Order of salvation...

[Darrenss1]

You wrote:
There are two challenges to your presuppositions:

1. Everyone who demonstrated faith (Abraham, Moses, David, etc.) had been specially chosen by God. It is clear that God's choosing has a regenerative factor in it in that He is the One that keeps His chosen. This is clearly demonstrated in 1 Kings 19 where God says that He has kept--for Himself--7,000 that have not worshiped Baal.

God keeps His own, that is obvious. God kept those whom were already believing. Were the 7000 believing Jews? The context is different, the regeneration you are trying to read back into the OT was for UNBELIEVERS in order that they can respond to believe. God did not regenerate believers or unbelievers in the OT that is a fact. How God kept them (or caused them to believe) in the OT was not regeneration, bottom line.

:type:

Darren

 

[Lux et veritas]

God keeps His own, that is obvious. God kept those whom were already believing. Were the 7000 believing Jews? The context is different, the regeneration you are trying to read back into the OT was for UNBELIEVERS in order that they can respond to believe. God did not regenerate believers or unbelievers in the OT that is a fact. How God kept them (or caused them to believe) in the OT was not regeneration, bottom line.

:type:

Darren

You have got to be kidding!!!! No wonder we can't get anywhere in a doctrinal debate when you deny a fundamental biblical truth (regneration) and promote "another gospel".

If God didn't "regenerate" in the OT, how were they saved? Jesus Himself challenged Nicodemus as a well-known teacher of OT scripture and asked,
Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"

What "things" did Jesus say Nicodemus ought to have known? THE NEW BIRTH. Being "born again" by the Spirit of God. Christ admonished Nicodemus for not knowing this truth. In other words, he ought to have, because it was plain OT truth that Jesus was speaking about.

 

[Darrenss1]

You have got to be kidding!!!! No wonder we can't get anywhere in a doctrinal debate when you deny a fundamental biblical truth (regneration) and promote "another gospel".

If God didn't "regenerate" in the OT, how were they saved? Jesus Himself challenged Nicodemus as a well-known teacher of OT scripture and asked,
Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"

What "things" did Jesus say Nicodemus ought to have known? THE NEW BIRTH. Being "born again" by the Spirit of God. Christ admonished Nicodemus for not knowing this truth. In other words, he ought to have, because it was plain OT truth that Jesus was speaking about.

This should be interesting, the doctrine of the OT new birth/regeneration. So, don't keep me in suspense, let's hear it..

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

Sorry I didn't get to the rest of your post, I've been busy. Here are my thoughts.

2. The New Testament does inform our understanding of the Old Testament because the New Testament is the fullest disclosure of God, His character, etc. The Bible, both testaments, are a unit; they are not in opposition.

OK, that is very true however NOT everything about GOD has been revealed, certainly how God does HIS business is still mysterious and furthermore what the NT does say is both in short passing comments that require interpretation anyway.

Furthermore, God works in an electing way in the Old Testament, both with individuals and the Nation of Israel. You could not be considered "saved" unless you were a part of Israel. Now, there are certain rare exceptions where people from other nations come into Israel--Uriah the Hittite; Rahab, etc. However, they come into Israel because of something God did. This is shown in that they came into Israel.

As I said, God allows for the response of those whom He intervenes for. The idea (for example) that they rebelled in the wilderness was all part of God's election and God had locked them in to do so, is taking many truths beyond the truths spoken of in scripture. So we'll have to disagree on that.

With your presuppositions, how do you speak to the Egyptians or the Philistines? They are not chosen, and apart from something miraculous of God's doing they would be eternally outside of Israel.

While I don't try to explain everything for the reason not all issues are addressed since the bible is mostly concerned in the OT with the line of Abraham through Isaac, Jacob, I believe that THAT election and purpose of God is in regards to God's Sovereignly bringing His will throughout the NATIONS of the earth. God exalts nations and brings down, with respect to the issue that Israel is in the center of God's purposing decrees.

This is the same way I see, the purpose of God for Pharaoh, God raising him up as a vessel for His wrath, that is NOT referring to raising Pharaoh into a life where Pharaoh is purposed for eternal damnation, that has to be clear; Pharaoh is NOT the example of ALL non elected, passed over sinners (as Calvinism attempts to make him), purposed for the lake of fire without any real hope for mercy towards their eternal damnation.

