Decisional Regeneration

[Allan]

1. The Greek word behind "account" or "reckon" or "credit" is logizomai and it is an accounting term, dealing with numbers.

I know :thumbs:

2. It is not to be confused with our use of "taking credit" for something done.

You took what I said way beyond what I was saying or even implying.
God accounted (credited) Abrahams faith unto him for righteousness. That was all I stated, I did not state Abraham 'took credit' for believing. However, though Abraham did not go about bragging as you assume anyone not Calvinistic does but we DO see scripture stating:

Rom 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Abraham's faith is not once ever stated to be something God gave him (as if faith in general was something he never had until God bestowed it to him) Yet we see that Abraham believing God, and he being fully persuaded what God had promised and that He was able to perform it, is considered to be strong IN faith. Strong because he did not stagger at the seeming impossible promise of God with unbelief (to which scripture imply is something he could have done). And as says the scriptures "Therefore" or 'in light of these things' - what things? Abraham's faith in action rather than unbelief- and it was for this reason his faith was imputed/accounted/credited to him for righteousness. Not that he did (as in works) anything but that he believed God who was able.

Paul has nullified such argument (Rom 4:2-4).

No, Paul nullified a works based salvation. But Paul also stated that man belief which is required for man to be saved in not considered a work because man must trust the work of God regarding salvation and not his own.

We do not see Abraham 'taking credit' for believing but we do see the scripture giving Abraham credit regarding his beleif which saved him.

3. Notice that "credit" is in the passive, signifying something done to you.

Of course and no one has disputed this.

God does the reckoning, precising because He is the one that give the faith to begin with.

If you mean that without God man would never have known what to believe, you bet.
If you mean that God gave beleif or faith to man because it was something he never had, I have to ask you for scripture please.

5. Because it glorifies God, the one who enabled the believing.

You must forgive me please, but in one breathe you state that God must give man faith, and make him beleive because man has no other option. Then you down play the belief issue to "God enables man to believe". Either God enables the faith of man to believe or God gives man faith to believe - which is it?

In either case, my question was:

Why does God give man faith, so He can make man believe Him and then turn around and credit his belief as righteousness for him?

and you then answer : it was because it glorifies God who enabled him to believe. Please HOW DOES IT GLORIFY GOD - in which God has to give man faith, make man use it, and then after making man use the faith God gave him turn around and say "now that I used my faith through you, I will account it as righteousness to you. Again forgive me but IMO - Do you realize just how silly that sounds? Are you really going to state God who created all things came up with this clumsy process to impart righteousness. I can see a human comming up with but not anything I have seen in scripture.

Paul says, "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" Phil 1:6 (ESV) and then,

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" Phil 2:12-13 (ESV, emphasis mine)

7. Please, do not confuse my admittance to a mystery as confusion. I am happy to say I don't know how everything works.

8. If you, on the other hand, have figured everything out, give God thanks and glory.

It is not something hard to figure out because scripture is quite clear regarding it. But you will not be able to see it because it is something you will not listen to much less given even a moments consideration.

 

[psalms109:31]

universalism

Universalism is the belief that everyone is saved, correct?

Is that part of Arminianism?

I have learned that Ca=tulip and Ar=daisy

Universalist will try to use your beliefs to prove thier theories. I had a year long debate with a calvinist/universalist. I never new anything about calvinist, until many calvinist who agreed with many of the points that the universalist agreed with calvinist on started comming against me.

Universalist was basically saying. It is God who choses who will be saved and God wants all men to be saved. So all will be saved. He was missing the main ingredient. I didn't want to fight against scripture that said God wanted all to be saved, so i went against the calvinist teaching which was his main problem.

God chooses to save those who have faith not all. God does want all to be saved, but only those who believe in His Son that is who God chooses to save. We cannot deny scripture or change the meaning of scripture to fit our doctrine. If our belief don't match the scripture we change our belief to match the scripture not the meaning of scripture to match our beliefs.

If God say's all or the world we better believe Him rather than our own undersatnding.

 

[Bro. James]

I Have Decided...

Where in our filthy rags of total depravity do we find the wherewithal to make the right decision? We are completely given over to the delusion of self rightness in spiritual decision making. "No one comes to The Father unless The Spirit draws him". "Faith comes by hearing, hearing by The Word of God".

To God be the glory--great things He has done.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[psalms109:31]

Romans 7:
18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No problem.


