How Strongly Do You Hold to Your Doctrinal Beliefs?

[Reformed]

How strongly do you hold to doctrines that you consider to be biblical truth? I am not asking about beliefs in which you are unsure. For instance, I lean towards Amillennialism, but my leaning is not without doubts. I will not say that my eschatological preference is unassailable. However, I hold to many doctrines that I am completely convinced are biblical truth and that all competing teachings are in error. This does not mean that other beliefs are not within the scope of orthodoxy. For example, Dichotomy and Trichotomy are both accepted teachings among professing Christians. It does not mean that both are right, it means that true believers can hold to either doctrine and not imperil their faith. The same cannot be said about the divinity of Christ. That Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity, is the only orthodox teaching on the person of Christ.

What doctrinal positions do you hold to with a clenched fist and which ones do you hold to loosely?

 

[kyredneck]

I hold to many doctrines that I am completely convinced are biblical truth

I'm curious. Do you hold to 'Gospel Regeneration' and 'Regeneration Before Faith' both? That's the only reason I can see as to why you insist that no more than a nanosecond separates regeneration and conversion.

@Iconoclast too.

 

[Reformed]

I'm curious. Do you hold to 'Gospel Regeneration' and 'Regeneration Before Faith' both? That's the only reason I can see as to why you insist that no more than a nanosecond separates regeneration and conversion.

@Iconoclast too.

I am not sure what you mean by 'Gospel Regeneration'. I do believe that regeneration precedes faith. I hold to a Monergistic Ordo Salutis. Of course, "Ordo Salutis" is not how time passes in the salvation process. It is more of a casual or logical order. Since I believe a sinner is spiritually dead and incapable of any positive spiritual action, he must be made able to believe by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:14).

Please let me know what you mean by 'Gospel Regeneration' so that I am not confusing it with something else. Thank you.

 

[kyredneck]

Please let me know what you mean by 'Gospel Regeneration'

Did you not read Sproul's 'Regeneration Is Immediate' that I linked to in my post?

'Gospel Regeneration', or, 'regeneration apart from the gospel'.

 

[Reformed]

Did you not read Sproul's 'Regeneration Is Immediate' that I linked to in my post?

'Gospel Regeneration', or, 'regeneration apart from the gospel'.

Sorry. I did not read it at first because your link said "Regeneration before Faith" which I already agree with. I just finished reading the link. There is part of it I agree with it but there is another part that gives me pause. There is a teaching among some Reformed Christians that regeneration can theoretically happen years before faith is exercised. This view is more prevalent among Reformed Presbyterians. They point to Cornelius (Acts 10) as proof. They also cite John the Baptist while he was still in his mother's womb. I do believe that regeneration must take place before a person can understand the gospel and respond to it by faith. However, I do not believe in regeneration occurring independent of means (i.e. the hearing of the gospel). In other words, the two things go together. I also do not believe that someone can be regenerate for years before hearing the gospel. However, I do believe that God moves in the lives of His elect to bring them to the time and place that they will hear the gospel.

 

[Iconoclast]

KYRED;
From a Baptist catechism with commentary;
Second, regeneration is not an emotional or irrational experience. Some confuse regeneration with conversion, and conversion with irrationalism. Others make regeneration the Divine response to man’s faith. The relation between regeneration and conversion is one of cause and effect. See Question 87. It is a Divine quickening to spiritual life, a “spiritual birth” that is necessarily evidenced both intellectually and emotionally in repentance and faith. The following answer is general and summary so its pervasive nature may be perceived.

Regeneration is being “born from above” or “born again” (Jn. 1:12–13; 3:3, 5). There are six essential spiritual realities which comprise regeneration, or the “new birth.” If any one of these realities is not true or actual within the personality, the individual is yet unregenerate:

first, the impartation of Divine life (Jn. 3:3, 5; Eph. 2:1, 4–5). Unless the individual receives such a principle of spiritual life, he cannot even “see” the kingdom of God, much less enter it. He may perceive, know or understand much, even so as to be without excuse, but his will is bent toward sin and evil and his inner being is darkened (Rom. 1:18–25; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Second, the breaking of the reigning power of sin (Rom. 6:3–14, 17–18, 20, 22). Every human being by nature is a willing bondslave of sin. This power is broken by God in a definitive act of grace, and a radical cleavage is made with the reigning power of sin in the life. See Questions 94–9

 

[Iconoclast]

Third, the removal of natural heart–enmity (Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14). Man by nature has an innate aversion to God and his truth. This animosity is removed by a sovereign act of God, enabling the sinner to savingly turn to God in the context of his truth.

