I Think We Need to Study "Conversion"

What we are discussing, according to the OP is conversion. This deals with repentance and faith. The other topic needed in this discussion is regeneration, because you cannot have one without the other.

When discussing regeneration we must look to the Scriptures that teach it. Our Lord Jesus taught us that unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. Perhaps we understand that to mean to enter into it in the by and by. The Kingdom of God is more than that: It is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. It is not enough to hear mere profession and contrition. These things can be feigned. But what matters is a new creation. And whenever the Scriptures speaks of this, it is always the work of God.

But this is not how the Scripture speaks. The word of faith the apostles preached, how does it speak to us? In this fashion "Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Rom 5:14

No one denies the convicting power of the Holy Spirit making men sensible to their sins. They otherwise would not be. Yet there are men who in their unregeneracy sometimes desire to go to heaven. But for them to will it so will not bring the desired end. And even men under the conviction of their sins have not the faith of Christ.

Again, you misuse Scriptures and misapply Scripture language. I pray this becomes a great shame to you before the end. Go and read those Scriptures which speak of those who have made shipwreck of their faith or of those who are clouds without rain, and of those who make it so others cannot find Christ because of their false teaching.

By your rhetoric you have placed me and others in worse possible light, men such as Spurgeon, Knox, Tyndale, William Carey, among a host of others. Shame on you.

What you ask for here is a personal testimony, and I will give one briefly. When the Word of God came to me once again through the reading of a christian book, I began to question and consider my situation and sin. I was made sensible to it by the Holy Spirit, but as yet uncoverted and unregenerate. Then, on a particular day and at a particular moment the Spirit of God was poured out upon me and filled me. Christ's light shone out of my darkness and I was raised to life. At that very moment I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, turning to Him with all my heart. Christ Jesus called me and I came out of my grave in sin with a new heart. I had become a new creation in Christ.

If others, though their expeirence of this salvation be different, I do not know what has become of them. If a person has not been so created anew in Christ Jesus I am of the opinion they are still lost and in their sins.

Do you not percieve in my own testimony how that my will was never forced or violence was done to it? But God did a miracle in me and I turned and followed Him. I was blind, and He opened my eyes and I saw Him, and was saved.

Christ the Lord has saved me. His grace has saved me. I have been saved by His grace through faith, and that not of myself, it is the gift of God.

Soli Deo Gloria

RB

 

I realized you were probably angered by Sky's improper usage of scripture towards you. But what you have set forth above in your rhetoric which you also give is most unbecoming and demeaning to those non-calvinistic Children of God.
Question: Were you an actual 'Arminian' Theologically or is that just the basic label you place toward yourself being a non-calvinist?

In either case (but more specifically the latter) the term 'abhorent' means utterly opposed, or contrary, or in conflict with . It is equatable to being the exact opposite of and therefore in conflict with a thing because it IS another thing (and since the gospel is in view here - we might have a problem). And to state (regarding those non-cal Doctrines) as 'garbage' - meaning anything that is contemptibly worthless or vile, places you stating the same thing you are accusing Sky of regarding another gospel and being an anathema.
Is there any other meaning I can derive from you comments, especially when you state "The modern doctines of free-will and election ought to perish out of the earth...".

IOW - You are declaring the very thing about Sky (and other non-cals) that he is declaring about you and other Cals.

Remember that many of us who HAVE studied Calvinism view of scripture left it BECAUSE of a careful study of scripture. So that razor is just as sharp on both sides.

So did you mean all you put forth or was it the flesh which was angered by ignorance?

 

Allen, I appreicate you trying to play cop and strike a fairness. But it is misguided. I used no biblical language that would remotely indicate the person themselves are ordained to destruction and heretics (which is where that biblical language skypair used leads). I do despise and abhor the modern doctrine of free-will as it relates to decisional regeneration.

I expect those who think calvinism is false to despise and abhor it as any Christian should of what they think is false. It is one think to condemn a teaching, it's quite another to carry to the person.

I can't figure out why in these discussions we have to go over and over and over about the labels. Calvinist, doctrines of grace, arminian, non-calvinist, non-arminian, evangelical arminian, on and on and on it goes.

