Essentials of the faith

[Doubting Thomas]

Both repentance and faith are merely the human experience of regeneration.

That's not entirely accurate. Faith (and repentance) is fundamentally a condition in order to be saved--not something that happens because we have been saved already. There is no Biblical evidence that one must be regenerated before having faith. In fact in Colossians 2:12, Paul is explicit that we are made alive (raised) with Christ THROUGH FAITH, not BEFORE it. We are saved through faith (Eph 2:8-9) not before it.

This is illustrated in the Old Testament statement "Turn us Lord and we shall be turned." The Lord does the turning (regeneration)

YOU are the one who falsely identifies this 'turning' with regeneration. That's not what the text states.

To the contrary, in Ezekiel 18:32 God states that we must "therefore turn and live" and not the other way around--ie the verse doesn't state: "I will cause you to live so you can then turn". In fact, in the preceding verse (31) God commands: "Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have commited AND get yourselves a new heart and spirit." So God is telling the people they are in some sense responsible for getting for themselves the "new heart and spirit", which would be nonsensical if this is something God preemptively does irrespective of human response . Notice it doesn't say: "I am going to give you a new heart and new spirit so you can then cast away your transgressions". (But, this is what it would have to say or mean according to the backwards, cart-before-the-horse soteriology of Calvinism. )

Going to the New Testament we see Jesus teaching the same thing:
"But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life" (John 5:40). In other words, according to JESUS, one must COME to Him in order to have LIFE (and not the other way around). Not only that, one must be WILLING to come to HIM to have life. However, in the bizarro-world, from which the Calvinist ordo salutis seems to derive, Jesus would have to say: "The reason you are not willing to come to me is because I haven't chosen to give you life", or "I must give you life in order that you may come to me", or "If you are willing to come to me it shows that I have given you life". But of course, none of that is what Jesus is teaching in this passage. (And, no--there is nothing you can say about John 6 that can contradict this clear teaching in John 5:40; Jesus doesn't contradict Himself. John 6 says nothing about "regeneration" preceding faith either, as 'drawing' and 'regeneration' aren't the same thing.)


So the point stands, and is amply testifed through Scripture, that faith and repentance are conditions (albeit, supernaturally enabled) that MAN must meet in order to actually saved, and not merely the fruit of a salvation/regeneration that God preemptively imposes on certain folks and not others.

 

[The Biblicist]

That's not entirely accurate. Faith (and repentance) is fundamentally a condition in order to be saved--not something that happens because we have been saved already.

The problem here is your understanding of "saved." The term "saved" in the past tense covers much territory. It covers regeneration and conversion as well as justification and adoption. Repentance and faith are the elements of gospel conversion and the prerequisites to justification and adoption. Hence, legal or positional eternal life (justification) and legal or positional sonship (adoption) are consequential to repentance and faith. Hence, justification unto eternal life and legal sonship (huios) do follow repentance and faith.

However, repentance and faith themselves are the human expression of regeneration where there is no chronological order but simeltaneous action as one cannot be turned without at the very same time turning or one cannot be drawn without at the very same time coming. Just as repentance and faith are simeltaneous in action as you cannot be turning from something (repentance) without at the very same time turning to something else (faith)

In regeneration the Greek word always used is "tekna" and never "huios" as "tekna" is a child by birth whereas "huios" is the term for legal position as a rightful heir - son.

There is no Biblical evidence that one must be regenerated before having faith. In fact in Colossians 2:12, Paul is explicit that we are made alive (raised) with Christ THROUGH FAITH, not BEFORE it. We are saved through faith (Eph 2:8-9) not before it.

Ephesians 2:8 uses the perfect tense periphrastic construct which means "are saved" refers to a completed action in the past which continues as a completed action at the point of writing. Hence, regeneration is not a progressive incomplete action but a completed action at some point in the past that continues in its completed state. We are save "through" faith which means faith was simeltaneous with that past complete point of action or else that perfect tense completed action of saved was not "through" faith.

YOU are the one who falsely identifies this 'turning' with regeneration. That's not what the text states.

La 5:21TURN thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.

You are not referring to the verse I quoted. I quoted Lamentations but your are quoting Ezekiel 18:32.

However, Ezekiel 18:32 rightly points out our responsibility to turn to God and live regardless if we are willing to do so or not (Rom. 8:7; Isa. 65:6-7). When and if we do turn it is because God drew us/turned us (Jn. 6:44-45) and "EVERYONE" God teaches "comes" to Christ (Jn. 6:45).

Going to the New Testament we see Jesus teaching the same thing:
"But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life" (John 5:40).

First note no conditions are being given but only an assertion of fact. That is the condition of every lost heart and its natural response (Acts 7:51; Rom. 8:7). However "ALL" the Father gives to the Son do come to him (Jn. 6:37) and not one that is given to the Son fails to come or fails to be raised up to the resurrection of life (Jn. 6:39-40, 44b).