Agreed.

Agreed.

I will try to be polite here since you have pressed a hot button of mine. So be patient with me if you will.
You would be more correct to state the early Church and the early church Fathers and not the Roman Catholic Church. Actually it goes all the way back to the Apostles our Lord Himself.
However, it was much later when the church (which called itself Catholic - or Universal) became the diseased Roman Church we see they maintianed some of the early teachings but much was distorted and perverted as well. As it grew and evolved it became much worse later on.

Roman Catholic teachings do not come close to synergysm (which is a common misconception amoung Calvinists) but is most definately semi- Pelagan. (semi-Pel view - Man desires to come to God but can't, God in turn give grace to man to help man come to him. Once man decides he really wants to come to God, God then REWARDS man with salvation) This is the cooperative relationship which 'you' are trying to apply to the Non-Cal position which in FACT is not even close to our view. We do not hold that Man must FIRST come to God and then God helps him out so that when Man decides he wants to come God rewards him for his work.

The Non-Cal view holds that man can not and will not of his own seek out or is able to do anything in such a way as to please God. However, God Himself must FIRST come to man, and by the Word and Spirit reveal truth to man (also known or viewed as drawing and convicting) and that man not being able to save himself but being worthy of damnation must either believe God's truth (regarding Gods salvation) and be judged on the merits of Christs righteousness imputed to him by grace for believing God or reject God provision and be judged on their own merits.
Man recieves nothing from God for his works.

To say these two are diametrically the same or theologically the same is either a gross misjudgment or an intentional fabrication. Semi- Pel view is based off of the primary principle of Pelaganism - Man coming to God first, and earning his reward. This is the Roman Catholic belief, and not the Non-Cal.



Yes, in a give and take relationship which is based upon works. Salvation is their reward for a work well done and if not you get purgitory or even cast into hell if the Church excomunicates (sp?) you.

Please research a little more before such accusations are tossed around as if they are true.

The only thing the two have in common is that salvation CAN NOT be given by God to man unless Man believes. This is the only 'cooperation' that is spoken to and it rests squarely upon scripture and very words of our Lord God. Unless man believes that which God has both said and done, man will not, nay can not be saved. Not once will you find scripture to support the view - be saved and believe. But I can show scripture after scripture which states believe and be saved!


Did it ever occur to you that the Non-Cal position is just as at odds with the Catholic view of salvation as you are. Martin Luther was opposed to libertarian free-will (Both a view that the Pel and Semi-Pel hold). But not the the version of most Baptist non-Cals today regarding their understanding of free-will. They use the phrase as a point of reference (being that God gives man choice) much like Calvinists are not followers of Calvin but affirm the 5 basic principles known as the Sovereign Grace Doctrines.

Again you are incorrect here regarding beliefs of the Non-Cal. We to affirm this and stand squarely upon it. But we see the Apostles and our Lord teaching them somewhat differently than your version. We are dead not in the wooden literal sense but metiphorically, must like when Paul also states to believers that 'we ARE dead TO sin". Or like Jesus does in the Prodical Son.
How did the son come to be home- He chose to go back there. When did he do that? According to the Father - he was dead (seperated) and chose to come to His Father and NOW is alive (unified with the father).
Also you do not view the portion of scripture which states "we are 'dead' to sin , and that dead be seen as wooden literal, because that would mean you could no more sin as the new creation in Christ than the unbeliever can do any righteous work unto God. And His making us alive isn't regeneration before salvation but the regernation OF salvation.


I noticed that in order to make it monegeristic you had to remove a portion of scripture. "Through Faith" and faith when used as a verb is always in the active sense meaning the subject (or person in this case) is the one doing the action. If it was completely monegeristic it would be God doing the action making mans faith passive and never active.

Unfortunately that is an arguement that has never once been biblically proven to be truth. If it were then it would be one of the immutable truths we all agree upon such as Christ being God, His death, His burial, His resurrection, His virgin birth, ect, ect... I show you some reasons it has never been proven.
1. If salvation requires nothing from man, then man need not believe for salvation.
2. Even IF regeneration comes first, Man still must cooperate with God in order to be saved because it is imcumbient upon man by the command of God to believe that he might be saved.
Just for starters.


Then you have over looked scriptures stating to the contrary.

