Decisional Regeneration Take 2

Is your goal to get everyone who disagrees with you, kicked off of BB??

Don't you always head off to the Greek cubbard when scripture does not line up with your theology?

 

I can see, i think, how you might get that impression from him. One, because Gill is hard to read. Second, because it seems your not familiar with the historic doctrine of justification, that a man, being 100% sinner, can be accounted to be righteous, without a single deed. Perhaps that is what you believe.

You know, Bob, when a man is born of God he becomes a new creation. The old passes away, and all things are made new. This kind of man cannot make sin the trade-skill of his life.

Now this statement, "A born again Christian does not make sin the trade-skill of his life." Is an original. lol

 

The answer to your first question is no.

The answer to your second question is that Scripture was not inspired in English. Surely you do not disdain the language God the Holy Spirit chose to use. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Surely you understand the weaknesses that come in as the result of translation. But let it not be said that I am saying a translation is not the word of God or inspired.

 

respond

We are all dead in sin. That does not mean we cannot believe.

The words of Jesus is Spirit and life. Many believed before they even received the Holy Spirit.

It is the work of God that you believe, so it starts with this.

 

Reformed; you, as so does Gill, really have trouble spitting out that a Christian can do horrible sins, but if pushed, you will say it. I think you are a good man and respect you, but you hold on to certain things, because it is the veiw of the majority. Well the majority is lost.

The orginal translators would not of crossed themselves in 1John. There is an answer so that both quotes are correct, without changing the meaning of the words.

 

Brother Bob, I respect you too. And I think sometimes the difficulties come because of just printing words. If we were having coffee and talking I imagine we would find much common ground, and agreement in so many of the fundamental Scriptures, that like the Apostle and those he wrote to, we would encourge each other by our mutual faith, for we both love the Lord Jesus.

I have no trouble saying a Christian can commit sin. Neither does Gill. Else, why would the Apostle write, "But if you do sin..." Christians sin and that is plain to all, regardless of their particular theology on the matter. Yet when we read that a born again person cannot sin, and when I did as a new Christian, I greatly wondered at the saying. Does this mean that if I am born of God I will not be able to commit sins? But I do commit sins so am I not born of God? What does this mean?

I have always sought the original languages to the best of my ability to gain a truer understanding of Holy Scripture, because those are the languages God chose. And when we do this in this area, we add to our understanding of Scripture, not take away from it.

I think the original translators of the KJV (which version I use mainly) or else the NKJV (because I prefer the recieved and majority texts) translated as best they could. No translations are perfect in the sense that one language can convey precisely the tense, meaning, et. of another. Especially Greek! And while we may arrive at the meaning of the word, we do not automatically know the use of it in the times it was used! This is true of all languages as language progresses through time. There are words in our KJV that were used 400 years ago, and contained a particualr meaning, but that meaning has changed! i.e. the word prevent.

What then? We need to study harder. We need to truly be workman in the Word. And it does indeed take work.

God bless you brother Bob,
RB

 

I know I could count on you.

1st I want to say this is pure Pelagius teachings 101 and what I have said for many months now, that we find this in your post and a few others on the BB. This is not Arminianism. This is "free-willism". You have clearly said above that man is not dead till he sins. Man is therefore born alive and must learn sin in order to die. This is the very words of Pelagius.

So lets slow this down and look at it real close. This is what "free willers" hate to do. Notice that there is a huge difference between Arminianism and Pelagianism. Arminianism at least holds that all men are born sinners. Now ture they address this in another way, but they do not take it as far as the "free-willers" or Pelagianism.

So when we slow it down and look at what they are saying, you will see the holes start popping up. Free-willers like to walk fast and carry a clip board. They try to make you think they have something on that clip board. But if we stop them....and make them show is the clip board..we will see it is blank.

So here we go...

you said..."The separation is this -- after one knowingly commits one's first sin"

Are you saying that if a person uses the Lords name in vain, and that person does not know it is a sin to use the Lords name in vain, that this person is not sinning?

 

James, I can't speak for SP, but I think by "knowingly" sinning he might be referring to the age of accountability. (Only God knows this age)
God puts His laws in our hearts, so at some point even if we've never heard of the 10 commandments, we know that we have sinned, or at least shall we say, that we have done wrong. In the case of a very young child, they can commit sin without "knowing" it.

