EPH 2:1 Quickeneth

[Allan]

Well, some bibles cover that particular problem Allan.

Look, if I can't read my bible and gain a good understanding of it in the language it was written, then that translation is worthless. The whole point of an english translation is for the english speaking people to be able to read it. If I must (and I stress must) go to the greek or hebrew to have a decent understanding of a verse, then why not just go totally to the greek and hebrew. Why use an english bible if it doesn't do its job?

I'm not blasting going to the greek or hebrew for further information or further englightenment on a particular text. Going to look up what a particular word means, for instance, can be very helpful. However, if I can't at least mostly understand the english without this, then my english bible is really not useful at all. In other words, if your strong's concordance, greek lexicon, bible commentaries, bible dictionaries, greek and hebrew scriptures, etc were all taken from you tonight and all you were left with was an english bible of your preference, do you believe you'd be able to understand that bible? That was the whole point of translating the bible - so the poor common man could have it. That same poor common man that doens't know greek or hebrew, doesn't have access to those copies, didn't have a greek/hebrew concorance or lexicon, or any other study aids - that man was whom the translators like Tyndale worked on behalf.

I understand, however that poor comman man does not have to read Greek or Hebrew - just english and those who have endevored to make known the full meaning that is not captured as eloquently nor as in depth as it could be from the original languages.

I agree that we should study with what we have but also to go beyond what is common and know the depths and heights of the Word of God. We have at our disposal all the equiment necessary for such studies without ever having to read Greek or Hebrew - such as just reading the material that has already been given by those who 'can' read it.

 

[OldRegular]

How? Alive together with Christ. How does this happen? Faith. Pretty simple.

Except you are incorrect. Nothing is mentioned in the text about faith, simply that God made those dead in sin alive.

 

[BaptistBob]

Except you are incorrect. Nothing is mentioned in the text about faith, simply that God made those dead in sin alive.

Sure it is mentioned, in 2:8. And any confusion is cleared up by parallel passages using the identical terminology by the same author. See my last post.

Again, in Greek secular and religious writings, as well as Jewish sources, "death" is a very common reference to the more lowly things of life, and "life" the better things of life. Often the terminology has moral implications, but not always. Sometimes even bodily functions are called "death" by the Stoics.

But as you seemingly suggest, portions of the text can be ambiguous. Such isolated phrases are fertile ground for theories in search of validation.

 

[BaptistBob]

Bob, what was I trying to say theologically here? My point was simply this - the idea that we should ignore a word that didn't appear in the greek but in the english is wrong. Either one trusts the english bible or one doesn't, and if one doesn't he should put it down and go exclusively to the greek.

Ok, I see what you are saying.

In case you are interested, there are a number of modern, reader-friendly, literal translations out there. One of the ones I really like is the TransLine, which has the author's notes on the side. But it's $100.

 

[OldRegular]

Sure it is mentioned, in 2:8. And any confusion is cleared up by parallel passages using the identical terminology by the same author. See my last post.

Again, in Greek secular and religious writings, as well as Jewish sources, "death" is a very common reference to the more lowly things of life, and "life" the better things of life. Often the terminology has moral implications, but not always. Sometimes even bodily functions are called "death" by the Stoics.

But as you seemingly suggest, portions of the text can be ambiguous. Such isolated phrases are fertile ground for theories in search of validation.

I quoted only Ephesians 2:4-6, not verse 8.

The passage I quoted clearly shows that regeneration or the giving of Spiritual Life to those who are dead in sin is solely the work of God. Furthermore, verse 8 shows that faith itself is the gift of God.

I believe that the Stoics were Greek, not Jewish. Anyhow we are discussing Scripture, the Word of God, not extra biblical writings.

 

[TomMann]

I would be what you could consider a poor common man. My knowledge of scripture is limited in the fact I have really only come into interest in the later years of my life. I have read much only to have found out how little I really know. I have a good bible program with all the bells and whistles...... dictionaries, commentaries, lexicons, cross references..... etc.... I can read the scripture and pull up all sorts of opinions of what others think or have derived from their reading and study. Sometimes I can understand their line of thought and still disagree.

