.) The instrument thus used is in itself effective as truth. Heb. 4:12. Therefore, Christians are commanded in their spiritual warfare to take the word of God as the sword of the Spirit. Eph. 6:17. It is, however, made especially so to the heart prepared for it by his illuminating influences, which reveal its beauties and its suitableness, and by the aid of the memory which recalls, and the conscience which applies, and the affections which lay hold upon it. 2 Tim. 3:15, 16, 17.

(4.) Christians are, therefore, said to be "brought forth, (James 1:18), by the word of truth," because that is the seed sown in the prepared ground through which they are led by repentance and faith to union with Christ and sonship of God.

Abstract of Systematic Theology, Boyce, Ch 32
http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch32.html

 

Scriptures regarding conversion

I. This is the result of regeneration. The new heart is prepared to turn to God and does actually so turn. Without regeneration, the sinfulness of man keeps him away from God, causes him to set his affections upon self and his own pleasure, and to find gratification in things which are opposed to God and holiness. The regenerated heart has new affections and desires and is, therefore, fitted to seek after God and holiness.

II. It is both the act of God and of man co-operating with him.

1. It is the act of God. It is thus described in the Scriptures.

1 Kings 18:37. "Thou hast turned their heart back again."

Ps. 80:3. "Turn us again, O God; and cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved."

Ps. 85:4. "Turn us, O God of our salvation."

Song of Sol. 1:4. "Draw me; we will run after thee."

Jer. 30:21. "I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me."

Jer. 31:18. "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned."

Ezek. 36:27. "And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."

John 6:44. "No man can come to me, except the Father which sent me draw him."

2. It is the act of the regenerated heart actively co-operating in thus turning.

Deut. 4:30. "Thou shalt return to the Lord thy God."

Prov. 1:23. "Turn you at my reproof."

Hosea 12:6. "Therefore turn thou to thy God."

Isaiah 55:7. "Let him return unto the Lord."

Joel 2:13. "Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God."

Acts 11:21. "A great number that believed turned unto the Lord."

same source, Boyce.

 

When you read my post RB, please understand I am a MUCH better speaker of my thoughts than I am at writting them. (which is why you will notice almost all my posts have 'editting' noted at the bottom of the posts.

When I stated I accent to your outline but opted to be able to clarify later (not remove) was as we get to the mechanics and order of what I called a 'basic' outline you gave. However, I don't understand your comment about "try[ing] to gain some sort of silly advantage". If this is a discussion about ones theological position (with terms and or mechanics not the same as the others view) then clarification is not about gaining an advantage but giving a more concise understanding. When we begin talking we at times resort to what we assume the other thinks or believes and clarifications are needed.

Let me start with this clarification about faith/belief that men already have:
Man can believe and have faith in all manner of things under the sun. However, we know that scripture says their 'faith' is in vain. So we know they HAVE faith.

Belief and faith are used interchangably in scirpture, and we know that one is a noun and the other a verb. Faith or belief that is not in vain has a proper object in which value is placed upon the faith being used.

When the verb form of 'faith' is used it is in the same sense (action with regard to object) which gives the action its value to one recieving it (in this case God who has a strict criteria of Faith).

Now, man can not have acceptable faith toward God because that must be based upon the understanding of who Christ IS and what He has DONE, and man can not find out nor learn this by himself. Would you agree?

These things are spiritually discerned and that is why man can not of or by himself find these truths because he will not seek after God of himself who holds these truths. Therefore, the object (Jesus) which gives mans faith or belief any value toward God, is something he will never know if left to himself. Would you agree?

Man has belief/faith as stated earlier in all manner of things but without knowing spiritual truth (that truth which is of God) all objects he places faith/belief in is vain. Not vain to him but vain or empty toward God regarding acceptence and righteousness.

This is why God must seek man, and reveal truth to man (The Holy Spirit sent to convict the world of sin, His Righteousness, and Judgment to come) the truth which is born witness vai the Holy Spirit of the object of God affection and our salvation - Christ Jesus our Lord!

