-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does Free Will Require a Redeemer?
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
No. According to Romans 8 and 1 Cor 2, it is the Spirit of God that separates them.
So, what separates a "natural man" from a "righteous man" is his faith? Right?
Actually, it is the faithfulness of Christ. Remember the transfiguration on the mount? If Christ had stepped into glory, by use of his 'free-will', as he could have, then what faith would have been effectual to man, seeing Christ would have not gone to the Cross, and subsequently would not have fulfilled the covenant of works.
It also is necessary to note the divinity of Christ is what subjected his will to the Father. Thus, the regeneration of the will of man works to subject that will to the Father. All in the same order. It is not because of the faith of man, but the faith is because of Christ.
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
Actually, it is the faithfulness of Christ. Remember the transfiguration on the mount? If Christ had stepped into glory, by use of his 'free-will', as he could have, then what faith would have been effectual to man, seeing Christ would have not gone to the Cross, and subsequently would not have fulfilled the covenant of works.
It also is necessary to note the divinity of Christ is what subjected his will to the Father. Thus, the regeneration of the will of man works to subject that will to the Father. All in the same order. It is not because of the faith of man, but the faith is because of Christ.
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
No. According to Romans 8 and 1 Cor 2, it is the Spirit of God that separates them. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, but Galatians 3 teaches us that the Spirit comes through faith.
Interesting that Paul, if he truly was Calvinistic, doesn't say that Abraham was declared righteous because of the Spirit who gave him faith through regeneration. Nor is the Spirit given the credit for Job's being an "upright" man. Calvinist are usually so careful to make sure that man is not seen as being responsible for these types of things, it seems the writers of scripture would be careful of that as well, unless, of course, they aren't really as Calvinistic as you think they are.
Y
Yelsew
Guest
Job was upright, not perfect. Similarly, Abraham was upright but not perfect. The Bible says that Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness. Perhaps it was the same with Job. He certainly was not, nor ever implied to be, sinless.</font>[/QUOTE]Guess what? I did not make that connection here either. The quoted words were taken from Pastor Larry's post. The point is that if even one man does not fit the definition of Totally Depraved, Total Depravity cannot exist because whatever depravity does exist is less than Total. Sin for man is total, for all have sinned. But depravity for man can never be total unless you equate one sin with total depravity.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Yelsew,
Please read the following. I hope it will help you to understand what Calvinists are generally talking about when we use the term "total depravity".
Total Depravity
When we speak of man's depravity we mean man's natural condition apart from any grace exerted by God to restrain or transform man.
There is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man than he does. But if he is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even his "virtue" is evil in the sight of God.
Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." This is a radical indictment of all natural "virtue" that does not flow from a heart humbly relying on God's grace.
The terrible condition of man's heart will never be recognized by people who assess it only in relation to other men. Romans 14:23 makes plain that depravity is our condition in relation to God primarily, and only secondarily in relation to man. Unless we start here we will never grasp the totality of our natural depravity.
Man's depravity is total in at least four senses.
(1) Our rebellion against God is total. Apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God.
Of course totally depraved men can be very religious and very philanthropic. They can pray and give alms and fast, as Jesus said (Matthew 6:1-18). But their very religion is rebellion against the rights of their Creator, if it does not come from a childlike heart of trust in the free grace of God. Religion is one of the chief ways that man conceals his unwillingness to forsake self-reliance and bank all his hopes on the unmerited mercy of God (Luke 18:9-14; Colossians 2:20-23).
The totality of our rebellion is seen in Romans 3:9-10 and 18. "I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: None is righteous, no not one; no one seeks for God....There is no fear of God before their eyes."
It is a myth that man in his natural state is genuinely seeking God. Men do seek God. But they do not seek him for who he is. They seek him in a pinch as one who might preserve them from death or enhance their worldly enjoyments. Apart from conversion, no one comes to the light of God.
Some do come to the light. But listen to what John 3:20-21 says about them. "Every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God."
Yes there are those who come to the light -- namely those whose deeds are the work of God. "Wrought in God" means worked by God. Apart from this gracious work of God all men hate the light of God and will not come to him lest their evil be exposed -- this is total rebellion. "No one seeks for God...There is no fear of God before their eyes!"
(2) In his total rebellion everything man does is sin.
In Romans 14:23 Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot be an honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil.
Thus man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man's self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful.
