I Think We Need to Study "Conversion"

[skypair]

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.

Interestingly, Lockyer us similar to your first assertion. :applause: He says that there must be a physical evidence of the spiritual change. Very good! But he also finds that the physical comes before the spiritual -- profession is commitment of conversion, Rom 10:9-10 "If thou shalt believe in thy heart and confess with thy mouth, thou shalt be saved." Do you see that order? Do you see that the "believe" is only "hope" so far -- God has NOT given faith or regeneration yet?? You have merely "changed your mind?" "turned to Christ?"

Regeneration is impossible to men. But it is possible with God.

YES, absolutely!!

God regenerates a man and he responds in repentance and faith.

NO! What you describe is God's word CONVICTING man, NOT regeneration!! Faith and regeneration follows.

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

The convicting of the Holy Spirit.

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?

It is bothersome to me that some who have received Christ HAVE been led away to another gospel -- yes. Anathema? No, brother. Making a shipwreck of your faith, perhaps. Making it so that others cannot find the Way, probably. "Clouds without rain," likely.

Like Larry -- you can't explain your "change of mind" -- your conversion -- in any terms that make sense as it occurring after your regeneration. How did you/do you know you were regenerated before you believed?

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.

Well, I would agree that Arminianism taken together is garbage but the free will aspect of salvation has biblical merit. Do you not see free will at all in the scriptures? Most will say that free will and predestination are equally scriptural and that it is a critical issue how we perceive their respective applications.

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.

So which saved you -- your former misunderstanding or your now clearer thinking Calvinism? In which case exactly were you saved?

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Interestingly, Lockyer us similar to your first assertion. :applause: He says that there must be a physical evidence of the spiritual change. Very good! But he also finds that the physical comes before the spiritual -- profession is commitment of conversion, Rom 10:9-10 "If thou shalt believe in thy heart and confess with thy mouth, thou shalt be saved." Do you see that order? Do you see that the "believe" is only "hope" so far -- God has NOT given faith or regeneration yet?? You have merely "changed your mind?" "turned to Christ?"

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.

NO! What you describe is God's word CONVICTING man, NOT regeneration!! Faith and regeneration follows.

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

The convicting of the Holy Spirit.

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.

It is bothersome to me that some who have received Christ HAVE been led away to another gospel -- yes. Anathema? No, brother. Making a shipwreck of your faith, perhaps. Making it so that others cannot find the Way, probably. "Clouds without rain," likely.

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.

Like Larry -- you can't explain your "change of mind" -- your conversion -- in any terms that make sense as it occurring after your regeneration. How did you/do you know you were regenerated before you believed?

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.

Well, I would agree that Arminianism taken together is garbage but the free will aspect of salvation has biblical merit. Do you not see free will at all in the scriptures? Most will say that free will and predestination are equally scriptural and that it is a critical issue how we perceive their respective applications.

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.

So which saved you -- your former misunderstanding or your now clearer thinking Calvinism? In which case exactly were you 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

 

[Allan]

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.

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.

A careful study of Scripture changed my mind.

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?

 

[skypair]

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.

Yes -- tell this to PL.

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.

Yes, regeneration is the work of God. We are on the same page here, RB.

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

And what is "Awake?" what is "arise?" They are a commands for US to do something. This is the whole issue that we dispute -- do we do something first or does God? conversion first or regeneration?

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.

I would say that ALL men knowing of it want to go to heaven. They need to know the proper way. We agree here as well.

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 [yes, CONVICTION]. ....... Then, on a particular day and at a particular moment the Spirit of God was poured out upon me and filled me [YES, "FILLED," NOT "INDWELT," NOT "REGENERATED" YOU]. .......... Christ's light shone out of my darkness and I was raised to life [EXPLAIN HOW RAISED PRECEDED BELIEF]. ........... At that very moment I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, turning to Him with all my heart [CONVERSION]. .......... 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 [yes, REGENERATION].

As I have highlighted, you merely did not understand that steps toward salvation or have been taught to redefine them. I think your observation of being FILLED with the Spirit is the key (few besides myself notice it) in salvation, but it does NOT constitute regeneration at that time as you yourself testify. As we read Acts 2, we see that the Spirit was poured out (1:4) before they asked "What must we do...?" (1:37)! Your conversion was EXACTLY like those at Pentecost (and like my own as well).

