How To Be Born Again

[Armchair Apologist]

Brings you or forces you?
Teaches you or believes for you?
Points the way or drags you down it?

The ultimate question that shows the difference between beliefs is what you may do when you get to the point that the Holy Spirit brings you to. Does the Holy Spirit make you trust or does He allow you to reject the Saviour?

I’m not denying the work of the Holy Spirit. I’m not denying that salvation is of the Lord.
I don’t see any Scripture that indicates acceptance is of the Lord. The gift is without doubt. The acceptance is on the person. That is why we are told to believe and have faith.

Is it really worth arguing over such semantics?

The Holy Spirit of God brings you to repentance and faith. You can argue over whether regeneration precedes faith but most would agree that regeneration brings forth both repentance and faith and that such occurs through the power of God!

If we can agree upon this, it is understood that God chooses the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe and that such goes far beyond our feeble attempts at trying to understand everything.

This is about as far as I would care to dip my toes into the Calvinism/Arminianism debate.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

The wonder is that they do believe that the Holy Spirit doesn’t act in the case of certain people.

Are you trying to say that the Holy Spirit acts in the case of all people?

If so, why aren't all receptive to the hearing of the gospel message? Why is it that so many adamantly reject the gospel and want nothing to do with it regardless of you abilities to "persuade" them?

And that they believe that the Holy Spirit has decided to never act upon someone at anytime in their lives makes them wrong.

We do not have the slightest clue as to how, when, or if the Holy Spirit acts upon anyone! All we are able to do is faithfully proclaim the Gospel to all if perchance the Holy Spirit sovereignly decides to move on their behalf.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

What would happen if you decide to believe and immediately have a heart attack, before you were born again? It really doesn't matter in itself - no one who believes in Christ is not born again and no one who is born again doesn't believe. I know where the theologies can go off in either direction of course. Does God wait, hoping that you will believe so that he can regenerate you? That doesn't seem to be what John 3 is saying. But is there some responsibility for you to choose to rationally believe - and warning of what it means if you don't? That's in John 3 also. That's why I say it doesn't matter.

The "Ordo Saludis" is an exercise that is useful perhaps in a Seminary classroom when discussing soteriology. It is also a means by which one may go out and pick a righteous theological "barfight" but such can also turn into profane and vain babbling of which we need to be careful to avoid.

As the man who was born blind observed - "all I know is that once I was blind, now I can see!"

 

[DaveXR650]

If you decide to believe that is believing, for all intents and purposes. I don’t mean decide to look into it soon. What I am saying is that you cannot believe and not be born again.

Yeah I agree. I'm just saying that if you reduce it to you simply believing you have to still deal with a rather odd John 3:6-8 where clearly something more is going on than your decisive action to believe. You have both things going on. Some Calvinists dwell only on the supernatural aspect and camp only on verses 6-8 and neglect that you are to believe on Christ, as a command and an invitation. But some non-Calvinists skip verses 6-8 and act like this is all a matter of you exercising your will, unaided or unchanged by the Holy Spirit. But verses 6-8 are there, and cannot be ignored.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I am very cautious regarding any sort of "Methodology" these days. Looking at your major points here, I do not see any place where I would disagree with your presentation but the words "How to be saved" brings me to hesistate and push back just a little.

The Philippian Jailor asked "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" and I cannot think of any better way he could've worded it but what I do see here is our human nature at work always focusing on what "we must do" when the answer is there is nothing we can do aside from turning to God in repentance and in faith, believing the gospel! There is no doubt that Paul had been dealing with this Philippian Jailor earlier that day (or whenever it was that Paul was remanded to his custody) and I am sure that Paul stuck to the clarity of the Gospel message and this is what we ought to stick to as well!

Born again - what happens inside you. Born from above - where it comes from. Saved - what it accomplishes.

 

[DaveXR650]

The wonder is that they do believe that the Holy Spirit doesn’t act in the case of certain people.