Even further--when you get to the New Testament, how do you interpret Jesus' words in Matthew 13 when He tells His disciples "to you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom..." This stands in direct opposition to the scribes and Pharisees who were not given eyes to see or ears to hear.

No problem for me. God needed 12 men to specifically teach, if God wants to do that that who's going to stop Him? That is an exceptional part of history and God did not repeat the choosing of disciples/Apostles at any time.

So, to me, your position does not answer as many questions as it raises. But that certainly does not mean that you are not a Christian. As I've said--I am a Calvinist, but I am not a Calviniser.

Well I think my position is not helpless, there are answers so far as what the bible does answer, not all answers but some can be explained even if the explanation is that the bible doesn't say there is an explanation.

Darren

 

[Winman]

Even further--when you get to the New Testament, how do you interpret Jesus' words in Matthew 13 when He tells His disciples "to you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom..." This stands in direct opposition to the scribes and Pharisees who were not given eyes to see or ears to hear.

I think this verse is misapplied by Calvinists. First, if you read the account, the disciples did not understand the parables any better than others. They often came to Jesus afterwards and asked him to explain his parables. But that is the difference, the disciples DESIRED to hear and understand God's word while unbelievers did not.

Matt 13: 36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

Matt 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

Mark 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

And Jesus showed that the prophets and righteous men desired to see and hear Jesus before.

Matt 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

This is the difference. Those who love God will seek after him and desire to know his word, while those who are indifferent or hate God will not.

Matt 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
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.

God did not blind these people, they closed their own eyes and their own ears. They were not interested in hearing God's word, for if they were, they would have followed after Jesus and asked him to explain his parables as the disciples did.

 

[Darrenss1]

I think this verse is misapplied by Calvinists. First, if you read the account, the disciples did not understand the parables any better than others. They often came to Jesus afterwards and asked him to explain his parables. But that is the difference, the disciples DESIRED to hear and understand God's word while unbelievers did not.

Matt 13: 36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

Matt 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

Mark 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

And Jesus showed that the prophets and righteous men desired to see and hear Jesus before.

Matt 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

This is the difference. Those who love God will seek after him and desire to know his word, while those who are indifferent or hate God will not.

Matt 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
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.

God did not blind these people, they closed their own eyes and their own ears. They were not interested in hearing God's word, for if they were, they would have followed after Jesus and asked him to explain his parables as the disciples did.

Agreed. Jesus spent the time to explain things to the 12. To them it was given, which is good because if Jesus had not explained everything to them, they wouldn't know either... It should be noted when things in the bible are "exceptions" and not MAIN RULES. That's my thought.

Darren

 

[The Archangel]

Winman,

I said:

Even further--when you get to the New Testament, how do you interpret Jesus' words in Matthew 13 when He tells His disciples "to you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom..." This stands in direct opposition to the scribes and Pharisees who were not given eyes to see or ears to hear.

You replied:

I think this verse is misapplied by Calvinists. First, if you read the account, the disciples did not understand the parables any better than others. They often came to Jesus afterward and asked him to explain his parables. But that is the difference, the disciples DESIRED to hear and understand God's word while unbelievers did not.

God did not blind these people, they closed their own eyes and their own ears. They were not interested in hearing God's word, for if they were, they would have followed after Jesus and asked him to explain his parables as the disciples did.

The Greek in that passage won't let you do that. It is clear from the passage that something has gone on special with the Disciples as opposed to the Pharisees.

Perhaps, there will be more to follow.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

That's a really good question!

Ultimately, I am Augustinian on this.

Pre-Fall: Able to sin and able not to sin

Post-Fall: Not able not to sin

After Conversion: Able to sin and able not to sin

Eternal State: Not able to sin

I think the answer to your question may be a both/and, not either/or.

Certainly at the fall our nature was hopelessly damaged. I don't know that I would say our nature was "replaced," however. Genesis 9 is clear that we still function as image bearers. So, even though that--I think--is primarily a functional aspect, I don't think it allows us to say that the pre-fall nature is replaced with a post-fall nature.

Having said that the pre-fall nature is hopelessly marred and is, possibly, unrecognizable--like someone who has been horribly mangled and disfigured in an auto accident. Perhaps not every part is as damaged as it could be but every part is, in some way, damaged. What is more, the more severely damaged parts undoubtedly effect the less severely damaged parts so that the whole nature is woefully damaged.