And still many more.
As seem in some of the above verses the dead you presume is wooden literal is not so and illistrated as such in the parable of the prodical son. Also there is no life (being made alive) UNTIL AFTER they believe. Another is that man must choose to lose his life that he might be saved. WHo ever shall dring the water Christ offers will not thirst again. So far, everywhere I look in the scriptures speaks to Gods working of salvation through the offer of His Son. He is the substitute for our sins but not ours only but the sins of the Whole World.

Please do me a favor look at each time John uses the term Whole World in all his works and you will see that in every instance it is in regard toward the whole or all of sinful man and never to the saved or elect alone. If that be so according to his own pen and the leading of the Spirit to divine inspiration have a problem growing)

But in ALL of these and others man does nothing to add to Gods salvation of him nor does man First come to God and God responds, but we see the general call by God who sought out man to every sinner (for that is the whole world) and those who will believe will be saved and made alive in Christ Jesus.

Since you desired a lengthy reply, I will provide a lengthy answer in my next post.

 

[MB]

1. As RB, just outlined, the natural man repudiates the idea of God seeking His own glory.

2. You have made no attempt to explain all those passages I quoted. None.

I did to you just didn't like my explanation. None of which makes God self seeking

3. When did God seek your counsel or mine about the ethical value of seeking His own glory? God is the only Being for whom seeking His own glory is not a sin. If God didn't seek His own glory, He would not send His Son to die for sinful man.

Sin is sin to God as well as to man. God does not sin and then claim it's alright because He's God. God does not sin.

4. "But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand." (Isaiah 53:10, emphasis)

5. "Crushing the Son" glorified the Father. The Hebrew verb behind "pleased" means "to delight in, having pleasure in."

God was pleased and it must have been pleasurable to Him but it was the
Son who was glorified. Yes the Father and Son are one but they're separate identities. The Son layed down His own life willingly. The Father didn't force Him to. This was not the Fathers Glory but the Son's
MB

 

[MB]

P.S.
Christ died for the sins of men, and not for His own glory.
MB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I will try to be polite here since you have pressed a hot button of mine. So be patient with me if you will.
You would be more correct to state the early Church and the early church Fathers and not the Roman Catholic Church. Actually it goes all the way back to the Apostles our Lord Himself.
However, it was much later when the church (which called itself Catholic - or Universal) became the diseased Roman Church we see they maintianed some of the early teachings but much was distorted and perverted as well. As it grew and evolved it became much worse later on.

As is sometimes the case, when we have our “hot buttons” pushed we sometime make rash judgments and misunderstand. I was making a comparison to the Roman Catholic Church, and not the early church or any early church father. I do not regard the early church as Roman Catholic, as the Roman Catholics would have us believe. So, my statement is true. The Roman Catholics church teaches a synergism. In Cannon 9 we read: “"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
Obviously Rome is teaching a mutual cooperation between man and God “in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification” How does this compare to the Remonstrant’s teaching and modern Arminainism? Arminianism teaches a power of co-operation, a working with grace, to make conversion effectual. Also included, is a power to resist grace, making it ineffectual turning upon the will of man. As we hear in modern pulpits, if man accepts, or chooses Christ, then he is saved (grace is effectual) but if he resists, then grace is made ineffectual because man’s will has rejected it.
What this does is relegate God’s will, power, grace, and calling to the almighty will of the creature. Under this scheme, men are not saved according to the will of God, who merely wishes they would be, but according to man’s ability to apprehend and cooperate with the movements of the Spirit. The operation of God under this scheme behaves more like a persuasion than a resurrection.
True it may be that since the days of Jacob Arminus and the Remonstrance “Arminianism” has shed itself of much of their ideas and teaching. Old Arminianism, if we can call it that, is nothing more than old pelagian heresy in new clothing. There is most likely a difference between Arminius’s Arminianism and that of modern evangelicals today. Of this Arminianism, J.I. Packer writes, “Arminianism it is essentially God's unconditional decision to provide means of grace, decisions about individuals' destiny being secondary, conditional, and consequent upon foresight of how they will use those means of grace.”
Is there then a difference with what we can call “Evangelical Arminianism”
Packer wrote, “A more discerning approach, however, is that exemplified by William Ames, one of the periti of Dort, who wrote: "The view of the Remonstrants, as it is taken by the mass of their supporters, is not strictly a heresy [that is, a major lapse from the gospel], but a dangerous error tending toward heresy. As maintained by some of them, however, it is the Pelagian heresy: because they deny that the effective operation of inward grace is necessary for conversion."42 Ames' words alert us to the fact that Arminianisms vary, so that blanket judgments are not in order: each version of post-Reformation semi-Pelagianism must be judged on its own merits. Ames is right. The facts surveyed in this article show clearly the need for discrimination. Thus, it is surely proper to be less hard on Wesleyanism than on any form of Dutch Arminianism, just because (to the loss of clarity and consistency, yet to the furtherance of the gospel) Wesley's teaching included so much Reformation truth about the nature of faith, the witness of the Spirit, and effectual calling. Wesley's Arminianism, we might say, contained a good deal of its own antidote! Its evangelical and religious motivation, also, puts it in a different class from the Remonstrant position.”
I was impressed by Packer’s view on the tension between the two views and those on either side. I also was impressed by his sound and sober judgment in the matter regard the motivations of both. Allow me one more quote,
“Arminians appear as men concerned to do justice to four biblical realities: the love of God, the glory of Christ, the moral responsibility of man, and the call to Christian holiness. The reason why they affirm universal redemption, universal sufficient grace, man's ability to respond to God, man's independence in responding, and the conditional character of election, is that they think these assertions necessary as means to their avowed end. Calvinists believe that the Arminian method of safeguarding these four realities actually imperils them, and can argue strongly to this effect; but they can only expect to be listened to if they are showing equal concern for these realities themselves. And if their Calvinism appears hard, cold, and academic, lacking love for God and man, lacking passion for evangelism, lacking both the tender conscience and the burning heart, they must not wonder if their arguments fail to carry conviction.”