That's true. Personally, I believe that we all should be able to come to Christ upon hearing the gospel and at any rate we all should be able to seek God and attempt to do his will on our own, even if we haven't heard the gospel yet. But it's also true that we by our own free will - don't. So, we are all guilty and truly so. But I see no evidence that God has created some people for the purpose of being damned. And I do believe that when a person is not saved in some sense, even though God is sovereign, he is unhappy and it goes against his will - that they were lost. I have to leave the specifics of how that works to Him.

Some Calvinists say that puts man in charge or makes God impotent and weak. The way I look at it is that throughout life, on our own we become harder and more ingrained in sin. Most of us who are saved are objects of grace beyond simply hearing the gospel truths. God has done much more to rescue us from various levels of depravity and individual lives of sin than we will ever understand. We just have to leave it there because the fact is that there does seem to be others who, while just as naturally nice and decent as we are, don't seem to get saved and most of us are not bold enough to claim that the only difference was that we turned out to be wiser or superior to them.

 

[DaveXR650]

The "Ordo Saludis" is an exercise that is useful perhaps in a Seminary classroom when discussing soteriology. It is also a means by which one may go out and pick a righteous theological "barfight" but such can also turn into profane and vain babbling of which we need to be careful to avoid.

Yep. Because it can split a good church right down the middle. And for no good reason.

 

[Ascetic X]

Having said that, we use the word "lost" to refer to unsaved sinners across the board.

Gentiles are never lost, they are unsaved. Who would have lost them? They never belonged to the Father.

Gentiles were not lost. Israel was lost for Israel is the family that belonged to God the Father.

In the Bible, being "lost" means being spiritually separated from God, lacking salvation, and unable to find your way back.

Lost is not necessarily limited to souls God once had, then escaped from His grip.

Being without Christ, having no hope, being without God in the world is a sure definition of what it means to be spiritually lost.

While Israel belongs to God in a special, privileged sense, all souls belong to God as their Creator and Benefactor.


Ephesians 18:4,5

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.



Ezekiel 18:4

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

 

[Ben1445]

Is it really worth arguing over such semantics?

You can argue semantics but cry out for a bit of push back? It’s equal.

The Holy Spirit of God brings you to repentance and faith. You can argue over whether regeneration precedes faith but most would agree that regeneration brings forth both repentance and faith and that such occurs through the power of God!

You have it all backwards. You can argue whether faith precedes regeneration or is simultaneous but the instructions are look and live. The act of looking shows faith. The enlightenment is of God. The life comes because of the faith and not the other way around. You cannot be without faith in Christ and alive in Him simultaneously.

If we can agree upon this, it is understood that God chooses the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe and that such goes far beyond our feeble attempts at trying to understand everything.

That is essentially what I told you in post 5. But it is not that difficult to understand unless you’re determined to believe that God saves people who are completely unaware and non responsive to His working.
If you believe a response is necessary, I don’t know what you are arguing.

This is about as far as I would care to dip my toes into the Calvinism/Arminianism debate.

It is certainly far enough

 

[Ben1445]

Are you trying to say that the Holy Spirit acts in the case of all people?

Apparently you are saying that the Holy Spirit is slacking on behalf of some people.

If so, why aren't all receptive to the hearing of the gospel message? Why is it that so many adamantly reject the gospel and want nothing to do with it regardless of you abilities to "persuade" them?

I have never talked about my abilities to persuade them. You have lost your way in this conversation.
Have you never read that men resist the Holy Spirit?
Have you never read that we are commanded to not quench the Spirit?
Why is it that these things are so, if we have no ability to resist the grace of God? Or what are we resisting if we can’t resist the Holy Spirit?

We do not have the slightest clue as to how, when, or if the Holy Spirit acts upon anyone!

I can’t speak for others, but I certainly am aware of the Holy Spirit working in my life. Nothing mystical or weird, but there is no mistaking His working for someone else.

All we are able to do is faithfully proclaim the Gospel to all if perchance the Holy Spirit sovereignly decides to move on their behalf.