In Romans 7:18 Paul says, "I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." This is a radical confession of the truth that in our rebellion nothing we think or feel is good. It is all part of our rebellion. The fact that Paul qualifies his depravity with the words, "that is, in my flesh," shows that he is willing to affirm the good of anything that the Spirit of God produces in him (Romans 15:18). "Flesh" refers to man in his natural state apart from the work of God's Spirit. So what Paul is saying in Romans 7:18 is that apart from the work of God's Spirit all we think and feel and do is not good.
NOTE: We recognize that the word "good" has a broad range of meanings. We will have to use it in a restricted sense to refer to many actions of fallen people which in relation are in fact not good.
For example we will have to say that it is good that most unbelievers do not kill and that some unbelievers perform acts of benevolence. What we mean when we call such actions good is that they more or less conform to the external pattern of life that God has commanded in Scripture.
However, such outward conformity to the revealed will of God is not righteousness in relation to God. It is not done out of reliance on him or for his glory. He is not trusted for the resources, though he gives them all. Nor is his honor exalted, even though that's his will in all things (1 Corinthians 10:31). Therefore even these "good" acts are part of our rebellion and are not "good" in the sense that really counts in the end -- in relation to God.
(3) Man's inability to submit to God and do good is total.
Picking up on the term "flesh" above (man apart from the grace of God) we find Paul declaring it to be totally enslaved to rebellion. Romans 8:7-8 says, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
The "mind of the flesh" is the mind of man apart from the indwelling Spirit of God ("You are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you," Romans 8:9). So natural man has a mindset that does not and cannot submit to God. Man cannot reform himself.
Ephesians 2:1 says that we Christians were all once "dead in trespasses and sins." The point of deadness is that we were incapable of any life with God. Our hearts were like a stone toward God (Ephesians 4:18; Ezekiel 36:26). Our hearts were blind and incapable of seeing the glory of God in Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). We were totally unable to reform ourselves.
(4) Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment.
Ephesians 2:3 goes on to say that in our deadness we were "children of wrath." That is, we were under God's wrath because of the corruption of our hearts that made us as good as dead before God.
The reality of hell is God's clear indictment of the infiniteness of our guilt. If our corruption were not deserving of an eternal punishment God would be unjust to threaten us with a punishment so severe as eternal torment. But the Scriptures teach that God is just in condemning unbelievers to eternal hell (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Matthew 5:29f; 10:28; 13:49f; 18:8f; 25:46; Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10). Therefore, to the extent that hell is a total sentence of condemnation, to that extent must we think of ourselves as totally blameworthy apart from the saving grace of God.
In summary, total depravity means that our rebellion against God is total, everything we do in this rebellion is sin, our inability to submit to God or reform ourselves is total, and we are therefore totally deserving of eternal punishment.
It is hard to exaggerate the importance of admitting our condition to be this bad. If we think of ourselves as basically good or even less than totally at odds with God, our grasp of the work of God in redemption will be defective. But if we humble ourselves under this terrible truth of our total depravity, we will be in a position to see and appreciate the glory and wonder of the work of God discussed in the next four points.
- from www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html
Please read the following. I hope it will help you to understand what Calvinists are generally talking about when we use the term "total depravity".
Total Depravity
When we speak of man's depravity we mean man's natural condition apart from any grace exerted by God to restrain or transform man.
There is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man than he does. But if he is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even his "virtue" is evil in the sight of God.
Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." This is a radical indictment of all natural "virtue" that does not flow from a heart humbly relying on God's grace.
The terrible condition of man's heart will never be recognized by people who assess it only in relation to other men. Romans 14:23 makes plain that depravity is our condition in relation to God primarily, and only secondarily in relation to man. Unless we start here we will never grasp the totality of our natural depravity.
Man's depravity is total in at least four senses.
(1) Our rebellion against God is total. Apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God.
Of course totally depraved men can be very religious and very philanthropic. They can pray and give alms and fast, as Jesus said (Matthew 6:1-18). But their very religion is rebellion against the rights of their Creator, if it does not come from a childlike heart of trust in the free grace of God. Religion is one of the chief ways that man conceals his unwillingness to forsake self-reliance and bank all his hopes on the unmerited mercy of God (Luke 18:9-14; Colossians 2:20-23).
The totality of our rebellion is seen in Romans 3:9-10 and 18. "I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: None is righteous, no not one; no one seeks for God....There is no fear of God before their eyes."
It is a myth that man in his natural state is genuinely seeking God. Men do seek God. But they do not seek him for who he is. They seek him in a pinch as one who might preserve them from death or enhance their worldly enjoyments. Apart from conversion, no one comes to the light of God.