This said, I expect that most evangelical arminians on this board have the concerns spoken of by Packer. Let both the Calvinist and the Arminian regard each other having the same concern and we should see these debates generate more light than heat.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Roman Catholic teachings do not come close to synergysm (which is a common misconception amoung Calvinists) but is most definately semi- Pelagan. (semi-Pel view - Man desires to come to God but can't, God in turn give grace to man to help man come to him. Once man decides he really wants to come to God, God then REWARDS man with salvation) This is the cooperative relationship which 'you' are trying to apply to the Non-Cal position which in FACT is not even close to our view. We do not hold that Man must FIRST come to God and then God helps him out so that when Man decides he wants to come God rewards him for his work.

Perhaps I misunderstand the base meaning of synergism, but in reading the canons of Rome and the ideas of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, they both appear very synergistic to me.

The Non-Cal view holds that man can not and will not of his own seek out or is able to do anything in such a way as to please God.

That is also the Calvinist view.

However, God Himself must FIRST come to man, and by the Word and Spirit reveal truth to man (also known or viewed as drawing and convicting) and that man not being able to save himself

We agree.

but being worthy of damnation must either believe God's truth (regarding Gods salvation) and be judged on the merits of Christs righteousness imputed to him by grace for believing God or reject God provision and be judged on their own merits.
Man recieves nothing from God for his works.

This sounds like God’s power, desire, and act of His grace to save a man whom He does all these things for and to, hinges upon man’s choice. This I reject. And is contrary to Scripture.

To say these two are diametrically the same or theologically the same is either a gross misjudgment or an intentional fabrication. Semi- Pel view is based off of the primary principle of Pelaganism - Man coming to God first, and earning his reward. This is the Roman Catholic belief, and not the Non-Cal.

It is the view of historic Arminianism, which is more in-line with Roman Catholic belief. What you are describing is Evagelical Arminianism, which is more in-line with Calvinistic belief.

Yes, in a give and take relationship which is based upon works. Salvation is their reward for a work well done and if not you get purgitory or even cast into hell if the Church excomunicates (sp?) you.

Please research a little more before such accusations are tossed around as if they are true.

I think I have now cleared myself of your admonition.

The only thing the two have in common is that salvation CAN NOT be given by God to man unless Man believes. This is the only 'cooperation' that is spoken to and it rests squarely upon scripture and very words of our Lord God. Unless man believes that which God has both said and done, man will not, nay can not be saved. Not once will you find scripture to support the view - be saved and believe. But I can show scripture after scripture which states believe and be saved!

