If regeneration happens in order that we may believe,

Read the Bible again.

 

u said,

The Old Testament system was over when the ‘veil was cut in two in the Temple’ at the moment of Christ’s crucifixion. Hebrews 8:13 indicates that the old covenant has ‘vanished away.’ This truth kind of axes the concept of a one covenant theory into mega pieces.

Christ is the Mediator of a better covenant because of Jesus better promises, says, Hebrews 8:6. Some may want to make a study of the word, ‘better’ in all of the Book of Hebrews. It will adjust your thinking.

‘Jesus is made a surety of a better covenant.’ The O.T. priests, being human, died when their lives were over; Jesus is alive forevermore as our great High Priest. [Hebrews 7:25]

As to the second sentence in your quote, these duped human beings cannot prove a false theory. Truth stands forever! Error is only viable to those who wish to believe what some false teacher has suggested as being God’s truth, out of their past quasi-spiritual indoctrination.

Christ put away sins once for all. [Hebrews 9:26b; I John 2:2]

Sinners will be without excuse at the final Judgment, because Christ has put away all sins of all sinners. Those who believe will be saved, while those who reject Jesus will be held accountable for their acts of rebellion.

 

The Trinity isn't taught explicitly in so many words in the Bible, yet we believe it. The canon of Scripture isn't given to us in the Bible, yet we accept it. The Scriptures we accept as God's Word are not explicitly called "The Bible," yet we call it them collectively "The Bible." There is no "sinner's prayer" in Scripture, yet most Christians use it when doing evangelism. (Not one time in the New Testament does somebody actually utter such a prayer). The exactly correct eschatology we should believe is a matter that has not been resolved in 2000 years of church history.
One can also say that your precious concept of libertine free will, which you believe in, is not taught in Scripture. (In fact, even theological Arminians will agree with that very statement. It is a philosophical not an exegetical view that you can not support from Scripture). You reject the doctrine of irresistible grace, yet John 6:44 - 45

44"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.


45"It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

absolutely refutes you, because Jesus very plainly says that everybody that comes is drawn by the Father and WILL be raised on the last day, and that EVERYONE that has heard and learned from the Father comes to Him. Since we're not universalists here, that can only teach irresistible grace, and I have never seen an Arminian that can show otherwise.

How then were they saved, Mike? Works? Paul contradicts that notion flatly.

Untrue.

For one thing, it can be argued there can be no faith without understanding. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." There must be something to believe and one must understand in order to believe. John 3:3 works equally as well for regeneration preceding faith, particularly with 1 Corinthians 2:14 that very clearly says that natural man DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY to understand spiritual things. In other words, one can not believe what one does not understand. Without regeneration, there can be no understanding and thus no saving faith can be exercised. One must read regeneration THROUGH faith into the text to use John 3:3 in support of the doctrine, as well as beg the question of libertine free will. Also, in Johanine theology seeing is always a prerequiste to believing, not a result of it, just as hearing is a prerequiste of believing in John 8:43. One must hear BEFORE, one is able to believe. One must be instructed and understand BEFORE one believes the instruction. One must be drawn prior to coming to Christ, etc. This is extremely consistent in John. One believes BECAUSE one sees. One sees BECAUSE one is born again. Regeneration, therefore, precedes faith. Who opened Lydia's heart and when did she believe? Acts 16:14 contradicts your position flatly, because you would have us believe she was unregenerate and could understand the gospel and exercise saving faith and yet be dead and without any understanding and unable to submit to the law of God, contrary to I Cor. 2:14

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (Is the natural man not unregenerate? Do you honestly believe that an unregenerated man can believe something that the Bible says explicitly that he does not accept and can not understand and thinks is foolish?!)


and

Romans 8:6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,


7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,


8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Doesn't saving faith please God? Does it not entail some type of submission to God? If the answer is yes to either one, then how can regeneration not precede faith in Christ, since that would require the unbeliever to be spiritually dead, unable to please God, unable to understand spiritual things, and unable to submit to God? To be able to please God, submit to Him, and understand spiritual things, one must, logically, be made alive.