What makes you think He never does for some people?

 

[Ben1445]

Yeah I agree. I'm just saying that if you reduce it to you simply believing you have to still deal with a rather odd John 3:6-8 where clearly something more is going on than your decisive action to believe. You have both things going on. Some Calvinists dwell only on the supernatural aspect and camp only on verses 6-8 and neglect that you are to believe on Christ, as a command and an invitation. But some non-Calvinists skip verses 6-8 and act like this is all a matter of you exercising your will, unaided or unchanged by the Holy Spirit. But verses 6-8 are there, and cannot be ignored.

Th Holy Spirit is not passing out certificates. If you take it as far as Calvinism does, how can you have assurance? How can you know that Christ is your Saviour? All you may rightly say is that you didn’t know if the Spirit came or left.

 

[Ben1445]

most of us are not bold enough to claim that the only difference was that we turned out to be wiser or superior to them.

I’ve never heard anyone say anything like this except for the Calvinist accusation that the person recognizing personal responsibility must be thinking that way.

 

[DaveXR650]

Th Holy Spirit is not passing out certificates. If you take it as far as Calvinism does, how can you have assurance? How can you know that Christ is your Saviour? All you may rightly say is that you didn’t know if the Spirit came or left.

I would go with the Calvinists on this and say that you examine yourself to see if you hate what you once loved, and are attracted to what you once were indifferent or hostile to. I would ask for wisdom in the matter. While I do believe that saving faith itself gives some assurance because it involves one putting your case in God's hands and agreeing with him as to your sinfulness, I don't believe that that is the same as relying upon at one time saying a sinners prayer.

You're gonna have to decide where you personally come down on this. You say you may rightly say that you don't know if the Spirit came or left then are you not saying that it does not then depend totally upon you and your decision. Both things are going on. You are told to believe and promised that if you do you will be saved. And at the same time the Spirit does seem to be passing out certificates, although that is a crude way to say it. That is why I say once again that it really doesn't matter, except when different groups take the theology too far in either direction.

 

[DaveXR650]

I’ve never heard anyone say anything like this except for the Calvinist accusation that the person recognizing personal responsibility must be thinking that way.

Well I have. Several times I have heard non-Calvinists say "Well, at least I had sense enough to believe". Actually there is some truth in that but is it really wise to believe that that is the sole reason you are saved and someone else is lost? Calvinists do believe in personally responsibility. They believe that we are all personally responsible for sinning and living without concern for God. And we all do quite well at that, according to our own free will, without any influence by God. Where we need help is if we are to be saved.

 

[Ben1445]

I would go with the Calvinists on this and say that you examine yourself to see if you hate what you once loved, and are attracted to what you once were indifferent or hostile to. I would ask for wisdom in the matter. While I do believe that saving faith itself gives some assurance because it involves one putting your case in God's hands and agreeing with him as to your sinfulness, I don't believe that that is the same as relying upon at one time saying a sinners prayer.

You're gonna have to decide where you personally come down on this. You say you may rightly say that you don't know if the Spirit came or left then are you not saying that it does not then depend totally upon you and your decision. Both things are going on. You are told to believe and promised that if you do you will be saved. And at the same time the Spirit does seem to be passing out certificates, although that is a crude way to say it. That is why I say once again that it really doesn't matter, except when different groups take the theology too far in either direction.

There are no physical certificates. That is why it seems crude to say it that way. There is no physical proof of the Holy Spirit. There is what points us to the understanding of His work. There is no physical evidence.

Unless you have a certificate you can post a picture of, I was talking about physical evidence.

 

[Ascetic X]

Well I have. Several times I have heard non-Calvinists say "Well, at least I had sense enough to believe". Actually there is some truth in that but is it really wise to believe that that is the sole reason you are saved and someone else is lost? Calvinists do believe in personally responsibility. They believe that we are all personally responsible for sinning and living without concern for God. And we all do quite well at that, according to our own free will, without any influence by God. Where we need help is if we are to be saved.