Man has always believed according to his [fallen] nature and because he could never (of or by himself) go outside his nature (which would not seek God), he could not obtain through natural means the Truth of God for himself.

But when God by-passes the natural man and means, and reveals truth directly to the heart of man, the faith man has (which was dominated by the natural mans view of truth) now has option through the revelation of spiritual truth to believe unto salvation or reject that which could save him. The Word of God revealed by the spirit of God provides the object for mans faith to cling to

This is more about faith which man already has and why we state it was not something special that must be given to man as though man never had faith.

I appreciate your thanks but in truth, I just hope there are those who will do the same for when I am thus spoken of (it has happened here before).

 

I am always editing too. And I just tried again but my post was too long and I couldn't.

I simply had concern that by my statement that this discussion as sunk my roots deeper in my existing soteriologcal understanding rather than dislodge me from it, you might think this some sort of weird debatful barb. I just wanted to clarify.

I think I agree substantially. I agree that man left to himself will never come to a saving faith in Christ Jesus. Unless the Lord opens his heart, like He did to Lydia, he will never give heed to the preaching of the Gospel. He will not and cannot. Are we saying the same thing here? If so, then I agree.

[......]

This is where we part ways theologically. I believe God will not fail in His purpose to save a man. The opening of the heart of man "to heed the Gospel" is the new brith. When God opens the heart of an ungenerate soul, it is to implant His Word in it. This is the good seed that fell on good ground. God's calling of a man, not in the general outward sense, but in the in-ward sense as we are discussing shall not fall because of the will of man, because man in not born again by the will of the flesh or the will of man.

[.....]

May the Lord help me be fair and impartial.

 

Respectfully RB, we can all bring up Systematic Theologians whom we can quote to express our views. But the problem you now run into is those theologians articulate their view based upon how they view scriptures, and then we begin talking past one another again.

Like for instance in your quoting I already have some issues with what they understands as regeneration and conversion. If they are so simultanious it is indistinguishable, then by virtue of his statement his entire peice is based upon his assumption of which is logically first.

Secondly you have the assumption of two calling one of which is designed to actaully save a person and the other is a false general or decietful call having no intent by God whatsoever to save them and by using the very call that never was intended to save God will damn them based on their rejection of it and solitifying their damnation by it.

Thirdly, regarding definitions :born again, regeneration are synonmous with conversion. IOW - they are all the same action.

And there are others but my MAIN problem with regeneration before faith is that it defies scripture: so I say again.

.

 

I can understand your sentiment, but I think its misguided a bit. I like Systematic Theologies from various sources, like Boyce, Grudem, Hodge, Dagg, Gill, and others because I can see how they reasoned through these same things. The fact is, I am already convinced by Scripture of these things. But I may not articluate an idea as well as Gill did, or Grudem, or even Wesley. So, in quoting them was not to talk past each other by throwing calvinist and non-calvinist theolgoical quotes at one another. If that were the case, they would have been used exclusively and not as support and clarification to the point I was making. Which one of the points was to prove that my thinking on the matter was not isolated.


[.....]

This is an oft repeated response to the doctrine of particular redemption. I believe it has been completely refuted, and an entire thread could (maybe should) be dedicated the doctrine of particular redemption. Suffice it to say, that while we may understand the following verse differently (and many more could be added to show why we believe in a general call), our Lord taught, "For many are called, but few are chosen." Or, RBs paraphrase, "For many are called by the preaching of the Gospel, but few are the elect of God."

I don't believe this based off the Scirptures in 1 John. They have presuded me that faith and other things Scirpture mentions are the result of being born again.

Well, that is yours to seek to prove. I will take some time with what you are sharing again and reply.

 

Those texts in 1 John clearly shows that regeneration precedes faith and sanctification (2:29; 5:1).

 

Who are those Calvinists that do not believe this? And why don't they believe this?