Some do come to the light. But listen to what John 3:20-21 says about them. "Every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God."
Yes there are those who come to the light -- namely those whose deeds are the work of God. "Wrought in God" means worked by God. Apart from this gracious work of God all men hate the light of God and will not come to him lest their evil be exposed -- this is total rebellion. "No one seeks for God...There is no fear of God before their eyes!"
(2) In his total rebellion everything man does is sin.
In Romans 14:23 Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot be an honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil.
Thus man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man's self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful.
In Romans 7:18 Paul says, "I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." This is a radical confession of the truth that in our rebellion nothing we think or feel is good. It is all part of our rebellion. The fact that Paul qualifies his depravity with the words, "that is, in my flesh," shows that he is willing to affirm the good of anything that the Spirit of God produces in him (Romans 15:18). "Flesh" refers to man in his natural state apart from the work of God's Spirit. So what Paul is saying in Romans 7:18 is that apart from the work of God's Spirit all we think and feel and do is not good.
NOTE: We recognize that the word "good" has a broad range of meanings. We will have to use it in a restricted sense to refer to many actions of fallen people which in relation are in fact not good.
For example we will have to say that it is good that most unbelievers do not kill and that some unbelievers perform acts of benevolence. What we mean when we call such actions good is that they more or less conform to the external pattern of life that God has commanded in Scripture.
However, such outward conformity to the revealed will of God is not righteousness in relation to God. It is not done out of reliance on him or for his glory. He is not trusted for the resources, though he gives them all. Nor is his honor exalted, even though that's his will in all things (1 Corinthians 10:31). Therefore even these "good" acts are part of our rebellion and are not "good" in the sense that really counts in the end -- in relation to God.
(3) Man's inability to submit to God and do good is total.
Picking up on the term "flesh" above (man apart from the grace of God) we find Paul declaring it to be totally enslaved to rebellion. Romans 8:7-8 says, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
The "mind of the flesh" is the mind of man apart from the indwelling Spirit of God ("You are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you," Romans 8:9). So natural man has a mindset that does not and cannot submit to God. Man cannot reform himself.
Ephesians 2:1 says that we Christians were all once "dead in trespasses and sins." The point of deadness is that we were incapable of any life with God. Our hearts were like a stone toward God (Ephesians 4:18; Ezekiel 36:26). Our hearts were blind and incapable of seeing the glory of God in Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). We were totally unable to reform ourselves.
(4) Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment.
Ephesians 2:3 goes on to say that in our deadness we were "children of wrath." That is, we were under God's wrath because of the corruption of our hearts that made us as good as dead before God.
The reality of hell is God's clear indictment of the infiniteness of our guilt. If our corruption were not deserving of an eternal punishment God would be unjust to threaten us with a punishment so severe as eternal torment. But the Scriptures teach that God is just in condemning unbelievers to eternal hell (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Matthew 5:29f; 10:28; 13:49f; 18:8f; 25:46; Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10). Therefore, to the extent that hell is a total sentence of condemnation, to that extent must we think of ourselves as totally blameworthy apart from the saving grace of God.
In summary, total depravity means that our rebellion against God is total, everything we do in this rebellion is sin, our inability to submit to God or reform ourselves is total, and we are therefore totally deserving of eternal punishment.
It is hard to exaggerate the importance of admitting our condition to be this bad. If we think of ourselves as basically good or even less than totally at odds with God, our grasp of the work of God in redemption will be defective. But if we humble ourselves under this terrible truth of our total depravity, we will be in a position to see and appreciate the glory and wonder of the work of God discussed in the next four points.
- from www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html
Y
Yelsew
Guest
No. According to Romans 8 and 1 Cor 2, it is the Spirit of God that separates them. </font>[/QUOTE]God has to have something to work with, and he created man with everything that is required. What I see Calvinism neglecting is what God created man to be and have. God created man to have the attributes that He himself has with the exception of the omni-attributes. He created man to have the same free will that He has. He created man to be holy and initially man was holy until deceived into sinning. Sin did not alter God's creation from the original design. But sin did corrupt the man who retains original design, but for the sake of sin is now corrupt.
Ken,
I don't believe anyone here is arguing that man is basically good. We all admit that we have a sin nature and that we don't seek after God. That's really not the issue.
The main crux of the quote you posted seemed to be this:
"Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." This is a radical indictment of all natural "virtue" that does not flow from a heart humbly relying on God's grace."