The new nature (regardless of when it comes--post conversion or pre conversion), I think, is a restoration of the fallen nature. The Augustinian model suggests that the state of a person is the same in pre-fall and post-conversion. So, I think there is a cleansing restoration of the fallen nature.

However, when we enter into Christ's presence, I think there is a replacement of nature. In the eternal kingdom there will be no sin and I agree with Augustine that this would require us to not be able to sin. I think that requires a new (as opposed to cleansed/restored) nature.

Anyway, that's how I see it on August 18, 2009 at 1:35 AM EST.

Many Blessings!

The Archangel

Hello once again brother. Sorry not posting sooner but I actaully forgot about it (oops.. )

So briefly, if I may, lets recap..

I asked you if our nature, once regenerated, is something that replaces our old nature or, if God renews our nature back to it's intended state through cleansing, washing, etc.. ?

You responded - in short / per an Augustinian view:

The new nature (regardless of when it comes--post conversion or pre conversion), I think, is a restoration of the fallen nature.

I know there was a little more but I would like to deal with this first.

It is stated in the Reformed view, that we must receive a 'new' nature in order to believe/have faith. The example I have heard/read quite often is that of a lion, and that the lion by nature eats flesh primarily as his means of substance, but if you give him grass to eat he will not eat it. The idea is that in order for the lion to eat grass you would have to change it's nature. You would have to give it the nature of something that eats plants as its primary substance for him to even desire it as such.

It is the same with your analogy of the dog barking, but the dog does not meow by nature unless you change that nature as seen below:

It is almost as if we were dogs only capable of barking and are commanded to meow. We wouldn't be able to meow unless we were to be given a new nature--that of a cat. Once the new nature is in place we can live up to the command of meowing. (Now, this analogy is not perfect...as it seems to suggest a works salvation. But, I'd say the meowing instead of barking is "fruit" that a new nature has been installed).

So here is 1 aspect of my point in asking about our nature.

#1. We do not obtain a different nature, as in one replacing the other.

Therefore it is not the nature itself that needs to be changed/replaced in order to believe because the old one is not actaully take out and replaced with something new. However let it be known that due to the effects of that horrific incident with sin man can not, of or by himself, come to know what he needs, why he needs it, and how it can be obtained (spiritual things). He needs someone who is able to bring him to the place of salvation that being in such a state where he can 'do' nothing to save himself, he is left only with the hope of faith, if he will but believe God is able and willing to do all He has said He will/has done.

In short - it is not the nature that needs to be replaced in order to believe (as the analogy typically states) because that nature is still techically the same.
Therefore, as I see it, the argument that we believe or don't believe because our nature has either been replaced with a new one or not, is bibically incorrect.

Now there are scriptures that I can/could add to the above but since we are talking here vai conversational Q/A'ing, I am being more general but am more than willing to answer you questions with respect to being more specific. I will however address some other aspects in later posts, but right now I have some more job 'duties' to perform brother.

PS.. I'm not sure I quite understood the point about getting a new nature and then in the presense of Christ getting another new nature. I'm not even sure it is even postulated in scripture but if it is help me out here

May the Lord richly bless you,
Allan

 

[The Archangel]

Allan,

As always it is good to hear from you. Though there are many distances in our separate theologies, I really enjoy our conversations. It is my fervent hope that we are modeling exactly how two brothers in Christ should discuss differences in theology.

You wrote:

Therefore it is not the nature itself that needs to be changed/replaced in order to believe because the old one is not actually take out and replaced with something new. However let it be known that due to the effects of that horrific incident with sin man can not, of or by himself, come to know what he needs, why he needs it, and how it can be obtained (spiritual things). He needs someone who is able to bring him to the place of salvation that being in such a state where he can 'do' nothing to save himself, he is left only with the hope of faith, if he will but believe God is able and willing to do all He has said He will/has done.

I agree people absolutely need someone to share the Gospel with them. In other words, I don't think God saves without the Gospel and I don't think God shares the Gospel through any other means--only man. But, the idea that the "restored nature" is the same as the fallen nature is not at all what I meant.