It is my considered belief that God's words proclaim his sovereignty far above any human ability to rationalize it away. To proclaim that God is sovereign but in his sovereignty has chosen to relinquish that sovereignty. And has done so in order to not deprive man of a choice or chance to fulfill the requirements of salvation. That my dear friends is beyond my comprehension.

All the other religions of the world place acceptance before God within the grasp of man. The only difference is the requirement to satisfy God.

How my soul craves the fellowship with believers who acknowledge the one true and living God.

 

[BaptistBob]

I would be what you could consider a poor common man. My knowledge of scripture is limited in the fact I have really only come into interest in the later years of my life. I have read much only to have found out how little I really know. I have a good bible program with all the bells and whistles...... dictionaries, commentaries, lexicons, cross references..... etc.... I can read the scripture and pull up all sorts of opinions of what others think or have derived from their reading and study. Sometimes I can understand their line of thought and still disagree.

It is my considered belief that God's words proclaim his sovereignty far above any human ability to rationalize it away. To proclaim that God is sovereign but in his sovereignty has chosen to relinquish that sovereignty. And has done so in order to not deprive man of a choice or chance to fulfill the requirements of salvation. That my dear friends is beyond my comprehension.

All the other religions of the world place acceptance before God within the grasp of man. The only difference is the requirement to satisfy God.

How my soul craves the fellowship with believers who acknowledge the one true and living God.

Nearly everyone believes God is sovereign. God's sovereignty means that he gets to have things the way he wants them. If God wants to give man a choice, then it is his sovereign will to do so, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Imagine God hearing that one of his created beings is complaining that his behavior is beyond the bounds set by the imagination of that created being. A God so small that he can fit in a human's imagination is a pretty puny god.

How my soul craves the fellowship with believers who acknowledge the one true and living God described in Scripture.

 

[TomMann]

Your post speaks volumes about your character, BaptistBob.

 

[OldRegular]

It is my considered belief that God's words proclaim his sovereignty far above any human ability to rationalize it away.

That is correct!

To proclaim that God is sovereign but in his sovereignty has chosen to relinquish that sovereignty. And has done so in order to not deprive man of a choice or chance to fulfill the requirements of salvation. That my dear friends is beyond my comprehension.

For God to relinquish any of His sovereignty would be contrary to His nature. He is either eternally sovereign or He is Not God!

 

[BaptistBob]

I quoted only Ephesians 2:4-6, not verse 8.

You mentioned the "text," and 8 is part of the "text."

The passage I quoted clearly shows that regeneration or the giving of Spiritual Life to those who are dead in sin is solely the work of God.

Of course it shows that regeneration is the work of God. But what you want to prove is that it happen apart from/before faith. It simply does not prove that. In addition, the parallel verse in Col. 2, Roman 6 clearly support the idea that faith precedes regeneration.

Furthermore, verse 8 shows that faith itself is the gift of God.

No it does not. As I demonstrated last week, both grammar and syntax support the idea that "grace-through-faith" salvation is the gift. It is received through faith. "Faith" is a feminine noun, so it is not the antecedent being spoken of. There is only one type of salvation provided by God through Christ - that is the point.

As for faith being a gift, it is not the issue. The issue you intend to prove is that faith is an irresistible gift. The passage in question is useless for making that point, and that's why those who intend to use the passage for that purpose spend their time in the ambiguous portions of it.

I believe that the Stoics were Greek, not Jewish. Anyhow we are discussing Scripture, the Word of God, not extra biblical writings.

You're only commenting on a portion of what I said. I commented on both Jewish and Greek sources. The NT was written in the Greek, so to ignore Greek meaning and usage would be a horrible mistake.

 

[TomMann]

BaptistBob, There are many many problems with your view of the Gospel. There are literally dozens upon hundreds of scriptures that...... well never mind, you have an answer for everyone. Not only grammar and syntax, but context and proper hermeneutics and exegesis. Not to mention that the bible is errant and only the Greek and Hebrew can be trusted, except where it doesn't align with your desired view, and then...... we don't have access to the originals. So we must apply a WWJD view to our understanding. I think what we have here is a case of man making god in his own image.