I have never heard anyone say that.

I have heard people say, “I’m glad I accepted the gospel message.”

But I’ve never heard anyone say, “I’m glad God put a new birth in me, so I could repent and believe the gospel.”

 

[Ben1445]

Well I have. Several times I have heard non-Calvinists say "Well, at least I had sense enough to believe".

Well that is too bad. But that doesn’t make it okay to apply it to someone else.

We’re that okay to do, I have some things that Jonah said that I want to scold you for.

Actually there is some truth in that but is it really wise to believe that that is the sole reason you are saved and someone else is lost? Calvinists do believe in personally responsibility. They believe that we are all personally responsible for sinning and living without concern for God.

Clearly that is not the personal responsibility I am referring to.
It does not do any good to introduce red herrings. Do you want to discuss London, by way of example? Let’s decide which London to discuss and stick with it. Switching to a different London mid conversation doesn’t help.

And we all do quite well at that, according to our own free will, without any influence by God. Where we need help is if we are to be saved.

That help has been provided. Salvation is an accomplished work. Believe is all that is required of us.
True belief changes the way you live. Head knowledge without personal acceptance is nothing.

 

[DaveXR650]

There is what points us to the understanding of His work. There is no physical evidence.

I would agree that that is your evidence of being born again or a least the work of the Spirit. Remember. I don't believe you should say that you are born again and then you believe. All I'm saying is that both occur. Timewise I believe it's at the same time. I don't even mind if you say that you must believe and then that "causes" God to give you a new birth. I don't think that would be right theologically but we are all just laymen on here so no problem with me. My whole point on here is to say that man's responsibility and the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit are both in operation in John chapter 3. Both.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

You can argue semantics but cry out for a bit of push back? It’s equal.

You choose your battles wisely. What are you going to get from the discussion and can you part way friends?

You have it all backwards.

Says you

You can argue whether faith precedes regeneration or is simultaneous but the instructions are look and live. The act of looking shows faith. The enlightenment is of God. The life comes because of the faith and not the other way around. You cannot be without faith in Christ and alive in Him simultaneously.

We are called to "Look and Live," to "Repent and Believe" to "call upon the name of the Lord" and so forth. What brings you to this point? Are you saying you are saved because you had the "Good common sense to believe?" Does this mean you are "better" than the person who refuses to believe?

That is essentially what I told you in post 5. But it is not that difficult to understand unless you’re determined to believe that God saves people who are completely unaware and non responsive to His working.

Not sure I said anything that even closely alludes to this. God always works through a man's ability to reason, to rationalize, and to observe. This is why he declares "Come now and let us reason together, says the LORD..."

If you believe a response is necessary, I don’t know what you are arguing.

For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Rom 10:13). I don't believe we have to complicate the matter any further than this.

It is certainly far enough

 

[DaveXR650]

We’re that okay to do, I have some things that Jonah said that I want to scold you for.

Clearly that is not the personal responsibility I am referring to.
It does not do any good to introduce red herrings. Do you want to discuss London, by way of example? Let’s decide which London to discuss and stick with it. Switching to a different London mid conversation doesn’t help.

I clearly said above that we should be and can be held responsible for our sin in our natural state and the only thing making us sin is our own wills in full control. I have gone as far as you do in assigning personal responsibility. We are totally responsible for what we do. I do not think the same is equally true when it comes to changing for the better and believing the gospel. And I can tell you that Calvinists, Arminians, Regular Baptists, and free will Baptists all believe that too. The only difference is in the resistibility of the grace given to us and in the selectivity of the grace given.

But that aside, John 3:6-8, if glossed over, leaves you totally in charge of your salvation in a way that doesn't fit with what those verses say. Especially in light of the fact that Jesus seemed astounded at the ignorance of Nicodemus who was an expert in theology and scripture and yet seemed himself to be in need of supernatural help. Don't make too much of it as I think we are basically on the same page.