I was reared for a season in modern baptist churches. What do you think they generally teach about free-will, et. That is what influenced me.

I know that men have studied the Scriptures and based on what they took from it abandoned or rejected calvinistic theology. Of such was Jacob Arminius.

It is one thing Allen to attribute to God the glory of one's salvation and then make some "arminian" statements about free-will. It's quite another to lay as the ground of one's justification their own actions. SUch teaching ought to draw the strongest rebukes from all born again Christians.

 

Then let us put our daggers away and move on. If the subject untilimately rests on this aspect of our salvation (and I think it does) and we both ascribe the work of regeneration to God and God alone, then let's be done with it.

It is God's work. Soli Deo Gloria.

 

I do need to comment on this. Do you know I had "free-willers" perplexed about my salvation because they could not discern an exact decision I made for Christ? I don't think I have ever "made a decision for Christ" but I have believed on Him and do follow Him. I have been born again.

When I reflect on what happened to me, I was practically a calvinist and theoretically a free-willer! Just the opposite of your perception. Maybe I didn't explain myself clear enough. While I recognize God the Holy Spirit was working a work of conviction of sin in me, making me sensible to it, I was not yet born again. Nor was I repentant or believing on the Lord Jesus, which I call conversion.

When the Holy Spirit was poured out on me, THEN I turned to Christ and THEN I believed. C-A debate aside that is what happened to me. I did not believe ON Jesus CHrist, that is, put my trust and hope in Him until after I was filled wtih the Holy Spirit.

WHen, as a new Christian I read the book Acts it did remind me in some degree what happened to me. The Holy Spirit fell on me while the preachers words were still ringing in my ears. Then I was born again, then a was made a new creation, then I repeneted, then I believed. That is how it happened to me.

The calivinst system best explains it, but that's not initially how I came to know what happened to me. I read the Scriptures. In the Scriptures I learned new words and phrases to explain what happened to me. Flesh and blood didn't reveal Him to me. My Father who is in Heaven made Him known. And the Holy Spirit immediately led me to the Scriptures.

 

SP : Don't be so patronizing .

 

If believing on and following the Lord Jesus Christ is offensive to you, I have a great concern for you.

The confusion is most likely in how we define terms. It seems to me that to you conviction is repentence. I don't understand it that. Maybe I did do a poor job relaying the expereince. Doesn't matter. What happened is what happened. I only turned to follow and believe on the Lord Jesus after I will filled with the Holy Spirit (born again).

Not at all. I used that language as synonmous with being born again.

I am referring to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Cornelius' house. The Spirit of God went into them while Peter was still preaching. No altar call. No decision for Christ. Just a pure sweet sovereign act of Almighty God.

Save your prayers friend, Christ my Lord advocates for me despite your accusations of me before Him.

 

Im used to it now. lol

 

So your evaluating my salvation according to your theology, but then accusing me of doing this. Funny....

I have no problem with that other than to add faith. Conversion = Repentance and faith.

I am. To accuse me of impropriety is silly.

The filling was being regenerated. I used the term synonmously. You need to let ME define my meaning, not you.

Yes, I was born again and then believed savingly. Not before.

Your intention will be to pray that I will dislodged from what you think has bewitched me. I think you should pray for more important things.

THere you go again with anathema rhetoric. It's really starting to get boring.

 

Cop? I simply use the same badge you do when you do the same. Do you think that it is misguided to warn a brother from potentially doing harm to his testimony?

What I did had nothing to do with 'fairness' between the two of you.

No, you did not quote scripture but you DID make it abundantly clear in the wording you chose according to the English language that you see it as no different than the biblical language expresses.
To speak of the Non-Cal view as 'garbage', 'abhorrent', and that it 'ought to perish out of the earth' is no different than saying like Paul it something altogether different than the truth of God. If it is different or another then it is NOT of God and CAN NOT save. Those who proclaim this are an anathema because they to can not be saved since they proclaim a message that can not save them.

Now either you meant this or you did not.