Scripture mentions a famine of the hearing of the Word of God, and I think we are arriving at that quickly. Even where it is preached (which is greatly diminished) it is often not heard. Amazing the number of fellow believers in the Doctrines of Grace that are leaning to a greater understanding of the Sovereignty of God tempered with the responsibility of man. Yes, even the great Calvinist body is leaning toward a free will view of Christianity, though unacknowledged by them.

I take comfort and solace in the single fact that not one of God's elect shall be deceived, all that the Father has given shall be saved. I know, I am way off the mark and have used errant scripture with limited understanding to arrive at such heretical view. Just humor me and I'll go away. Imagine the thought of a God who always does his will, always brings his will to pass. Who does as he wills among the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth. Who would say that even as he has thought, he will bring it to pass. How off the mark.

 

[OldRegular]

You mentioned the "text," and 8 is part of the "text."

Then shall we start with Genesis 1:1.

I suggest you start with John 3:3-12 and work your way back.

 

[Allan]

BaptistBob, There are many many problems with your view of the Gospel. There are literally dozens upon hundreds of scriptures that...... well never mind, you have an answer for everyone. Not only grammar and syntax, but context and proper hermeneutics and exegesis.

Exactly, and that is why we can not come biblcally to myth that regeneration precedes faith and that is also the reason many Cals/reformed are coming around to this biblical principle as well.

I think what we have here is a case of man making god in his own image.

No, what we see here is someone esle who can not speak in christian love and grace and has to resort to ad-homs and slanderous speach in order to even make a responce.

Scripture mentions a famine of the hearing of the Word of God, and I think we are arriving at that quickly. Even where it is preached (which is greatly diminished) it is often not heard. Amazing the number of fellow believers in the Doctrines of Grace that are leaning to a greater understanding of the Sovereignty of God tempered with the responsibility of man. Yes, even the great Calvinist body is leaning toward a free will view of Christianity, though unacknowledged by them.

Yes, it is amazing how the Spirit of God works in His church to bring forth truth and light.

I take comfort and solace in the single fact that (1) not one of God's elect shall be deceived,(2) all that the Father has given shall be saved. I know, I am way off the mark and have used errant scripture with limited understanding to arrive at such heretical view. Just humor me and I'll go away. Imagine the thought of (3)a God who always does his will, (4) always brings his will to pass. (5) Who does as he wills among the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth. Who would say that even as he has thought, he will bring it to pass. How off the mark.

I agree - how off the mark. No non-cal disagrees with one single point mentioned above but in fact preach each of the numbers I placed in your aboce post. So yes, you retort of 'off the mark'.

 

[Allan]

Then shall we start with Genesis 1:1.

I suggest you start with John 3:3-12 and work your way back.

Yes, lets

 

[OldRegular]

Yes, lets

Let me know when you get to "In the beginning".

 

[OldRegular]

Exactly, and that is why we can not come biblcally to myth that regeneration precedes faith and that is also the reason many Cals/reformed are coming around to this biblical principle as well.

Allan it seems you can never get it right. Dead people can't believe!:sleeping_2:

 

[Allan]

Allan it seems you can never get it right. Dead people can't believe!:sleeping_2:

If that is truth, then I'm sure you can produce scripture which in context states this.

While we are waiting for such I 'can' in fact show you were they do Actaully scripture states they do as do many of the Reformed position (Millard Erickson Systematic Theology and though some don't think he was Calvinistic Grudeman Systematic Theology)

It is kinda hard to agree with your position with verses like :

"For those who were slaves when called to faith in the Lord are the Lord's freed people" (1 Cor 7:22).

Study it out carefully and the implications thereof.
As well as this one:

Act 26:18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.

Notice where they are 'when' they turn toward God. One can not be in darkness and in Satans power while at the same time being regenerate (New Creation).