 

Jumping back to page 6

I think you just talked past my meaning :tongue3:
I understand about using quotes (even large portions) and have no real problem with bringing them in. But when you quote one, then I quote one, and then ... all we are doing is discussing other peoples views of what scritpure is stating rather than what scritpure is saying through what God has revealed to us by it, itself. Usually by doing so, the other party looks for the next quote and the talk past each other and not listening begins. Yes, they bring at times better clarity to issues when we are at a loss to show views and points. However they are most often quoted NOT when clarity or articulation is difficult, but used most often to try to be the end all of the debate. If they were the debate would have ended with them (of either side) but it did not. No need to reply to the above - quotes are ok, but lets keep them limited - agreed?

I never thought your view was a lone ranger view that was not seen by other Calvinists. I don't particulary agree with Gill here as many others do not nor do I agree with his view. My disagreeing is not based on my liking or not liking what he says but what I believe the scripture says based on years of study. That study involved different theological systems, including Calvinism, to know which ones were most true scripturally that I might grow in truth and grace. Many I threw out after the first paragraph :smilewinkgrin: and other I have studied for years (like Calvinism) but still find them lacking scripturally to some degree or another. - No need to reply here either - it just gives you a little background on me.

And I beleive the doctrine of Particular Atonement has been completely refuted. Historically it was not just a C/A debate but in large measure a C/C debate as well. Yes, we differ on our understanding of the verse but your paraphrase (if you will permit me) holds no water contexually. I say that with respect.

1. In that parable please show where God elected/chose them TO come and others He did not.

Context of the verses in question as I see them -
He sent His servents first TO His Chosen (the Nation Israel) and was rejected by that Nation. He then sent His sevants out into the highways and hedges calling anyone who will to come (Gentiles). Many - refers to two different groups which if both invitations are seen together constitutes ALL (not all types). The first invitation (call) was to the Jewish Nation and the other was to any who would come (the Gentiles). Many in context is ALL people (under different dispensations) but properly stated as 'many' since the invititation was directed to certain groups - seperately. Many are called, but few are chosen (respond). The 'chosen' in relation to the invitation are those who willingly accept the call (not by compulsion but invitation) to come to the marriage. To drive home the point at the later portion of the parable one is found not having the wedding garments and was asked how he got there. If he would have come in the same way as the others he would be arrayed in like manner, but instead though he recieved the call like the others did, he hoped to come in another way and so was cast out. So the parable about the many called and few chosen reveals (to me at least) those who 'chose' to come at the invitation of God which was sent out to ALL people - They are called the Chosen. This is preceded by the same typology of parable in Matt 21:23-46. - Key verses there are:

The problem (as I see it) in your position regarding 1 John is your understanding of born again means regeneration and not specifically that it IS salvation. I see 1 John meaning this is what the saved who are regenerate do. Of this the scriptures have persuaded me that being born again is the result of faith/to beleive.

Just one example: "whosoever believes..SHALL.. have..Life".
Now unless I'm missing something, until one believes they do not have life, but only after belief does life come. Is a person alive, then made alive again? That can not be unless they being made alive (regeneration), died again that they might have life AGAIN (re-regeneration).

However, if a person holds like other Calvinists that a person can be regenerated for seconds, hours, or years before coming to Christ by faith then the problem grows extensively.

 

Yes...he may. I will let him say it 1st..and then show the error there as well.

 

Brother Bob,

On a side, note, I was thinking that it must be encouraging to you (being 68 years old) to see so many young men and women take seriously their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, studying to show themselves approved unto God, and loving the Lord Jesus. Much better to see this in our golden years than to see spiritual life waning on every side like we see in the UK, even if some of the young men and women disagee with us on some points.

I hope that when I reach my 70s, if God is willing that I do, that I will see young people everywhere growing in the grace and knoweldge of the Lord Jesus.

 

I will get to other posts at a later time. I need to do some touching up on my sermon and then have some family time. Keep it real, but keep it lovingly real :smilewinkgrin:

 

You may show the error to me if you'd like.
I would like to know.