That is what I have been saying --- you have a good testimony but then you have convinced yourself it was something it was not. I think PL, from his own testimony, is in that same boat.

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.

I do. Perhaps the key was the filling of the Spirit. I believe that what constitutes filling is that our mind, emotions, and will are totally focused on God and perhaps at that point, we cannot help but obey by believing. But that is "filling," NOT "indwelling" or "regeneration" -- not yet. There is still the possibility that one would "believe in vain" (1Cor 15:3) That is, being filled with the Spirit ("having tasted of the kingdom," (Heb 6:4), they "draw back (Heb 10:29, 39) Might I suggest that those who "walk away" from Christ simply did not ask themselves (like many a good Calvinist), "What must I do?"

The interesting thing between you and I is that we explain that same thing in different ways. I find your explanation of your rebirth precisely that of a free willer and of those at Pentecost but you have learned to assign different meaning to the events thereof. Practically speaking, you are a free willer -- only theoretically are you a Calvinist. :applause: We ought not be debating each other, brother, and making a spectalce of God's grace. We need to testify the things we have SEEN, not the things we have not seen.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yes, regeneration is the work of God. We are on the same page here, RB.

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.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Practically speaking, you are a free willer -- only theoretically are you a Calvinist.

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.

 

[skypair]

I don't think I have ever "made a decision for Christ"...

Well, you did if you repented and were "converted" as you say you were.

... but I have believed on Him and do follow Him.

This is probably the MOST deceptive thing you can tell a non-Christian, sir! It makes Christ out to be a Great and Personal Teacher, but not a Great and Personal Savior. This is the precise image I have of Calvinists, BTW, and you just reenforced it.

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.

Well, you explained that part backwards then. What you said initially was that you were convicted -- filled -- converted -- regenerated. Now which is it? if you are going to couch it as regenerated -- followed, I am going to have to say that you presumed to be saved and now "follow" a Great Teacher as you describe it very Calvinistically.

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.

Yes, that was your testimony. The Holy Spirit poured out was "filling," not "regeneration." Are you struggling with that distinction?

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.

No, you have misread Acts 2 then. The Spirit was poured out but NNE was born again yet. The next thing after Peter's sermon (the preaching of the word) was those who were filled with the Spirit saying, "What must we do?" Peter said, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ...and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost [BE REGENERATED!!]."

You basically now favor your theoritical salvation. Please let me know when you make up your mind. I'll be praying for you.

skypair

 

[Rippon]

SP : Don't be so patronizing .

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This is probably the MOST deceptive thing you can tell a non-Christian, sir! It makes Christ out to be a Great and Personal Teacher, but not a Great and Personal Savior. This is the precise image I have of Calvinists, BTW, and you just reenforced it.

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

Well, you explained that part backwards then. What you said initially was that you were convicted -- filled -- converted -- regenerated. Now which is it? if you are going to couch it as regenerated -- followed, I am going to have to say that you presumed to be saved and now "follow" a Great Teacher as you describe it very Calvinistically.

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).

Yes, that was your testimony. The Holy Spirit poured out was "filling," not "regeneration." Are you struggling with that distinction?

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

No, you have misread Acts 2 then. The Spirit was poured out but NNE was born again yet. The next thing after Peter's sermon (the preaching of the word) was those who were filled with the Spirit saying, "What must we do?" Peter said, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ...and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost [BE REGENERATED!!]."

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.

You basically now favor your theoritical salvation. Please let me know when you make up your mind. I'll be praying for you.

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

 

[ReformedBaptist]

SP : Don't be so patronizing .

Im used to it now. lol

 

[skypair]

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

No -- you basically left out the "believing" prior to regeneration. You are assuming that you are saved/elect before ever believing.

The confusion is most likely in how we define terms. It seems to me that to you conviction is repentence.

No, if it wasn't clear, repentance = conversion in the order of steps I gave you.

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).

And I believe your first account. You sound like you are trying to "stylize" your second one. Just be honest.

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

Yes you did -- and in the appropriate place. You said "filling" when you would have been overwhelmed by the truth and you used "new heart" and "new creation" when you would have been regenerated/born again. Go back and read what you said. There is nothing wrong with that profession. What is wrong is to "rework" your experience to comply with a theory.

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.

Yeah, and He went "into" you -- you were "filled." I won't argue with the truth, RB,

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

Now you don't even want my prayers?? What? Have you become that independent of the body of Christ??