I'll describe my thinking this way: Imagine you have a computer program that gets horribly corrupted (as Windows programs tend to do--Mac Guy Here! :smilewinkgrin. That program, in order to function properly, would need to be replaced from an install or back-up disc. In essence, you would need the program to be re-newed, but that renewal is a reversion to the earliest incarnation of the program. The corrupted program is replaced with the uncorrupted program. (Again, the analogy is not perfect, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to put forward). That's why I claim to be Augustinian--The nature of pre-fall man is able to sin; able not to sin. This is also the nature of the Christian. Of course, the Calvinist would claim that, through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, this is achieved before conversion with the definitive result being conversion (or, for short: Irresistible Grace).

The issue of free will really comes home here. Is a fallen nature "Free?" We don't think so. We think there must be a restoration (or reversion, if you will) to the pre-fall nature in order that our will can be truly free to choose God. (That's probably a discussion for a different thread)

In short - it is not the nature that needs to be replaced in order to believe (as the analogy typically states) because that nature is still technically the same.

Therefore, as I see it, the argument that we believe or don't believe because our nature has either been replaced with a new one or not, is bibically incorrect.

We would not say the nature is the same. The restoration/reversion brings something new which is different from that which was there.

PS.. I'm not sure I quite understood the point about getting a new nature and then in the presence of Christ getting another new nature. I'm not even sure it is even postulated in scripture but if it is help me out here

You know...I'll admit this idea is more a theory than something I find explicitly in Scripture. But, again being Augustinian, it makes sense since there will be no sin in the eternal kingdom.

I hope these clarifications help. I'll wait to hear your response so we can discuss more!

Blessings!

The Archangel

 

[Darrenss1]

The issue of free will really comes home here. Is a fallen nature "Free?" We don't think so. We think there must be a restoration (or reversion, if you will) to the pre-fall nature in order that our will can be truly free to choose God. (That's probably a discussion for a different thread)

Hi Archangel, while I might agree to a certain extent, the missing information to this "free will" problem is that GOD intervenes and WHEN God intervenes man is able by his free will to respond to God. Calvinism would like God's ONLY means of intervention to be "regeneration", I don't see that supported anywhere in scripture for reasons I've pointed out previously. Calvinist that refer to regeneration love to go to the NT however the condition of fallen man goes back to the garden, there is some 4000 years of man that needs to be assessed before the NT theories of regeneration should even be thought of.

Darren

Darren

 

[The Archangel]

Hi Archangel, while I might agree to a certain extent, the missing information to this "free will" problem is that GOD intervenes and WHEN God intervenes man is able by his free will to respond to God. Calvinism would like God's ONLY means of intervention to be "regeneration", I don't see that supported anywhere in scripture for reasons I've pointed out previously. Calvinist that refer to regeneration love to go to the NT however the condition of fallen man goes back to the garden, there is some 4000 years of man that needs to be assessed before the NT theories of regeneration should even be thought of.

Darren

Darren,

Before I begin, I should also mention that I have enjoyed our conversations too.

Again, our fundamental difference is this: the New Testament must be allowed to inform our understanding of the Old Testament. Any biblical theology, even a rudimentary biblical theology, does this. (And, no, I'm not saying you have a rudimental theology).

A further barrier to our agreement with one another is that of free will. The Reformed position, which I whole-heartedly support, is that until regeneration, man's will is not, in fact, free but is a slave to sin and we are, by nature, children of wrath.

The will is never really "free" until there is a new heart. This is why we claim that regeneration must precede redemption.

Blessings!

The Archangel

 

[Darrenss1]

Darren,

Before I begin, I should also mention that I have enjoyed our conversations too.

Again, our fundamental difference is this: the New Testament must be allowed to inform our understanding of the Old Testament. Any biblical theology, even a rudimentary biblical theology, does this. (And, no, I'm not saying you have a rudimental theology).

And this is one thing I'm noticing with the Calvinist/reformed view, that regeneration preceding faith is first assumed true in the NT and than further read back into God's dealings with man in the OT.

A further barrier to our agreement with one another is that of free will. The Reformed position, which I whole-heartedly support, is that until regeneration, man's will is not, in fact, free but is a slave to sin and we are, by nature, children of wrath.

Yes, I know BUT if Calvinism didn't assume regeneration precedes faith they might notice that man has always been able to respond positively to God's intervention all throughtout history. :smilewinkgrin:

The will is never really "free" until there is a new heart. This is why we claim that regeneration must precede redemption.