What is missing here is the origin of faith. We teach, as under as much conviction as you, that salvation is by grace through faith. However, we oppose that faith springs from man, but is a gift by God’s grace. This even John Wesley came to recognize and affirm. It is worth quoting Packer on this matter,
“It was Wesley's Aldersgate Street experience that determined his view of faith. There, as his heart was "strangely warmed" through the reading of Luther on Romans, he entered into what his Moravian friends had told him that real faith was: namely, assurance of pardon and acceptance through the cross. "I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine. . . Habitually (though not in perfect verbal consistency) Wesley taught that this assurance is an integral element in the faith that God gives-the faith, that is, that saves.36 Repentance was to him faith's precondition, sorrow for sin and reform of manners. Sometimes, indeed, as in his 1744 Conference Minutes, he would describe repentance as "a low state of faith," or as the faith of a servant in contrast with that of a son (compare Gal. 4:1-7; Rom. 8:15f.); his basic thought, however, was that, whereas repentance is a state of seeking God, faith is the state of finding him, or rather of being found by him. A person seeking God can do no more than wait on God, showing the sincerity of his quest by the earnestness of his prayers and the tenderness of his conscience, till the light of assurance dawns in his heart. Such teaching is similar to the Puritan doctrine of "preparatory works," and led to similar practice in counseling troubled souls: it is a far cry from Dutch Arminianism.
As for Wesley's view of justification itself, it was as far as Wesley knew a return to the Reformers. He spoke of Christ's atoning death in penal and substitutionary terms, and insisted that it was on the grounds of that death, and that alone, that we are forgiven and accepted by God. With perfect sincerity he declared himself in 1765 to have believed about justification for 27 years "just as Mr. Calvin does."37”

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Did it ever occur to you that the Non-Cal position is just as at odds with the Catholic view of salvation as you are. Martin Luther was opposed to libertarian free-will (Both a view that the Pel and Semi-Pel hold). But not the the version of most Baptist non-Cals today regarding their understanding of free-will. They use the phrase as a point of reference (being that God gives man choice) much like Calvinists are not followers of Calvin but affirm the 5 basic principles known as the Sovereign Grace Doctrines.

Did it occur to me that Evangelical Arminains oppose Roman Catholic soteriology? What gave you the impression I didn’t if this be an honest question and not meant to give embarrassment? And I don’t think I have regarded modern evangelicals as following anyone but the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again you are incorrect here regarding beliefs of the Non-Cal. We to affirm this and stand squarely upon it. But we see the Apostles and our Lord teaching them somewhat differently than your version. We are dead not in the wooden literal sense but metiphorically, must like when Paul also states to believers that 'we ARE dead TO sin". Or like Jesus does in the Prodical Son.

The Apostle tells us both that before we (believers) were in Christ, we were dead in our trespasses and sins. We were not wounded, but dead. I can understanding this metaphorically as well as describing the condition of the soul. We are dead to God as much as a dead person buried in the grave is dead to the living. If this is not the meaning, then the allegory is meaningless.

When I look back on my own Evangelical Arminian days, I too believed men were dead in sins and trespasses. I was just inconsistent in my belief from there.

How did the son come to be home- He chose to go back there. When did he do that? According to the Father - he was dead (seperated) and chose to come to His Father and NOW is alive (unified with the father).
Also you do not view the portion of scripture which states "we are 'dead' to sin , and that dead be seen as wooden literal, because that would mean you could no more sin as the new creation in Christ than the unbeliever can do any righteous work unto God. And His making us alive isn't regeneration before salvation but the regernation OF salvation.

The Son came home of His volition, but we ought not set at naught the doctrine of God in salvation. His son was dead, as in Adam, in whom all died. Separated from God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But he is alive again, Christ entered the boy and made him come alive effecting a change of heart so that the boy would both do and will according to His good pleasure.
He was lost, in Adam, and found, in Christ. The son here “came to himself” not of a libertarian free-will, which you well deny, but because the Spirit of God came to work on his sinful heart and brought him to Himself.
What I deny is that God’s purpose would be frustrated by the will of man.

I noticed that in order to make it monegeristic you had to remove a portion of scripture. "Through Faith" and faith when used as a verb is always in the active sense meaning the subject (or person in this case) is the one doing the action. If it was completely monegeristic it would be God doing the action making mans faith passive and never active.