Calvinist take this and conclude that because everything that proceeds from man is sinful except that which is done through faith in God, then faith must also not be able to proceed from man.
The question is, "What is the source of faith?" I beleive that God bestowes within all men the capasity for faith. We see this in the natural tendency men have in believing in a creator when viewing the creation. People throughout scripture have faith in Christ before the Spirit ever comes upon them. Why? Because faith is a God given ability for all man, so that no one has any excuse.
I don't believe anyone here is arguing that man is basically good. We all admit that we have a sin nature and that we don't seek after God. That's really not the issue.
The main crux of the quote you posted seemed to be this:
"Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." This is a radical indictment of all natural "virtue" that does not flow from a heart humbly relying on God's grace."
Calvinist take this and conclude that because everything that proceeds from man is sinful except that which is done through faith in God, then faith must also not be able to proceed from man.
The question is, "What is the source of faith?" I beleive that God bestowes within all men the capasity for faith. We see this in the natural tendency men have in believing in a creator when viewing the creation. People throughout scripture have faith in Christ before the Spirit ever comes upon them. Why? Because faith is a God given ability for all man, so that no one has any excuse.
Why does God have to have something to work with?? Why not assume that he creates in regeneration what he needs to work with?
We agree. But if man has the same free will that God has, then it does not mean the power of choice contrary to nature. God cannot do everything. He can only do those things which are consistent with his nature. That is what we say about man.
And this is exactly what we mean. Sin has corrupted every area of man's being. That is why depravity is total -- it affects every area. TD does not mean that everyone is equally bad. You should know that by now. It does meant that every area is affected.
Y
Yelsew
Guest
You are guessing, right?
First I have over 40 years of studying the bible, God's Holy Scripture. I do not rely on experience and logic, I employ them in understanding God and his creation. I do not agree with Calvinists who seem to believe because of sin, God's created man was eternally altered. The only thing that was altered is man's relationship with Holy God.
What makes you think that God must have upheld Job? The Book of Job does not say that, so you are merely hypothicizing. God prevented Satan from taking Job's life, but everthing else was fair game, and Satan certainly stripped Job of everthing that man holds dear including his health, yet Job did not turn against God as Satan expected he would.
Y
Yelsew
Guest
And this is exactly what we mean. Sin has corrupted every area of man's being. That is why depravity is total -- it affects every area. TD does not mean that everyone is equally bad. You should know that by now. It does meant that every area is affected.</font>[/QUOTE]The corruption I speak of is relationship corruption, not human essence corruption. We remain as God created us, even gaining the knowledge of Good and evil. We suffer because the human relationship with God is severed by sin. Because we lose that relationship, we are blocked by the flaming swords and the mighty cherib at the gate to holiness from regaining that which was lost. So how do we get back? By being washed in the Blood of the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world.
How does that happen? By believing that the blood of the Lamb that was shed on the cross, is for me! That Jesus, the Lamb of God died for me! By believing thus and living my life in the pattern of Jesus. By so doing, I become "marked" (regenerated) as being in Jesus.
So why is it that natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God?
Hi frogman;
A quote from you;
------------------------------------------------
From what I understand, Arminius did not propose, nor support a 'free-will' theology. From what history I have read, this idea originated first as a distinction after the great revivals of the 1800's. Arminius was not involved in these.
-------------------------------------------------
My Reply;
Choice has been in the Bible since the first 5 books started by Moses. I know you believe the opposite. Only common sense tells us, we have choices to make. I find it interesting that Calvinist believe in unconditional election or irresistible grace. Because no Jewish doctrine ever taught this. Since Judaism is the root of Christianity, I would think you might take this into account.
The way I look at is "freewill" means we have a choice and we do. The biggest thing I object to in Calvinism is the fact Calvinism says we have no free will. You say freewill takes away the sovereignty of God. I say freewill adds to his Sovereignty. His grace,and Love.
You would say Judas had no choice because somehow he lost his election and was able to reject and treason our Savior. I say he had a choice. Money was no doubt the lure. The Jews were not necessarily set up by God to be cut out of the vine. We were Grafted into the vine because of there freewill to reject Jesus.
I cannot see "unconditional election" in God's word because it isn't there. You see it only after you put in your interpretation. God's word doesn't need you rational. It interprets it self.
If that sounds rough I'm sorry for that but for men to interpret an different meaning into the Bible that clearly isn't there. Is wrong.
Can you name one Jewish sect that taught "unconditional election" or "irresistible grace" ?