I would put that truth on the right ...|--> side of salvation but not before.

Darren

 

[Allan]

It is my fervent hope that we are modeling exactly how two brothers in Christ should discuss differences in theology.

I agree :smilewinkgrin:

I'll describe my thinking this way: Imagine you have a computer program that gets horribly corrupted (as Windows programs tend to do--Mac Guy Here! ). That program, in order to function properly, would need to be replaced from an install or back-up disc. In essence, you would need the program to be re-newed, but that renewal is a reversion to the earliest incarnation of the program. The corrupted program is replaced with the uncorrupted program. (Again, the analogy is not perfect, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to put forward).

Yes I understand you, but in the above you have the 'nature' being 'replaced of which you agreed was not replaced, at least as of yet (till CHrist comes) but is restored or a reversion.

Here is how I see it in your analogy
Remember also that boot disks are not always used to 'reinstall' a program but that with a boot disk one can use it to access the program's basic or operating functions in order to get a response from said program in order to address the problem. Now unless the program is not operational, at all, therefore can illicit no response from said program then we must conclude that it is not only corrupted but is in fact destroyed. If this is the case with our nature then, I would assume the postulation would be that the nature of man is not corrupted in that it needs to be renewed but that in being destroyed it needs to be replaced because the program is not even functionable for either sin or belief. Therefore, IMO, it is not necessarily the 'reinstalling' or 'replacing' the program at issue, but if the program will respond to the to bootdisk (Holy Spirit) when it is working on/with/upon said program. The boot disc in question, that I am refering to, can correct the problem without having to remove the old program and thus replace it with a new one. However the program can not respond properly in either a negitive or positive manner unless that boot disk has been applied to it.

In light of the above, if I may ask, can you say with all biblical certainty that the operation of the Spirit of God, when He moves upon an unregenerate man to bring forth even these basic truths spiritual truths/knowledge (sin, righteousness, and judgment to come) of which that man is condemned for rejecting. Can He (God) not enable that man apart from regenerating him in accordance with many Reformed views? I ask it specficially this way, because I want to bring this around to not only what regeneration is (being justified and sanctified) but also 'how' it transpires in context of scripture passages, a post or two from now.

That's why I claim to be Augustinian--The nature of pre-fall man is able to sin; able not to sin. This is also the nature of the Christian. Of course, the Calvinist would claim that, through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, this is achieved before conversion with the definitive result being conversion (or, for short: Irresistible Grace).

With respect to 'regeneration' and the Reformed position, remember brother that many (in general not a specific large amount) who are Reformed do not hold to regeneration preceding faith but the opposite, and they are 5 pointers as well.

I don't agree with the terminology of 'Irresistable grace' since we see in scripture quite a few times men resisting it, and some even to the end. And I don't agree with 2 disctinctly different callings to men since I don't see it in scripture set out as such. I do beleive however that it is one call to all men in the same manner, though it is designed specifically to bring all those of faith to salvation.

Illistration:
Like putting together a buffet of Southern fried foods and telling everyone that it was made for them all, and as such set out so anyone may partake. However with all the other foods around only those who are interested in fried foods will come. The offer to all in genuine, the desire for all to partake is true, the procuring and making of it is enough for the whole world to partake is sincere. Though all are invited, only those who will come/believe and thus partake of the proposition are counted as guests at the feat.

The issue of free will really comes home here. Is a fallen nature "Free?" We don't think so. We think there must be a restoration (or reversion, if you will) to the pre-fall nature in order that our will can be truly free to choose God. (That's probably a discussion for a different thread)

Now see, I agree with you. At least until you add the the Holy Spirit to the picture whereby He fulfills His minstry of convicting the world of sin, His righteousness, and the judgment to come. And since He is that 'power' which we have been seperated from, and that He has the information which was have lost through corruption, that when His moves upon that person - it is much like that master boot-disk which enables that programs basic functions to respond, whereas previously of and by itself it could do nothing.

We would not say the nature is the same. The restoration/reversion brings something new which is different from that which was there.

I agree in principle that something different has been added but I don't agree that is the 'regeneration'. It is this point which is really the root of the issue brother, from which all other variations of our views come into being.

