Does Calvinism teach that we are born-again TWICE!

Larry is right. When scripture speaks of being saved, or of salvation, there are several meanings that are possible, depending on the context.

What's in view here is final salvation. It isn't just a moment of "getting saved," but a final salvation on that day of resurrection and glorification, when our redemption is complete.

 

yeh, some people shy away from the idea of 'being saved in stages' because people who follow works salvation believe that way. Of a truth- there ARE stages. In the past you were saved of the penalty of sin, in the presence you are saved of the power of sin, and in the future you will be saved from the presence of sin. Stages. we won't be 100% saved from sin until That Day.

 

Sure

It is Christian, specifically baptist.

You can't be too serious, if you think that what I believe and teach is nowhere in the Bible. What I believe and teach is the orthodox position of historic Christianity.

In my more than 12000 posts, I have defended that many times from Scripture.

No I didn't say that. You are changing my words. That is unacceptable.

Regeneration is the impartation of spiritual life to the spiritually dead.

I have read it in other tongues, and in fact have read it in Greek. So what? You really think this verse proves me wrong? It doesn't. Regeneration is a part of salvation; it is not salvation per se.

No they're not.

Why?

 

lol@pastor larry. nicely done.

 

Oh I guess I was just plain to dumb. Thanks for the personal attack</font>[/QUOTE]No, that wasn't a personal attack, and I don't think you are dumb. You just won't accept the truth.

Another attack I'm just plain dumb.</font>[/QUOTE]Since there was no first attack, this can't be "another" attack. And this isn't an attack either. It is a statement of fact: You don't know what you are talking about.

Now you tell me that Regeneration doesn't mean what it is defined as. </font>[/QUOTE]No I didn't tell you that.

How so?

Well, at least this is right.

 

Here is his whole post ;

Then you said;
I changed his words. Prove it. I can't change His words. I don't have any access to change his words. You falsely accuse me. and you can't even prove your claims.

Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

Then you said;
I changed his words. Prove it. I can't change His words. I don't have any access to change his words. You falsely accuse me. and you can't even prove your claims. </font>[/QUOTE]This is easily proven. You said about me: So, you are saying that "Regeneration" does not mean to be "born-again"? That is changing my words, and it is proven. I never said that regeneration does not mean to be "born again." I said regeneration is not salvation. You will read everything on this board I have ever written and you will find nowhere that I have said regeneration does not mean to be born again.

You just got caught ... again ...

 

Yes, I and asked what part of that contradicted what I said.

Yes. So what? We all agree that regeneration means to be born again.

How do you think we know that regeneration is not the same as salvation?? Serious Bible study.

Interesting analogy ... Have you ever looked at a coin? If so, then you can see that the two sides are not the same. You just used an analogy that disproves your own point. But fortunately, it was a bad analogy anyway ... regeneration and salvation are different by definition.

Of course.

You just disproved your own point. If two things are the same, one cannot be said to cause the other. You are right to say that "salvation is because of regeneration." It is completley illogical to then say "because the two are identical." It doesn't even make sense.

 

The funny thing is Icthus... it's amazing that over thousands of years every translator didn't see that compound? ... It's silly to begin with since the word "as itself" DOES NOT mean born again, that's why it is not translated that way, the closest you can get is NEW BIRTH but it is NEVER translated that way if anything they would use renewal.. also in a hermaneutical sense you can not break apart a compound and take the separate meanings to be literal, if you knew proper hermaneutics and greek this is usually the case. ..... Secondly, if YOU are equating this with "born again" as the phrase.... it's NEVER used this way anywhere else where the phrase is used.... And thirdly you said earlier in the thread that a "order" in salvation is heresy, and then you go on to give an order!!! 1)you must hear the gospel 2) you must believe... that's an order of salvation... how does it feel to call yourself a heretic?

Why do you think that God chose The blind, deaf, DEAD for illustrations of man? These are people that are POWERLESS. God must IN ORDER with POWER WORK! The blind man doesn't see Jesus then find his sight! The dead didn't decide to open the tombstone! God solely by His power and MERCY (Titus 3.5) declares "It shall come to pass" and it does... He gives sight so one can see Him, He gives hearing to the blind, so one can hear Him, He GIVES LIFE so one can be alive.

He gives understanding (new heart, regeneration) so one can believe....

 

Larry;
What exactly did you catch me at. I did not change your words I used my own. Seems I just caught you not being honest.
You're the reason I wouldn't be caught dead being a Calvinist.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

Not that I do not trust the scholarship and expertise of everyone on this board (me included,)but could someone cite some scholarly writings or commentaries that explain the distinction between being regenerated, being born again and being saved.

I am trying to understand how one can be both regenerated and born again but not saved. I could maybe see (though not agree with) a distinction between regeneration and salvation. This would be an explanation (however implausible) for Cornelius. But I cannot see the distinction between born-again and being saved (unless you define salvation, not as an instant, but as a life long process as the Roman Catholics do.)

 

Here is your error of understanding yet again. Salvation does not equal regeneration. Regeneration equals being born again. Therefore salvation does not equal being born again, in biblical terms. We have gotten loose with that terminology rather than using the Scripture's terms.

Yes it is.

Incorrect. Your bad logic and bad definitions led you to espouse a faulty position. Contact Sproul and find out if he believes we are saved twice. (You will find taht he agrees with me). You started out with a bad premise. Give it up.

See your mistake again? You jumped from "regeneration without faith" to "salvation without faith." You can't interchange the words. They are not the same. We need faith in Christ for salvation. That comes from regeneration.

Because it is.

Yes indeed.

Yes indeed (but you don't have to end a sentence with two punctuation marks ).

That may be but not based on your logic. You changed the words again. You can't just change regenration for salvation. They are not the same. This has been a pretty constant drumbeat for four pages now. How are you still missing it??

Square one is always getting the definitions straight so that you can talk about things the same way others do. In this case, you need to get your definitions straight.

 

Your words changed what I was saying to try to make it appear that I said something I didn't.

No you didn't. You know better. You can go back and look and see what I said and compare it to what you said. It is clear. And you tried to change it.

Funny thing is, when you finally are dead, you will be a Calvinist.

But this point makes no sense. It is a pure personal attack. There was no reason for that comment. You got caught changing my words to make them mean something else. Don't do it. And don't make personal attacks.

 

The biggest problem is probably the attempt to see the ordo salutis as a chronological order rather than logical. It is purely logical. In terms of time, one is not regenerated before they are saved. It happens at precisely the same time. But there is a logical order, or a cause and effect order that Scripture declares. The pursuit of an ordo salutis is the pursuit of putting together the Bible's teaching on all the things that are a part of salvation.

 

Thanks Larry,

Your answer is to a question I did not ask.

I understand that the Calvinist contention that regeneration logically precedes salvation. Regeneration - Faith - Belief - Salvation.

However, you agreed that regeneration= born-again.

What I asked was for the "distinction between born-again and being saved."

Most importantly, I asked for Calvinist citations that would explain this distinction.