Now this is very unjust to accuse me to removing Scripture to make it teach what I wish when that is not the case. Where have I laid such a calumny against you? We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God. This is found in verse 8.
I was quoting from verse 5 and removed nothing. It reads, “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)” And just before that verse it reads, “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,”
And why are you amazed that we believe that this salvation is not contingent on the will of man? For, “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that shewth mercy.” Romans 9:16
Why are you amazed when we teach, “God raised us up from being dead in sins, saved us by His grace, because of His great mercy and love wherewith He loved us?” He did not save us apart from faith in Jesus Christ, but through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.

Unfortunately that is an arguement that has never once been biblically proven to be truth. If it were then it would be one of the immutable truths we all agree upon such as Christ being God, His death, His burial, His resurrection, His virgin birth, ect, ect... I show you some reasons it has never been proven.

This makes no allowance for heresy to come into the church, which obviously did, and such gross heresy as those who denied the deity of Christ, the resurrection from the dead, the atonement, that Jesus came in the flesh, et. This reasoning of your that its not true because we don’t all agree upon it is faulty logic.



1. If salvation requires nothing from man, then man need not believe for salvation.

Wrong. This is a fundamental misunderstanding that while God creates the end, He does not also create the means to that end. God ordains both the means and the end.

2. Even IF regeneration comes first, Man still must cooperate with God in order to be saved because it is imcumbient upon man by the command of God to believe that he might be saved.

If regeneration occurs before, or simultaneously, then the work is monergistic not synergistic. You reasoning seems highly contradictory to me.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

P.S.
Christ died for the sins of men, and not for His own glory.
MB

I am amazed at how men seem to detest the supremecy and glory of God. Why do you think Christ died for HIs people?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Shorter replies

Allen,

I have still a little left on your reply to me to respond to which I will later this afternoon. Can we work on dealing with shorter points and shorter points? It will be easier for me to reply to and I think easier for others to follow along.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

As seem in some of the above verses the dead you presume is wooden literal is not so and illistrated as such in the parable of the prodical son.

I answered this above in regard to metaphores.

Also there is no life (being made alive) UNTIL AFTER they believe. Another is that man must choose to lose his life that he might be saved. WHo ever shall dring the water Christ offers will not thirst again. So far, everywhere I look in the scriptures speaks to Gods working of salvation through the offer of His Son. He is the substitute for our sins but not ours only but the sins of the Whole World.

I dealt with order of things in another post out of 1 John which speaks directly about this subject. Whereas, in the Scriptures you are quoting, it is being inferred into them. Because the Gospel says, "Believe and be saved" does not mean believing must precede regeneration, or the new birth. It is the command of the Gospel that every one repent and believe on Christ. What we both are affirming, I think, is that man in his natural state cannot do this. It takes the operation of God. Because man is dead in his sins, which certainly doesn't mean the man is physically dead, but in a spiritual sense concerning his communion with God, I see the natural metaphor fully applicable to the spiritual reality. Men are dead in their sins, that is to God, like naturally dead men are dead to the living. Otherwise the metaphor is meaningless.

But know, we have been born again by the will of God, are dead to sin but alive to God. And this is true in my life. But this never means, nor was it the teaching of the Aposlte, that regenerate men do not sin.

Please do me a favor look at each time John uses the term Whole World in all his works and you will see that in every instance it is in regard toward the whole or all of sinful man and never to the saved or elect alone. If that be so according to his own pen and the leading of the Spirit to divine inspiration have a problem growing.

I don't think any of us here are denying the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture. I am certainly not.

The term "world" appears in the Gospel of John (KJV) 59 times, in 1 John 17 times, in 2 John 1 time, in 3 John 0 times, and in Revelation 7 times.

In direct account of the death of Christ, we find the following in the Gospel of John:

John 1:29 "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

John 3:16-17
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 4:42
And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

John 6:33
For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 12:47
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

John 17:9
I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. (one cannot separate Christ's atonement from his intercession)

Next post will continue this one.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

1 John

Here is 1 John

1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:14
And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

2 John and 3 John have no refeence to Christ's death and the term, "world"

Revelation does not have a direct reference either, although it does to the blood of Christ.

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;" rev 5:9

 

[webdog]

Being this thread is at 30 pages and will be closed shortly, this conversation should probably pick back up on a new thread.

 

[swaimj]

Kill it, bury it, and don't let it back up, I say! This thread has been off topic for about 28 pages and has been little but two sides talking past each other. To everyone's credit, the thread has been polite, but little has been said on the topic of decisonal regeneration itself.

 

[MB]

I am amazed at how men seem to detest the supremecy and glory of God. Why do you think Christ died for HIs people?