The Choice is ours either accept and Believe or not and go our own way. Freewill is necessary to make the decisions after hearing the gospel. We cannot be regenerated without faith it always comes first.
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou salt be saved, and thy house.
Note; that first you have to believe then you are saved. Regenerated means saved.
Everywhere in the Bible it is mentioned just this way for a reason.Because with out belief you can't be regenerated....
Romanbear
A quote from you;
------------------------------------------------
From what I understand, Arminius did not propose, nor support a 'free-will' theology. From what history I have read, this idea originated first as a distinction after the great revivals of the 1800's. Arminius was not involved in these.
-------------------------------------------------
My Reply;
Choice has been in the Bible since the first 5 books started by Moses. I know you believe the opposite. Only common sense tells us, we have choices to make. I find it interesting that Calvinist believe in unconditional election or irresistible grace. Because no Jewish doctrine ever taught this. Since Judaism is the root of Christianity, I would think you might take this into account.
The way I look at is "freewill" means we have a choice and we do. The biggest thing I object to in Calvinism is the fact Calvinism says we have no free will. You say freewill takes away the sovereignty of God. I say freewill adds to his Sovereignty. His grace,and Love.
You would say Judas had no choice because somehow he lost his election and was able to reject and treason our Savior. I say he had a choice. Money was no doubt the lure. The Jews were not necessarily set up by God to be cut out of the vine. We were Grafted into the vine because of there freewill to reject Jesus.
I cannot see "unconditional election" in God's word because it isn't there. You see it only after you put in your interpretation. God's word doesn't need you rational. It interprets it self.
If that sounds rough I'm sorry for that but for men to interpret an different meaning into the Bible that clearly isn't there. Is wrong.
Can you name one Jewish sect that taught "unconditional election" or "irresistible grace" ?
The Choice is ours either accept and Believe or not and go our own way. Freewill is necessary to make the decisions after hearing the gospel. We cannot be regenerated without faith it always comes first.
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou salt be saved, and thy house.
Note; that first you have to believe then you are saved. Regenerated means saved.
Everywhere in the Bible it is mentioned just this way for a reason.Because with out belief you can't be regenerated....
Romanbear
Y
Yelsew
Guest
I do not know why you do not understand the things of God, but you staunchly refuse to accept the truth of Godly things. You neglect to apply the written word of God to God's creation.
I do not know why you do not understand the things of God, but you staunchly refuse to accept the truth of Godly things. You neglect to apply the written word of God to God's creation. </font>[/QUOTE]This was a truly shameful post. I ask you a simple question in reference to 1 Cor 2:14 and you respond with this. Why?? I understand the things of God. I accept the truth of Godly things. I apply the written word of God to his creation. You stoop to this level when all you had to do was explain 1 Cor 2:14. That is a shame.
Frogman said:Originally posted by romanbear:
[QB] Hi frogman;
A quote from you;
------------------------------------------------
From what I understand, Arminius did not propose, nor support a 'free-will' theology. From what history I have read, this idea originated first as a distinction after the great revivals of the 1800's. Arminius was not involved in these.
-------------------------------------------------
Romanbear said:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> My Reply;
Choice has been in the Bible since the first 5 books started by Moses. I know you believe the opposite. Only common sense tells us, we have choices to make. I find it interesting that Calvinist believe in unconditional election or irresistible grace. Because no Jewish doctrine ever taught this. Since Judaism is the root of Christianity, I would think you might take this into account.
Romanbear said:I can't answer you on this because I am unsure if you are trying to say that Christianity is founded upon Judaism or trying to deny the presence of the Doctrines of unconditional election and/or irresistable grace because Judaism is the mother of Christianity. If you believe Christianity is so derived, you are at least remaining consistent with your system of works first established by your belief in the 'free-will' of man. The truth of the matter is the O.T. is fluid with references to what you claim it has none. Can the leopard change his spots? Turn me and I shall be turned. I know now the Lord shall save his anointed. Ps. 20 is a good one, from whence cometh the last statement.
Frogman said:
Romanbear said:
Frogman said:
Romanbear said:
Frogman said:
Romanbear said:
Frogman said:
Romanbear said:
Frogman said:
Romanbear said:
Frogman said:
Romanbear said:
</font>[/QUOTE]Frogman said:
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
I think this is the source of much confusion. Regeneration is often used in a broad sense as you use it here. But in theological discussions it is used in a more narrow sense to mean that part of "saved" where spiritual life is given. Being saved is not the same as being regenerated.