Biblically it is correct to state that born of the Spirit (New Birth) equals regeneration and that the new birth therefore equals the indwelling of the Spirit. For unless we are born-again 'dead', we must conclude with the scriptures that we are born 'with and in' Life. And thusly we are said to be Born into Christ. We see the scriptures bare this out when it states that we are 'alive in Christ'. Our life (the new birth) is because we are "IN" Christ Jesus and if you are IN Christ then you ARE saved according the scriptures.

And we know that no man is saved in this dispensation of grace (as Paul calls it) unless the Spirit of God has placed that person into the body of Christ Jesus through His baptism.

Something that has bothered me about the classical reformed stance on Regeneration prior to salvation with respect to their understanding of what Regeneration both 'is' and 'does'. (this however is not to be confused with the moderate reformed stance).

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit occurs at the moment of salvation and thus the New birth, according to scripture, and is described as an event in which the Old is 'No More' but you have become a new creation - all thing are now New.

We find in scripture that regeneration is primarily the acts of justification and sanctification (Titus 3:5) which result in being righteous and in Christ and thus being 'alive' because we are no longer seperated from God and sinfilled, but 'In Christ' seperate from sin and sin-cleansed. Spiritual life is being in God not merely being. Therefore it is impossible to be unforgiven (in sin/fulness) and be in Christ Jesus. Scripture states believe and be saved not be saved and so believe. That belief involves repentance for without it there is no forgiveness and thus one can not be in Christ prior to faith.

Thus the scripture states all those things which constitutes a regenerate life all come about 'through faith' and not prior to it, because it is 'by faith' we find in scripture that they all transpire.

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

Therefore the truth is this, we are not first made regenerate that these things happen, but things things are in deed the regeneration itself. They discribe what changes the life (justification and sanctification) to something new thus they descibe the act of being regenerate or changed from the old into the New.


Thus scripturally the 'dead' in scripture can and do in fact believe 'unto life'.

 

[Rippon]

Exactly, and that is why we can not come biblcally (sic)to myth (sic)that regeneration precedes faith and that is also the reason many Cals/reformed are coming around to this biblical principle as well.

You have no basis to make the assertion that "many Cals/Reformed" believe that faith precedes regeneration. That is just wishful thinking on your part.

No, what we see here is someone esle who can not (sic)speak in christian (sic)love and grace and has to resort to ad-homs and slanderous speach(sic) in order to even make a responce.(sic)

What we have here is someone who cannot spell.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[BaptistBob]

BaptistBob, There are many many problems with your view of the Gospel. There are literally dozens upon hundreds of scriptures that...... well never mind, you have an answer for everyone. Not only grammar and syntax, but context and proper hermeneutics and exegesis. Not to mention that the bible is errant and only the Greek and Hebrew can be trusted, except where it doesn't align with your desired view, and then...... we don't have access to the originals. So we must apply a WWJD view to our understanding. I think what we have here is a case of man making god in his own image.

Scripture mentions a famine of the hearing of the Word of God, and I think we are arriving at that quickly. Even where it is preached (which is greatly diminished) it is often not heard. Amazing the number of fellow believers in the Doctrines of Grace that are leaning to a greater understanding of the Sovereignty of God tempered with the responsibility of man. Yes, even the great Calvinist body is leaning toward a free will view of Christianity, though unacknowledged by them.

I take comfort and solace in the single fact that not one of God's elect shall be deceived, all that the Father has given shall be saved. I know, I am way off the mark and have used errant scripture with limited understanding to arrive at such heretical view.

There are always people who need a reason for what they say and what they believe. Those are the types of people that I care to interact with.

Just humor me and I'll go away.

That's my plan.

Imagine the thought of a God who always does his will, always brings his will to pass. Who does as he wills among the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth. Who would say that even as he has thought, he will bring it to pass. How off the mark.

That's my God as well. We just differ on what his will is.

 

[Allan]

You have no basis to make the assertion that "many Cals/Reformed" believe that faith precedes regeneration. That is just wishful thinking on your part.

Oh yes I do . It is considered (if I remember correctly) the moderate view. Many does not mean majority.
It is something taught in the Millard Ericksons systemmatic book on theology and is used in schools. And even if you don't like the fact that Grudem is considered Calvinistic, he also is another who's systemantic book on theology espouses such a view.