I Think We Need to Study "Conversion"

Tell you what, I will engage this topic with you to any length and depth required...IF you can first demonstrate you understand the Calvinist position on regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification and glorification.

And no, your ideas of what you think it is won't fly. I would like to see you do some real research. Use some real classic calvinist sources. Use calvinist systematic theologies, creeds, or their works on the subject.

 

I won't spend long here due to the past lack of progress. I think Reformed Baptist has taken a good tack to require a demonstration of proper understanding. Which is the point of this post. Where do you see regeneration in Matth 18:3? The kingdom of heaven is not regeneration. Christ is saying if you are not converted, you can't enter heaven.

Notice how you changed the passage: the passage says "be converted" (passive -- something done to you) and you say "convert" (active).

You see, you can't even make your argument without changing the Scripture.

 

With all due respect, this is so nonsensical that I cannot make sense of it, hence, I cannot reply.

You, sir, have come out to attack calvinism yet again, ad nauseam. Therefore, I expect you to honestly and accurately represent historic, calvinist belief. That is the system which you have made yourself an oppenent. I expect you to represent it accurately. You have yet to do so.

Prove it. Show that what Calvinists teach regarding the doctrines of grace are unbiblical or no. To do this with integrity you must first state the calvinist position. State their doctrine and reasoning. Then show by Scripture and plain reason why the doctrine is not in accord with Scripture.

I have yet to see you do this skypair. And the reason I demand a proper calvinist is because I am not going to debate for hyper-calvinism. So please use a proper calvinist explaination of the doctrines of grace, or a particular doctrine, state it their words and reason, and then proceed from there.

Until then you have proved nothing.

 

Either you or I need a dictionary because my understanding of "invective" is found nowhere in my post.

I don't need to. I showed that the verse you used doesn't say what you said it says.

Conversion, theologically, is turning to Christ in faith and repentance. I assumed you knew that.

Half right.

I did that study long ago. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask them.

Incorrect. The KoH is Christ's reign on earth. It is not something believers enter now. We are not in Christ's kingdom. I recommend you read McClain's book on the kingdom called "The Greatness of the Kingdom" I think.

The OT prophesies the kingdom and the NT doesn't change that. It is an earthly kingdom to come when Christ returns.

Actually read Matt 13:11 and see that the parables are given to hide it, not to show it.

I think less than little of your case, since you didn't actually make one. I don't think anything about your intelligence, meaning that it doesn't cross my mind.

I didn't say it was heaven. I wasn't silly.

 

This is wrong. You are confusing regeneration and election with salvation and justification. This is why I talk with you very little. You have been told so many times about these distinctions and yet you still don't get them.

 

.....Ahhh!

 

I will answer this question after you have shown you have a proper understanding of calvinism.

Correction. You are in error here. I have no recollection of defending John Calvin's works. If I have, please bear witness of it. I have nominally read his works and what I have read I have for the most part agreed with. But some of my reading had nothing to do with the 5 points of calvinism. My beliefs regarding the five points have been derived from Scripture. You still make the fatal error of equating Calvinism with John Calvin, and Calvinists as followers of him. You are the one coming out in attack of John Calvin and Calvinism. I expect you to have a proper understanding of it and demonstrate that here.

When you have demonstrated you understand historic Calvinism I will engage you. But not until then.

 

I see that I might have chosen wisdom in my request that the challenger demonstrate some measure of compentancy his understanding of calvinist theology. We shall see if skypair can do this.

 

OK, let's check what I have been told by y'all:

Monergism deals with man's actions and God's work in the act of the new birth, which we are calling regeneration. So your statement sounds correct to me. If the question is asked, "Is our new birth the unconditional work of God's grace and mercy or does man cooperate in some way with God to effect the new birth? The Calvinist answer is that it is the work of God alone.

This is also true. God did indeed, before the creation of the world chose out of fallen mankind those He would redeem, bring to faith, justify, sanctify and glorify through Jesus Christ. This He did as an act of His soveriegn will and good pleasure, and not for any foreseen faith or anything else that could merit such a choice of God.

Salvation is too broad a term to make this statement. Salvation encompasses the new birth, repentance and faith, justification, sanctification and glorification. It is more proper to say that repentence and faith are the result of the act of God to bring a man out of his condition of being dead in sin, or that is the result of the new birth.

Justification is the judicial act of God to whereby he freely accepts sinners as righteous because He has accepted as a substitue for sinners Christ and His meritorious work. It is different from election in that God elects according to his good pleasure, whereas God justifies according to the merits of Christ.

I am not sure if there were any real misconceptions in what you wrote, but statements that needed clarification.

 

Skypair,

Since it seems we are on the same page definitionally speaking, let's get to the OP which is CONVERSION.

Let me make a few distinctions:

1. Regeneration and conversion are two concepts so closely linked that it is nearly impossible to separate them. One is not coverted without regeneration, and one is not regenerated apart from conversion.

2. Regeneration is the work of God (it cannot be biblicaly ascribed to man) according to His sovereign will.

3. Conversion is the act of man turning to God in repentance and faith. It is the result of regeneration.

 

Do you not understand what the "passive" tense is? It is something done to you. You don't do a passive to yourself. That would be a middle tense in Greek, or aspect for those Greekophiles out there. The active tense would communicate something you do.

ACtually God changes our totally depraved mind.

The Calvinist repents at the same time the non-Calvinist does. When God supernaturally enables him. The non-Calvinist simply doesn't submit his mind to the biblical teaching on the matter. For most Calvinists, faith and repentance follow regeneration.

[quote[So I assume then that there is no mustard tree right now with birds filling its branches.[/quote]Yes, you assume correctly.

[quote[ That's "heaven" as you said first -- or is it the MK as you now say???

 

Wrong. The one (regeneration) is the act of God, the other (conversion) is the result. I say wrong because I detect that you are implying that conversion is the act of man apart from the grace of God. That is false.

Regeneration is impossible to men. But it is possible with God. God regenerates a man and he responds in repentance and faith.

And what makes him turn and look? What makes the sinner turn and look to the Saviour?

Skypair, I am going to use some strong language here. But what provoked you to make such a stupid comment? I am baffeled that a man of your understanding would so twist and use the language of Scripture in such a way as to apply the language of Galatians to calvinists.

Go on further in your rhetoric. Am I also believing "another gospel" so I am anathema? I was in inconsistant "arminian" back in the day. I can never go back that abhorant garbage. The modern doctines of free-will and election ought to perish out of the earth, and they have been forever banished from my heart.

The doctrines of God's free grace are the sweetest most beautiful doctrines to me today. I love the doctrine of election, of predestination, of Soveriegn grace. God has worked such good fruit and peace in my life from understanding the grace of God in truth I hope you could not torture me to recant it.

I was beguiled. I was decieved. I was wrong. My understanding of free-will, election, predestination, free grace were skewed or in error. A careful study of Scripture changed my mind.