BTW, TCGreek gave me a similar good profession and then backpedalled when he realized his was incompatible with Calvinism. You both act like you are "bewitched" in every sense that Paul said that the Galations were.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No -- you basically left out the "believing" prior to regeneration. You are assuming that you are saved/elect before ever believing.

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

No, if it wasn't clear, repentance = conversion in the order of steps I gave you.

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

And I believe your first account. You sound like you are trying to "stylize" your second one. Just be honest.

I am. To accuse me of impropriety is silly.

Yes you did -- and in the appropriate place. You said "filling" when you would have been overwhelmed by the truth and you used "new heart" and "new creation" when you would have been regenerated/born again. Go back and read what you said. There is nothing wrong with that profession. What is wrong is to "rework" your experience to comply with a theory.

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

Yeah, and He went "into" you -- you were "filled." I won't argue with the truth, RB,

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

Now you don't even want my prayers?? What? Have you become that independent of the body of Christ??

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.

BTW, TCGreek gave me a similar good profession and then backpedalled when he realized his was incompatible with Calvinism. You both act like you are "bewitched" in every sense that Paul said that the Galations were.

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

 

[Allan]

Allen, I appreicate you trying to play cop and strike a fairness. But it is misguided.

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.

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).

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.

I do despise and abhor the modern doctrine of free-will as it relates to decisional regeneration.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[skypair]

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

The first appearance of the work of the Spirit didn't mean regeneration in Acts 2 and it doesn't mean that to me either. As I cited, 2:4 was "filling" -- 2:37 was "gifting" or "indwelling" of the Spirit AFTER "what must we do" and repentance/conversion. The order in Acts 2 was filling -- preaching -- "what must we do" and repentance/conversion -- receiving the gift/indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That is the testimony you gace and though you now backtrack, I believe first reactions are the truest reactions, don't you?

I would suggest you knew that at the time. I would suggest you are saved based on your first profession. I think, if not bewitched, you are merely confused now.

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

Sorry, but Paul used it on his own congregation (at least, those he had led to Christ). I believe it is necessary sometimes to "pull from the fire hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."

However, your confusion of the meanings of "filling" and "indwelling" no doubt leads you into that other error of Calvinism --- saying that the OT saints were indwelt when they were merely filled from time to time. They say John the Baptist was indwelt in the womb when he was merely filled when pregnant Mary entered the house.

The fact is that the OT saints never received the "gift of the Holy Ghost." Look at the JtB's disciples in Acts 19 --- they had never heard that there was a Holy Ghost! IOW, Ot saints in their conversion went right up to regeneration and then received NO gift. Their gifting awaits that "resurrection of the just" into Christ's MK.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Hey all,

I would like go go on and study the verses I cited on conversion. Perhaps that will help. I'll admit that it is not as clear that it means "turn again" as I had hoped it would be. However, in the bolded citation below, it is clear that repentance precedes or is simultaneous with conversion. Perhaps a better definition than the one I got from Lockyer would be "changed their minds."

Here's BLB's definition:

"1) transitively

...a) to turn to

.1) to the worship of the true God

...b) to cause to return, to bring back

.1) to the love and obedience of God

.2) to the love for the children

.3) to love wisdom and righteousness

.2) intransitively [this appears to be its use in "be converted"]

...a) to turn to one's self

...b) to turn one's self about, turn back

...c) to return, turn back, come back


Mt 13:15 -- "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

Mt 18:3 -- Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.


Mark 4:12, -- "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."

Luke 22:32, -- "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

John 12:40 -- "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."

Acts 3:19 -- "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

Acts 15:3 -- "And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles:..."

Acts 28:27 -- "For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted,...

Jas, 5:19-20 -- "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."

 

[Pastor Larry]

You are assuming that you are saved/elect before ever believing.

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.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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?

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.

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?

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.

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

Hence the need to spend time defining our terms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[skypair]

Well..

It definitely appears again that no one wants to discusss anything that might happen in the course of being saved that might precede regeneration -- such as repentance. We even have a stellar testimony of it but then the witness retracts his own account.

I am beginning to suspect that many have more than just their spirits on the line when it comes to declaring the truth.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well..

It definitely appears again that no one wants to discusss anything that might happen in the course of being saved that might precede regeneration -- such as repentance. We even have a stellar testimony of it but then the witness retracts his own account.

I am beginning to suspect that many have more than just their spirits on the line when it comes to declaring the truth.

skypair

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.