Gospel regeneration, is it biblical? Yes? No?

[convicted1]

In another thread, a beloved Brother showed me an association of churches that do not believe in gospel regeneration. To keep from hijacking that thread, I created this "spin-off". Now, let's keep this civil, so that this "pilot thread" doesn't get cancelled after the first show.


Now, is this(G.R.) biblical? I personally believe it is in accordance to Romans 1:16. Now, what say you? Please, let's keep this civil!! :jesus::godisgood::thumbs::wavey:

 

[kyredneck]

And this is NEW to you? A supposed Old Regular Baptist? How can that be? Surely you jest, or are being disingenuous, or not paying attention, or just 'didn't get it':

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1683215&highlight=Willis#post1683215

 

[convicted1]

And this is NEW to you? A supposed Old Regular Baptist? How can that be? Surely you jest, or are being disingenuous, or not paying attention, or just 'didn't get it':

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1683215&highlight=Willis#post1683215

I am not being disingenuous. Just wanting other people's thoughts/beliefs on the matter. No where is there life outside of Jesus. He stated, "Except ye eat of My flesh and drink of my blood, ye have no life in you."

 

[mandym]

What kind of nutty theology believes one can be regenerated without hearing the gospel?

 

[Jerome]

Wow.

Apparently there some who claim God does not use the gospel in regenerating sinners.

I found this on the Primitive Baptist Online website:

"Paul says the medium through which this work is accomplished is Christ. Nowhere in his argument here does the Apostle mention the gospel. If God uses the gospel in this work, Paul either did not know it, or knowing it, he failed to make mention of it. Paul cannot be charged with criminal neglect; and since regeneration is one of the fundamentals in the religion of Christ, and in the statement of that doctrine he makes no mention of the use of the gospel, we argue that sinners are NOT regenerated through the instrumentality of the written or spoken Word[.] Paid [sic Paul?] learned this doctrine from Christ."

 

[mandym]

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith. Romans 1:16

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

 

[convicted1]

What kind of nutty theology believes one can be regenerated without hearing the gospel?

I agree. However, the Gospel is more than the message. It's God's power to save. When God interacts with a sinner, it's the Gospel. Whether He does this through a preacher's messgae, or draws them Himself.

 

[mandym]

I agree. However, the Gospel is more than the message. It's God's power to save. When God interacts with a sinner, it's the Gospel. Whether He does this through a preacher's messgae, or draws them Himself.

I wasn't trying to get into the mechanics of it.

 

[convicted1]

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith. Romans 1:16

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

Amen. But remember, God works through the preached message. When God works on a sinner, it His power that draws.

 

[convicted1]

I wasn't trying to get into the mechanics of it.

Sorry about that. I was clarifying my stance.

 

[convicted1]

Thank you all for your responses. It's off to bed. I work night shift, and I am bushed!! :sleep::sleep::sleeping_2::sleeping_2:

 

[preacher4truth]

Wow.

Apparently there some who claim God does not use the gospel in regenerating sinners.

I found this on the Primitive Baptist Online website:

"Paul says the medium through which this work is accomplished is Christ. Nowhere in his argument here does the Apostle mention the gospel. If God uses the gospel in this work, Paul either did not know it, or knowing it, he failed to make mention of it. Paul cannot be charged with criminal neglect; and since regeneration is one of the fundamentals in the religion of Christ, and in the statement of that doctrine he makes no mention of the use of the gospel, we argue that sinners are NOT regenerated through the instrumentality of the written or spoken Word[.] Paid [sic Paul?] learned this doctrine from Christ."

You sound surprised, don't be. This is the tip of the iceberg for them.

 

[kyredneck]

.....Now, is this(G.R.) biblical? I personally believe it is in accordance to Romans 1:16. Now, what say you? Please, let's keep this civil!! :jesus::godisgood::thumbs::wavey:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Ro 1:16

Show how 'salvation' means 'eternity in heaven' here. That's probably the most common mistake made by the free willers and gospel means crowd, you 'willy nilly' insert eternity into passages where it is not meant.

 

[HankD]

In another thread, a beloved Brother showed me an association of churches that do not believe in gospel regeneration. To keep from hijacking that thread, I created this "spin-off". Now, let's keep this civil, so that this "pilot thread" doesn't get cancelled after the first show.


Now, is this(G.R.) biblical? I personally believe it is in accordance to Romans 1:16. Now, what say you? Please, let's keep this civil!!

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.​

This passage seems to definitely come down on the "means" (versus "anti-means") side of this Primitive Baptist (PB) "debate".

Not sure if "debate" is the correct word. There are (or have been) PB elders on both sides of the issue.

Officially (if there can even be an "official" Primitive Baptist position) they are "anti-means". Can a PB brother correct me if this is not so.

Personally, I don't see a difference considering the eternal reality of "means" vs "anti-means" being caught up in this present time stream continuum.

Because all things work together for good for those whom He has called.

If God uses a hammer to build, He first creates the hammer.
Does He need the means of the hammer? No, but it's the method He has chosen and is what pleases Him.

e.g. Did God need Mary as a means to bring about the Incarnation of the Logos in order to save humankind?

It's all of God despite the means or instrumentality. It is what is.

So, personally I don't see a distinction between "means" and "anti-means".

In theory, God can regenerate whomsoever He wills with the gospel or without the gospel. Don't many believe that is what He does for infants who die an untimely death?

Rather than make a distinction between regeneration and conversion,
I prefer to make the distinction between justification and sanctification.


HankD

 

[kyredneck]

.....No where is there life outside of Jesus.

No where does the immediate regeneration crowd even comes close to implying such a thing. It is Christ alone, Christ, the life giving Spirit, that gives them life.

He stated, "Except ye eat of My flesh and drink of my blood, ye have no life in you."

Another common mistake made by free willers and the gospel means crowd, you put the cart before the horse:

53 Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.
54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day. Jn 6

The partaking of Christ shows that they have life. Dead men do nothing.

 

[glfredrick]

The only way that I could even logically deduce a non-gospel regeneration scheme is with EXTREME hyper-Calvinism, which would have to be deterministic to a point beyond Islam.

 

[kyredneck]

The only way that I could even logically deduce a non-gospel regeneration scheme is with EXTREME hyper-Calvinism, which would have to be deterministic to a point beyond Islam.

So what convinced you that it requires the gospel to impart life and immortality? Paul made it plain that it is Christ who has abolished death, it is the gospel that sheds light on life and immortality, it doesn't impart it. The Spirit blows where He wills, He's not restrained to go only where the soul winner carries Him. Christ is the only mediator between God and man, there is no soul winner involved in it.

 

[glfredrick]

Define your use of the word "gospel."

 

[preacher4truth]

I see no one in the NT church saved by other means than the Gospel. This is Gods chosen method of salvation, by preaching the Gospel. Adding another mystical method to this, one that is not found in Scripture, is error, and is actually another Gospel altogether.

I'm amazed, not surprised at the neo-gnostic like unscriptural revelations that some teach that are named Baptist.

I've also taken note of their most condesending, puffed up, and cynical attitude towards those who don't believe their unscriptural extra-biblical views. The fact that knowledge puffs up doesn't necessitate that said knowledge is in fact truth. Misuse of Scriptures against the dogma that the Gospel is the only method used to save others is also seen.

 

[agedman]

The only way that I could even logically deduce a non-gospel regeneration scheme is with EXTREME hyper-Calvinism, which would have to be deterministic to a point beyond Islam.

We are nothing but dust of the dirt.

Who determines the use of the dirt?