That is your choice to dispise that which God has maintianed by His good pleasure among His children since the Church began. But do not assume that it is not a God given doctrine just because it does not conform to your personal views of scripture. It has been debated for the last 500 years and still no one has nor can biblically prove conclusively otherwise.

It is the teaching which condemns the person my friend. They are condemned because they believed not the truth from the beginning.
I do agree that if a person believes the others doctrines are 'false' or not true because they have no basis in truth, then I can see it being as 'abhorrent'.

So do you contend the Non-Cal beliefs have no basis of truth?
Or that they are indeed a falsehood or a lie because they are not nor have any truth in them?

I at least beleive that which the Cals believe is based upon the same truths I believe and therefore true in the main but different regarding mechanics. Do you not feel the same about non-cals?

If people would not use labels so much it would not be necessary now would it?
But THIS question is directed specifically to your contention which started my postings to you on this regarding freewill beliefs as 'garbage', abhorrent, and to be removed from the earth. So when you stated about 'Arminian', I just wanted clarification if you held previously to the Arminian theology. I do not know your past so why is it suprising I asked?

It is not Arminian, that is for sure. Nor is it semi-pel and most definately not Pelagen.

Yes, and many others including myself. It has been redunantly stated on here and with most Calvinists I have spoken with, that with careful or serious study of the scriptures one must acknowledge and yeild to Reformed Theology. As if to say the non-cal has never done any serious nor careful study of the scriptures. That is a completely untrue statement.

Agreed, but I was not speaking about someone else and what they thought. I was speaking directly to 'your' statements regarding all non reformed doctrines, specifically those of present day baptists.

 

This is exactly what I meant in my previous comments. You use "saved" and "elect" as if they are the same thing. Yet according to your previous post outlining your understanding of Calvinism, you know that they aren't. This is one of the problems.

 

I didn't mean it to come accross negatively. Apparantly it has. I apologize for not communicating my intent better. I meant that the action to try to strike for fairness was good and appreciated.

Sorry, I thought it did. I thought your exhortation was given because you percieved that I was doing something that I condemned in SP. Which obviously would be hyprocrical.

Let's at least be specific concerning what I brought harsh condemnation to. It is not the non-cal view in general, but the view and doctrine that salvation is a cooperation between God and Man. That it is grace plus something, i.e. works, et. This I am not ashamed to bring an anathema to because I percieve it to be the case in Holy Scripture.

This I am going to reject out of hand immediately. The doctines concerned are to vital and too precious to come to any kind of conclusion that suggests we cannot really know concerning justification, conversion, regeneration, atonement, et.

I contend that any teaching that alters the Gospel of grace and turns it or perverts it to be grace plus works is false and destructive to the salvation of souls. Let's not confound the difference between those who have misunderstandings of Scripture and who are genuinely born again. To confound the two would lead either group to condemn the other as reprobates. I testify that I once held the modern view of free-will, but was I not a true child of God? Yes, I was. And so are many today. You know my view on this.

I believe the two groups have come to two different conclusions from the same Scriptures but both cannot be correct. The nature of truth compels us otherwise.

Labels are indeed difficult. Words are difficult. They are symbols representing some meaning, carry denotative and connotative meanings. This is why we should define our terms before too much discussion happens. Free-will theology, that which espouses libertarian free-will or teaches regeneration is effected by the will of man, I will repudiate and condemn in the clearest, plainest and strongest terms I am permitted by God to use.

Hence the need to spend time defining our terms.

This is curious reasoning to me. I think it right for either the calvinist or non-cal to seriously study the Scriptures. True it may be that in both camps you find those who have not seriously studied. And I expect that to whatever conclusion either comes to they have done so from exegetical study and believe with a clear conscience that they have grounded their beliefs in Scripture.

Again, I thought I was clear to a particular belief outside the calvinist view. Hopefully that is clear up now so that I am not charged with overgeneralizing.

 

We grow weary with you when at first you seem to define and understand the subject from the calvinist viewpoint then when reasoning through revert to your misunderstandings. But we can well bear wtih it.