You Arminians like to try to show that 1 John 5:1, "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him," proves regeneration through faith. However, you overlook 1 John 2:29 that says, "If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone that practices righteousness if born of Him." If you were consistent, which you are not, you would have to believe that we practice righteousness in order to be born. Notice the language used in both verses is an exact parallel, down to the verbs form of the exact same verbs within each verse. Now, a consistent Protestant should read 1 John 2:29 to say that we do not practice righteousness so as to be born again (e.g. regenerated), for being born again gives rise to the practice of righteousness. Why then do you switch that for 1 John 5:1. On what basis can you possibly make the claim you do, when the language is an exact parallel? "The one practicing righteousness (e.g. whoever practices righteousness) in 2:29 is a present participle, as is whoever is believing (e.g. whoever believes) in 5:1. How can you possibly teach that righteousness follows regeneration but believing does not follow regeneration and use 1 John 5:1 as "proof?!"

 

We who reject this false doctrine have posted for you numerous times the scriptures that indicate how the Father draws all men to Jesus, and the methods that the Father uses to do so, but alas, you steadfastly refuse to let go of you false doctrine long enough to grab hold of the truth! YOU cannot hold on to both!

John 6:44. `No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me, and I will raise that person up on the last day. The Word of God is God's business card, inviting all to come!

45. It is written in the prophets: They will all be taught by God; everyone who has listened to the Father, and learnt from him, comes to me. John 17 Clearly shows who were Taught by God! First the Apostles were first generation students of God the son. Then all who are taught by the Apostles are taught the teachings of God the Son, and that includes us, we are all second generation believers in God the Son.

46. Not that anybody has seen the Father, except him who has his being from God: he has seen the Father. Jesus who is God come in the flesh to man, did so for man's benefit. He came to atone for Sin, a power, so that man is no longer under the death penalty for sinning.

47. In all truth I tell you, everyone who believes has eternal life. Why is it you always leave off this verse 47 when you are trying to prove your false doctrine?...Don't tell me, I know, it is because it refutes you infidelic usage of the other three verses. In Context they are not separate thoughts, but all part of the same thought.

 

It is the same faith in God that saved them as it is faith in God that saves us! It is not preconditioning that you call regeneration. Regeneration occurs at the moment the spirit in man accepts the truth of the Gospel and believes that Jesus is the Son of God the Christ! And THAT SIR, is exactly what it means to be Born again! "Regenerated" and "Born Again" are exactly the same event, AND it is totally dependent upon the belief in man!

 

Understanding IS NOT a requirement for FAITH, though Knowledge is. Understanding and Knowledge are not equals.

 

IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUOTE SCRIPTURE, QUOTE IT IN CONTEXT, OR DO NOT QUOTE IT AT ALL!

You see Bridges, In context the scripture does not mean what Calvinist doctrine would have it to say!

 

Hogwash!
And what do you do with,

 

The above is a personal interpretation not shared by most Christians. At death King David went into the Presence of the Lord. The O.T. says, 'He cannot come to me {meaning his dead son} but David said, 'I will go to be with him.'

David did not have to wait until Jesus' death to enjoy the Presence of the Lord in Heaven. If you remember the Transfiguration event the two prophets, Moses and Elijah appeared from their final home, in the presence of the disciples.

 

ILUVLIGHT,

Yes, all of the O.T. people of God including the prophets and people like Abraham, Moses, David, and Elijah were in the Presence of God in 'Abraham's Bosom' in this divided chamber the upper portion for the saved and the lower region a place of torment.

While Christ's body was in the tomb, He went and took them from this paradise/Abraham's Bosom to the Heaven where He is now seated at the right hand of God.

Strictly speaking, Moses and Elijah after the Transfiguration experience returned to paradise where the Presence of God was know to them and all other preachers, prophets, priests, and God fearing laity.

 

Yes, Abraham, David, Moses and Elijah and all the O.T. people of God went to Abraham's Bosom/Paradise at their death. It was a divided place the upper level for those who loved and reverenced the Lord, and the under level was for those who did not come to trust in the Lord.

While Jesus' body was in the tomb, He went and took the O.T. saints on to Heaven, and one would believe that the lost were taken to their final place of torment, Hell.

Strictly speaking, Moses and Elijah after the Transfiguration event, returned to the Presence of God in Paradise, until after Jesus' death, where they were translated into Heaven.