He didn't die for glory because if He had it wouldn't have been glory. He died for our sins because there was no other way He could save man kind. Which means God lives by His own rules.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

But in ALL of these and others man does nothing to add to Gods salvation of him nor does man First come to God and God responds, but we see the general call by God who sought out man to every sinner (for that is the whole world) and those who will believe will be saved and made alive in Christ Jesus

So now that I have done you the favor of looking at all of the Apostle John's works and the use of the term "world" as it relates Christ's death and for whom, I will comment.

We are agreed that man does nothing to add to God's salvation of him nor does man man first come to God and God responds. We agree there is a general call, or that it is universal, that all men, each and every one, should have the Gospel preached to them.

What I hear in your reply here is that "world" means world, meaning you, me, everyone. How could it possibly mean any other thing?

Well, that's the nature of words. Let me give an illustration. The Hebrew term for day is "yom" and can mean a period of time, long or short, a 24-hour period, the first half of the day, a section of time out of a period of time, or 1000 years.

If I say, "I am going to take one day at a time." What, by context, would be my meaning? You would think i am saying that I am going to worry about 1 24-hour period at a time. If I said, "Back in the day, I was a wild man." (which is true) You would naturally assume I am referring a period of time in my past.

The point is that the word is "neutral" and its scope must be determined by context, not by the word alone.

The word "kosmos' which is translated "world" falls into this category as well. It is not used uniformally throughout the New Testament. Being that it is used in a number of ways, we need to show its scope by context, if possible, or use other Scriptures that shed light on the scope, in our case, of Christ's redemption.

A.W. Pink outlined 7 different uses of the word kosmos in Scripture. They are as follows:

"Kosmos" is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17:24 - "God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth."

"Kosmos" is used of the earth: John 13:1; Ephesians 1:4, etc., etc.- "When Jesus knew that his hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world He loved them unto the end." "Depart out of this world" signifies, leave this earth. "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." This expression signifies, before the earth was founded—compare Job 38:4 etc.

"Kosmos" is used of the world-system: John 12:31 etc. "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out"— compare Matthew 4:8 and 1 John 5:19, R. V.

"Kosmos" is used of the whole human race: Romans 3:19, etc.—"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"Kosmos" is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Romans 3:6 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you." Believers do not "hate" Christ, so that "the world" here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ. "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world." Here is another passage where "the world" cannot mean "you, me, and everybody," for believers will not be "judged" by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view.

"Kosmos" is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews: Romans 11:12 etc. "Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (Israel’s) fulness." Note how the first clause in italics is defined by the latter clause placed in italics. Here, again, "the world" cannot signify all humanity for it excludes Israel!

"Kosmos" is used of believers only: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Corinthians 4:9; 2 Corinthians 5:19. We leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of "the world" in each place.

In learning what the scope of the use of the world may be for a particular passage Pink wisely suggests,

"But how is a searcher of the Scriptures to know which of the above meanings the term "world" has in any given passage? The answer is: This may be ascertained by a careful study of the context, by diligently noting what is predicated of "the world" in each passage, and by prayer fully consulting other parallel passages to the one being studied. "

Now lest I be called a Pinkite, I am not in agreement with Pink on everything. While I believe Pink's reasoning is sound in applying the term "world" in John 3:16 to the world of believers, I am more inclinded at this point to believe what is meant here is not Jews only, but also Gentiles. I have several reasons, biblically, for thinking this, but I think this answers the reply that since John 3:16 and other passages use the term "world" (kosmos) it MUST mean you, mean, and everyone. This is simply not the case.

RB

 

[MB]

Hey folks,

Ok, I have put on my meanie calvinist hat. And in case your wondering, this WILL turn into a C/A debate. lol

I would like the discussion to remain civil. No silly attacks and ad homs. That's a waste of time. Let's get to the nitty gritty of theology here folks.

Does Man's Decision Control The New Birth?

If man isn't willing then he isn't accepted.
2Co 8:12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.

Some of the reformed view believe they are save against there will is this your belief?

 

[MB]

RB,

A.W. Pink outlined 7 different uses of the word kosmos in Scripture. They are as follows:

Does A.W.Pink also write scripture? Jn 3 16 for instance isn't about the word "world" but about the whosoever. There is only one way to translate it and it comes up anyone every single time.
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

Salvation is for the whosoever's Praise God
MB