 

Our new converts are given the right to choose the minister they want to baptize them, even if its from another church but of the same faith and order.
It really does my heart good, when they still choose me even though I am old and very sick. I have had to have someone stand behind them, if they are very big for I do not have the strength to raise them back up.
They kinda laugh at me for I am a stickler for them going all the way under, so I take my hand and shove their face under if it is not all the way under. I tell them that Jesus went all the way into the tomb or grave, and they are too.

BBob,

 

hello amy,

I will be online and off, because of a few reason..and i'm not JUST talking about football.



Anyway.."the age of accountability" we can look at later.

But setting that aside for now, it still comes back to knowing sin if we are to hold to Pelagianism. Pelagianism teaches we must learn to be bad. In fact this was Pelagius point. He felt as long as man was exposed to God, that man would choose God. If man was exposed to sin and sin only, man would become a sinner.

If we set aside all the verses showing the error in this thinking and just use man's own logic, we still see this does not work. Man is exposed to God and does not choose God. I wrote on this a few weeks ago. Below is a link to all 3 parts.

Where depravity and irresistible grace meet

Part 1 is what applies to this subject more then others. However all 3 parts can give a good understanding of mans depravity.

In part 1.....

There is much more to this, if you have the time to read it.

But the end will remain this....

It does not take a knowing sin in order to sin. We can sin without thinking about it.

 

We are in agreement so far. Anyone who has raised children knows that misbehaving comes naturally to them.

I read this last night:

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (KJV)

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; (NASB)

This seems to say that sin is in us, but it only comes "alive" when we have knowledge of God's law and we only "die" when we become aware of it.

 

Amy,

I would have to agree with you, if we took this verse on its own. But when we place it in the context of the chapter we then see it means something greater.

Paul is speaking of his own life. The salvation of his soul and how he came to know Christ. In the text below notice in verse 7...the word "nay". From this point on Paul is talking about how the LAW showed him that he was a sinner. Dr Dan Burger at Bob Jones U, use to say, the LAW like a bony finger pointing at us saying you cannot live up to Gods standards. I agree with Burger...the Law is there to show us we are sinners.


verse 8 is not saying we are NOT sinners when we do not know the LAW, it is saying we do not know we ARE sinners without the LAW.

Then verse 9 tells us we then see that we are DEAD in our sins...because we have the LAW

In verse 18 Paul tells us what the Law teaches us

Notice verse 19..Paul sin nature causes him to sin. Pauls sin nature is what makes Paul sin, and not knowing about sins.

also read verse 10 a few times. There is a very clever use of words in that verse.

I want to point out Paul is not claiming that the LAW or knowing the LAW made him a sinner. Paul was a sinner before he knew the LAW. It was when he understood the LAW in its full meaning that Paul also knew he was a sinner.

 

Rom 4:15Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.
Rom 5:13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

Hello Bob,

Romans chapter 4 is Paul's argument on how justification comes to the Jews of the OT.

In chapters 1 we Paul makes a case of the guilt of the Gentiles. In chapter 2 Paul shows where the Jews are just as guilty. The 1st part of Chapter 3 sums up the fact that ALL mankind is guilty. At the last of chapter 3, paul begins talking about Gods salvation plan. This carries to Chapter 5.

Now..this part of the book can also be labeled .. the case for God righteousness in salvation.

1st he shows why it is needed….
then....How all must have it…
And then the last point which starts in chapter 4….how this is done.

We are all justified by faith. This includes the Jews of the OT…

Now the passage.
Notice verse 1-8 shows we are not justified by works.

Romans 4

Next in 9-12 we see that the Jews were not justified by Circumcision

Now your passage....
Here we see why the Jews were not justified by the LAW verses 13-17

Now a close look at verse 15.

Notice...what wrath is this in verse 15? It is the wrath of God

This is the point. The law is not even close to saving any one. The LAW cannot justifying sinners. The LAW curses and condemns them.

The ten commandment are the ten word of God. The Law is more a statement of who God is. What Paul is saying is.. if the law had not come, there would have been none who would have known sin.

But ...the law is come And by this knowledge we can know that we cannot live up to Gods standards...and we should see ourself as sinners. The Law does not justifies therefore no man can be justified by it.

Now Paul goes in to how the Jews were saved in the OT. You can read that on your own.

 

On Romans 5...you need only to keep reading in context to see what this means.