 

This is probably the most worn-out and mis-used text to prove the anti-Calvinist position concerning the total depravity of fallen man. Paul is most definately referring to an unbeliever. In fact, Paul is contrasting those who (2:10) who have received the revelation of truth through the Spirit with those (2:14) who, having not the Spirit of God, cannot receive (understand) the 'Spiritual' things of God (by the use of the phrase 'but we'). It is the most outragous assumption to think that anyone who is a Christian thinks of God's Holy Word as being 'foolish'. The very text proves the opposite of what the Arminian thinks it says. Paul clearly states 'why' the natural man cannot understand the 'Spiritual' things of God, BECAUSE THEY MUST BE RECEIVED BY THOSE WHO HAVE THE SPIRIT OF GOD. God says the 'deep things of God' ARE revealed to us and this is the opposite of what the Arminian is assuming.

The gospel would have to be omitted from "the things of the Spirit of God." Whatever verse 10 says it does not change the words in verse 14. Clearly, the gospel is part of "the things of the Spirit of God." On what basis, Mike, is the gospel not included in v. 14, because v. 14 does not restrict the things of God to "the deeper things" of God.

The sense of v. 10 is that the Spirit searches all things, including the depths of God's mind. For whose benefit? The believer, not the unbeliever. The natural man, as an unbeliever, does not have the benefits of having the mind of Christ. You are simply assuming that the gospel offer is not one of the "all things" that Spirit searches, and that the Spirit searches only the deep things of God. Why, is the gospel not included in the Spirit's searching of all things, if, as Arminians say, all means all?

If the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God, then how can any unbeliever have any understanding of the gospel beyond the intellectual, since the gospel, by definition is included in the scope of "all things," or do you also (and inconsistently) limit all things to mean, "all things that are in the 'depths' of God's mind?" V. 10 even begins, "For to US..." it does not begin with "To us and unbelievers..." The natural person is, by definition, unregenerate and can not understand spiritual things. The gospel is a spiritual thing, by definition. V.14 says he is unable to accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. There is no restrictive sense demanded by the text here, Mike.

Romans 1 is talking about common grace, e.g. natural revelation in creation, not the gospel, not spiritual truth at all. It is saying that God has given man enough knowledge that He exists and man is accountable to Him. Paul in Rom 2 and 3 will tie this to the Law and the reason man is condemned, not the reason he is not condemned. You have ripped Rom. 1:20 from its complete context. It has nothing to do with any ability to apprehend spiritual truth, e.g. the gospel.

All that come, according to v. 45 will be raised on the last day. What leads you to believe that these are two different groups. God is not persuading or inviting, he is drawing and dragging, that is the exact meaning of the word in both Greek and English.

47. In all truth I tell you, everyone who believes has eternal life. Why is it you always leave off this verse 47 when you are trying to prove your false doctrine?...Don't tell me, I know, it is because it refutes you infidelic usage of the other three verses. In Context they are not separate thoughts, but all part of the same thought.

Absolutely, which is why I don't need John 17 to tell me that the ones that come are the ones given and drawn and who believe and are instructed and all raised on the last day, without any exception. I have taken nothing out of context. John 6 teaches irresistible grace that is why you have to draw from other texts to prove your point, and which, I might add, you failed miserably.. Oh, and the "infidelic" remark was infantile.

Again, nothing was out of context. The text says that exactly what it says I said. By the way, what translation are you using?

No, actually we haven't. I had to exegete John 6 for you two months ago when you mangled it. Then you had a snit in PM's and said some very unkind things and refused to talk to me when I confronted you with your unsubstantiated claims about textual variants in John 6 (along with Pastor Larry and Paul33), so, no, Mike, you did not show me, because we have not had that conversation.

First, Ray gave an excellent answer that I'll not rehash, as the Reformed position is the same. Additionally, my comment went to the grounds by which the OT saints were forgiven/redeemed, which was Christ, not works of the Law. Paul even says, "By the works of the Law will no flesh be redeemed."

 

Gene,

I wanted to get you opinion on a verse.

Do you believe this verse alone tells us enough to determine with certainity that faith precedes birth or that birth precedes faith? How do you come to your conclusion?

 

I believe the following passage teaches that regeneration occurs before faith:

John 10:26-29, KJV
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

The reason they did not believe was because they were not the Sheep of Jesus Christ. They had not been regenerated but were still dead in trespass and sin. Ephesians 2:1-10 spells this out clearly to me.