Fourth, the re–creation of the image of God in principle (Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:1–10). Both these passages refer to a past act, not to an entreaty. Man was created as the image–bearer of God. In the Fall, this image was devastated spiritually, morally and intellectually; the thought–process became fragmented and given to futility. The physical body, with its appetites and desires, assumed a controlling influence over the individual (Rom. 6:6, 11– 14; Eph. 4:17–19). In regenerating grace, God re–creates the image of God anew in principle in righteousness, holiness of the truth and knowledge—a spiritual, moral and intellectual transformation. With the mind thus freed, and a holy disposition given to the personality, the sinner is enabled to freely turn to Christ in faith as presented in the gospel message.

Fifth, the removal of satanic blindness (2 Cor. 4:3–6). Above and beyond all matters of the will or heart, looms the awful, evil power of Satan, who specifically blinds sinners to the truth of the gospel. He further seeks to remove any influence of the gospel in any way he possibly can (Matt. 13:3–4, 18–19; Mk. 4:4, 15; Lk. 8:5, 12). This blinding influence is removed by an act of God’s grace.

Sixth, the gift of saving faith (Eph. 2:4–10). Conversion, or repentance from sin and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, is inseparable from regeneration. Conversion is the infallible and immediate consequence of the work of the Holy Spirit upon and within the personality (Acts 16:14). The Scriptures usually consider regeneration and conversion inclusively as one. It is conversion, pointedly personal faith in the Lord Jesus and repentance from sin, which necessarily and infallibly expresses the work of God within the personality (Acts 13:12, 48; 14:1; 16:14, 27–34; 17:4, 11–12, 34; 18:8, 27; 19:18; Rom. 10:9–10, 13, 17; 1 Cor. 2:4–5; Eph. 2:4–10). See Questions 86– 88. The necessity of regeneration or the new birth is found in the utter spiritual impotence of man, the blinding power of the devil, the eternal redemptive purpose, and the righteous character and omnipotence of God. If any human being is to be saved or delivered from the reigning power of sin, his own innate animosity toward God, the blinding power of Satan, and ultimately delivered from eternal hell, God must initiate the work of salvation (Isa. 64:6; Matt. 13:3–4, 18–19; Acts 16:14; Rom. 1:18–25; 3:11, 27–21; 8:5– 8; 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:3–6; Eph. 2:1–10; 4:17–19; Titus 3:5; 1 Jn. 5:19). To say all this is to declare that salvation is by grace.

 

[Iconoclast]

Because of the mystery of this Divine operation, the inability of our finite minds to fully comprehend it, and the great possibility of misunderstanding its nature, God has been pleased to represent regeneration in human terms, using figures or metaphors to aid our understanding.

Regeneration is described as a “spiritual birth.” This is the most common designation. Cf. Jn. 1:12–13; 3:3, 5–8; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 Jn. 3:9. As a “birth,” it is mysterious and miraculous, and so couched in figurative terms.
Regeneration is described as a “quickening” to spiritual life. Regeneration is described as a “heart transplant.” The Old Testament language of Jer. 31:31–34; Ezk. 11:19–20; 36:25–27, as fulfilled in 2 Cor. 3 and Heb. 8, although couched in Old Testament symbolic terms, anticipates the New or Gospel Covenant

 

[Reformed]

@kyredneck , what is your view on the same question you asked me?

 

[37818]

Faith precedes salvation [regeneration]. Hearing the gospel precedes faith. Sanctification precedes hearing the gospel.

". . . Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, . . ." -- Acts of the Apostle 16:31. σωθηση verb future passive indicative.

 

[Reformed]

Faith precedes salvation [regeneration].

How firm is your grasp on this? Do you consider it an essential doctrine or is it a strong preference or opinion? This is the reason for the OP. In other thread, a poster was insisting that I could not say something was biblical truth because there were other views on a specific doctrine. The poster insinuated that I started first with the doctrine and then worked backward to defend it biblically. His insinuation could not have been more wrong.