(And, no--there is nothing you can say about John 6 that can contradict this clear teaching in John 5:40;

Be honest with Christ's words in John 5:40! There is no conditions being set forth by Christ at all in this verse. He is making an ASSERTION but not putting forth any conditions. John 6:36 says the very same thing as John 5:40 but John 6:37-45 explains why they will not come as does John 10:26 because they have not been given to the Son by the Father because EVERY SINGLE PERSON given to the Son by the Father comes and is raised up to eternal life because the Father draw's them (Jn. 6:44) and "EVERYONE" taught by the Father "comes" to Christ (Jn. 6:45).


It is not my intent to anger you but simply to reason with you. There is not a man on this forum who can reasonably and objectively overturn my exposition of John 6:36-65. That text is dedicated by Christ to explaining the nature of saving faith; where it comes from (Jn. 6:29, 44,64-65) and who it is given to (Jn. 6:37-40).

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Be honest with Christ's words in John 5:40! There is no conditions being set forth by Christ at all in this verse.

In His assertion of fact he is stating the condition--one must come to Christ in order to have life (not the otherway around)

It is not my intent to anger you but simply to reason with you. There is not a man on this forum who can reasonably and objectively overturn my exposition of John 6:36-65.

Of course that is in the eye of the beholder. You ASSERTING that no one can reasonably and objectively overturn your exposition doesn't make it so. It just may be you are refusing to consider the counter evidence/argument, particularly when 'regeneration' (or it's cognates) does not show up in this passage.

It's ironic that you speak of 'reasoning with' me, when based on what I've read of your debates with others here (including myself), I am not sure 'reasoning with' accurately describes what you are doing (well, in FORM perhaps, but not in CONTENT).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In His assertion of fact he is stating the condition--one must come to Christ in order to have life (not the otherway around)




Of course that is in the eye of the beholder. You ASSERTING that no one can reasonably and objectively overturn your exposition doesn't make it so. It just may be you are refusing to consider the counter evidence/argument, particularly when 'regeneration' (or it's cognates) does not show up in this passage.

It's ironic that you speak of 'reasoning with' me, when based on what I've read of your debates with others here (including myself), I am not sure 'reasoning with' accurately describes what you are doing (well, in FORM perhaps, but not in CONTENT).

I agree with you DT. I considered reviewing John 6 on Biblicist thread then quickly recalled how he dealt with my review of Romans and other NT books where he responds to my challenge of his opinion would be a slew of accusations, insults, attempts to attack my credibility, continual re-itteration of the same statement made by him applying it as if it where a new point. I realize there would be no objective debate using reason but endless assertions purported to be "proof" or "evidence" in his favor when it is neither. In which case it would be pointless to argue with him. I think my position is pretty clear and doesn't need to be re-stated. When I heard an atheist accusing christians of saying "Christ didn't mean what he said" and used this same Chapter of John to make his point that people who hold to Biblicist perspective claiming for the literalness of the bible but when that chapter comes up "Jesus" doesn't mean what he says. The scriptures in John 6 are pretty clear for my point of view when even someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight and is truelly objective agrees with my stance on John 6 says that to take anyother meaning must be an intentional mischaracterization of that passage. Even this atheist quotes Paul saying

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Indicating that even Paul understood what Jesus said mean exactly how I've expressed it. Or Jesus actually meant what he said. So in the end I didn't bother arguing with him about that topic. If he wants to properly debate it that would be fine. But I don't think he's interested in proper debate.

 

[David Michael Harris]

I wonder if we might come to a consensus on what are the essentials of the faith. What would you list as the things necessary to be believed in order to call yourself a Christian? Do you think the Apostles Creed is a sufficient statement of the Christian faith?

I would start with being born again.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Actually, saying that, it must be hard being brought up in a Christian environment and family. Knowing, when you were bought at a price etc...

Do people here think that just because your privileged to be born into a professing Christian household that your automatically saved?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Actually, saying that, it must be hard being brought up in a Christian environment and family. Knowing, when you were bought at a price etc...

Do people here think that just because your privileged to be born into a professing Christian household that your automatically saved?

I certainly think there are some that do.

 

[David Michael Harris]

How do you deal with that problem?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How do you deal with that problem?

As it is God who Draws my primary line of attack is prayer. I pray for them. Next I try to instruct them in the faith what it really means to be a Christian and that the faith is more than a religion.

 

[David Michael Harris]

As it is God who Draws my primary line of attack is prayer. I pray for them. Next I try to instruct them in the faith what it really means to be a Christian and that the faith is more than a religion.

Many a pastor has the same problem.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Many a pastor has the same problem.

You are probably correct. I'm not a pastor though. I'm just a simple lay person who believes all believers are accountable for each other. And I don't exclude clergy.