Since there are very few new doctrines, often it is a matter of whether we have examined a doctrine to see whether or not it is biblical. This is different than forming an opinion on a specific doctrine and then trying to defend it. For instance, if I said, "I like the way infralapsarianism sounds, so I am going to believe it" then I have put human reasoning ahead of biblical truth. However, I say, "I am not acquainted with the arguments for infralapsarianism, so I am going to study the issue in scripture" then I am appealing to God's word for the answer.

Once we become convinced that a specific doctrine is either true or not, we should consider how much weight the doctrine deserves and how far we are willing to go to defend it. Would any of us consider the virgin birth of Christ to be a minor doctrine? Is it something we can say is a take-it-or-leave-it doctrine? How about the Trinity or the return of the Lord? Those are pretty important, right? Worth falling on your sword over? Sure they are. How about Cessationism versus Continualism? Trichotomy versus Dichotomy? The Regulative Principle of Worship versus the Normative Principle of Worship? Monergism versus Synergism? Dispensationalism versus Covenant Theology? Or how about the one you just mentioned, Regeneration preceding faith versus faith preceding regeneration? Where do you stand on these doctrines? Are there some of them that you are unsure about? Do you consider all of them to be of equal importance? Are some of them just strong opinions or preferences or are you willing to fall on your sword over them?

 

[kyredneck]

They point to Cornelius (Acts 10) as proof.

Prior to hearing the gospel:

1 Now there was a certain man in Caesarea, Cornelius by name, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. Acts 10

Somehow Cornelius just doesn't fit into that totally depraved dead alien sinner category all the way up to a nanosecond before hearing the gospel. Neither does Abraham prior to Genesis 15:6 and many other examples we're given.

They also cite John the Baptist while he was still in his mother's womb.

Apart from hearing the gospel:

15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother`s womb.
44 For behold, when the voice of thy salutation came into mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Lu 1

John the Baptist exemplifies Christ's revelation of John 3:

7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.` Jn 3

'The Spirit where he willeth doth blow ' apart from the hearing of the gospel.

@kyredneck , what is your view on the same question you asked me?

I'm a big time hyper-Monergist. Paul's crisis on the road to Damascus was conversion, not regeneration. Think about these words:

4 and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: Acts 9

...and remember Christ's words:

2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God. Jn 16

 

[ivdavid]

In other thread, a poster was insisting that I could not say something was biblical truth because there were other views on a specific doctrine. The poster insinuated that I started first with the doctrine and then worked backward to defend it biblically. His insinuation could not have been more wrong.

I don't think that was what was being implied there. I read it as simply us having to discern between what is indisputable biblical revelation vs what we ourselves infer from such truths through our subjective human reasoning.

Using your language, one should die on the sword on upholding say the deity of Jesus but not on something like calvinist predestined reprobation which is inferred through human reasoning from other indisputable truths.

Anyone reading John 3:16 on their own with no awareness of existing doctrinal systems would read the world to mean the world - everyone in it. All mankind. Anyone reading Rom 9 will have to see God showing mercy sovereignly to those He individually chose. It's just that these 2 don't seem to fit in together in our minds - so we derive further inferences to make them fit. That's the part we should be willing to give room for correction in our own beliefs.

 

[Reformed]

Prior to hearing the gospel:

1 Now there was a certain man in Caesarea, Cornelius by name, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. Acts 10

Somehow Cornelius just doesn't fit into that totally depraved dead alien sinner category all the way up to a nanosecond before hearing the gospel. Neither does Abraham prior to Genesis 15:6 and many other examples we're given.



Apart from hearing the gospel:

15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother`s womb.
44 For behold, when the voice of thy salutation came into mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Lu 1

John the Baptist exemplifies Christ's revelation of John 3:

7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.` Jn 3

'The Spirit where he willeth doth blow ' apart from the hearing of the gospel.



I'm a big time hyper-Monergist. Paul's crisis on the road to Damascus was conversion, not regeneration. Think about these words:

4 and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: Acts 9

...and remember Christ's words:

2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God. Jn 16

Brother, thank you for explaining your view. Obviously, I am of a different opinion, although I will admit that I am not willing to make the time period between regeneration and faith something I will fall on my sword over. Still, there are some general principles and textual observations that cause me to believe that regeneration occurs in conjunction with the hearing of the gospel.

1. There is no clear indication in scripture as to when Abraham came to faith in Christ. While we know that Old Testament saints and New Covenant saints are all saved through faith in Christ, things operated differently in the Old Testament. The New Covenant had yet to be revealed and New Testament terminology was not present.

2. God uses people all the time in order to accomplish His will. He used unrighteous Pharaohs to bless Abraham, Joseph, and Moses and by extension the nation of Israel. Was Abram (before he was Abraham) regenerated when he left Ur of the Chaldeans for a land he did not previously know? I say “no”, but I understand why others say “yes”.

3. The Holy Spirit certainly did move in Elizabeth’s womb to cause the unborn baby John to leap. Does this mean John was regenerated? I do not think so. Elizabeth and her unborn baby were in the presence of the unborn King of Kings. This was a unique event. John was predestined to be the last great Old Testament prophet. He was consecrated to that role even before his birth. In John 18:6 we read that the soldiers who were there to arrest Jesus in the garden drew back and fell to the ground when Jesus said, “I am He”. They were fulfilling Paul’s yet-to-be-written words in Philippians 2:10. Scripture does not reveal if these specific soldiers later came to faith in Christ. The point is that the presence of Christ could have a physical effect on others without regeneration being the cause.

4. Cornelius is always the hardest character to understand when it comes to regeneration. Because Cornelius was called a devout man and one who feared God, along with his whole family (Acts 10:2), does that mean both Cornelius and his whole family were regenerate? I like the notes in the NET Bible on this chapter. “The description of Cornelius as a devout, God-fearing man probably means that he belonged to the category called “God-fearers,” Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel and in many cases kept the Mosaic law, but did not take the final step of circumcision necessary to become a proselyte to Judaism. See further K. G. Kuhn, TDNT 6:732-34, 43-44, and Sir 11:17; 27:11; 39:27.” Cornelius was devout according to what he knew from the Jews but he still needed to hear the gospel. Scholars also consider Acts to be a transitory book. Many of the things that are recorded in Acts are not normative for the church today.

While I feel strongly about this matter, I am not holding on to it with white knuckles. Maybe a person can be regenerated for days, weeks, months, or years before coming to faith in Christ. I just do not see any compelling evidence for that view in scripture.

I do have a follow-up question for you. Is this a "white-knuckle" belief for you?

 

[Reformed]

I don't think that was what was being implied there. I read it as simply us having to discern between what is indisputable biblical revelation vs what we ourselves infer from such truths through our subjective human reasoning.

That poster shut the thread down before he and I could finish our dialogue. "Indisputable biblical revelation" is a matter of opinion. What is indisputable to one person may not be indisputable to another and vice versa.

Using your language, one should die on the sword on upholding say the deity of Jesus but not on something like calvinist predestined reprobation which is inferred through human reasoning from other indisputable truths.

Again, that is your opinion. That is the reason why I started this thread. Why do some people hold to certain doctrines with "white knuckles" and with a loose grip on others? This does not mean we have to agree with each other. It also does not mean if we are wrong that we are condemned. What I do know is those beliefs that I hold to with "white knuckles" I consider to be "indisputable truths".

 

[Reformed]

Well, I have a busy rest of the Lord's day, so I will check back either later tonight or tomorrow.

Soli Deo Gloria!

 

[ivdavid]

What is indisputable to one person may not be indisputable to another and vice versa.

Then by definition I wouldn't categorize such a doctrine as indisputable. Do you think one Christian could hold Jesus as God to be an indisputable truth while another can hold it as disputable?

 

[kyredneck]

Is this a "white-knuckle" belief for you?

It's a precious pearl the Lord gave me, along with a few others.

I do believe that regeneration must take place before a person can understand the gospel and respond to it by faith. However, I do not believe in regeneration occurring independent of means (i.e. the hearing of the gospel).

O.K. The gospel doesn't regenerate but regeneration cannot occur apart from the gospel. You don't see the contradiction there?

 

[kyredneck]

things operated differently in the Old Testament.

So God changed? Jesus Christ is not the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever?

 

[kyredneck]

Was Abram (before he was Abraham) regenerated when he left Ur of the Chaldeans for a land he did not previously know? I say “no”, but I understand why others say “yes”.

Was it a God hating totally depraved dead alien sinner that Jehovah called out of Mesopotamia years before Gen 15:6, appeared to several times, and announced blessings upon?

Was it an unregenerate man that built an altar to Jehovah at Shechem years before Gen 15:6?

Was it to a dead alien sinner that Melchizedek pronounced 'Blessed be Abram of God Most High' years before Gen 15:6?

I think not. God had already wrought within him as revealed in Jn 3.