Is regeneration salvation or something that precedes it?

I honestly believe that if this is answered many of either sides views will move into more unity than difference because it is primarily this single issue that establishes how one percieves soterology and any order therein.
I have to thread which I have attempted to engage people on concerning this very issue but had little success. So if you would wish to continue in speaking to 'regeneration' I would ask you entertain the possibility of coming to either:

Regeneration: Is it a prelude to OR the Act of Salvation ~Born Again~

Ordo Salutis 2 - The Regeneration

You know...I'll admit this idea is more a theory than something I find explicitly in Scripture. But, again being Augustinian, it makes sense since there will be no sin in the eternal kingdom.

I am under the persuasion that our 'spirit' is no longer in sin but has been cleansed from all unrightousness and therefore stands spotless and without taint, and that is it our bodies that shall be renewed.

That said however, I can see the point in theory since God remakes the Heavens and the Earth because of the taint of sin that has touched them.

I hope these clarifications help. I'll wait to hear your response so we can discuss more!

It did, thanks :thumbs:


PS.. WoW!! This was 'much' longer than I anticipated. I appolgize for the length this one but since I was asking you 'your' views, I felt it only proper to give you mine as well on the matter.

 

[The Archangel]

Allan,

Wow! That was a long response, but I enjoyed it very much.

Yes I understand you, but in the above you have the 'nature' being 'replaced of which you agreed was not replaced, at least as of yet (till CHrist comes) but is restored or a reversion.

Here is how I see it in your analogy
Remember also that boot disks are not always used to 'reinstall' a program but that with a boot disk one can use it to access the program's basic or operating functions in order to get a response from said program in order to address the problem. Now unless the program is not operational, at all, therefore can illicit no response from said program then we must conclude that it is not only corrupted but is in fact destroyed. If this is the case with our nature then, I would assume the postulation would be that the nature of man is not corrupted in that it needs to be renewed but that in being destroyed it needs to be replaced because the program is not even functionable for either sin or belief. Therefore, IMO, it is not necessarily the 'reinstalling' or 'replacing' the program at issue, but if the program will respond to the to bootdisk (Holy Spirit) when it is working on/with/upon said program. The boot disc in question, that I am refering to, can correct the problem without having to remove the old program and thus replace it with a new one. However the program can not respond properly in either a negitive or positive manner unless that boot disk has been applied to it.

Well, sadly, I'm a computer clod. The only experience I've had with anything like this (and it was a Windows machine) is where are particular program failed and failed totally. I had to call tech support and they talked me through replacing the program from the start-up discs (I have no idea if they'd be considered "boot" discs). So, that is what I had in mind--a restoration to the original based on, for lack of a better term, replacement.

In light of the above, if I may ask, can you say with all biblical certainty that the operation of the Spirit of God, when He moves upon an unregenerate man to bring forth even these basic truths spiritual truths/knowledge (sin, righteousness, and judgment to come) of which that man is condemned for rejecting. Can He (God) not enable that man apart from regenerating him in accordance with many Reformed views? I ask it specficially this way, because I want to bring this around to not only what regeneration is (being justified and sanctified) but also 'how' it transpires in context of scripture passages, a post or two from now.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that regeneration is justification and sanctification. I think conversion--responding in repentance and faith--is being justified and, progressively, sanctified. As a Calvinist, I would say that Regeneration necessarily leads to justification and sanctification, but it is not the same thing as justification and sanctification.

With respect to 'regeneration' and the Reformed position, remember brother that many (in general not a specific large amount) who are Reformed do not hold to regeneration preceding faith but the opposite, and they are 5 pointers as well.

I have never met the Calvinist "animal" you describe.

I don't agree with the terminology of 'Irresistable grace' since we see in scripture quite a few times men resisting it, and some even to the end. And I don't agree with 2 disctinctly different callings to men since I don't see it in scripture set out as such. I do beleive however that it is one call to all men in the same manner, though it is designed specifically to bring all those of faith to salvation.

Illustration:
Like putting together a buffet of Southern fried foods and telling everyone that it was made for them all, and as such set out so anyone may partake. However with all the other foods around only those who are interested in fried foods will come. The offer to all in genuine, the desire for all to partake is true, the procuring and making of it is enough for the whole world to partake is sincere. Though all are invited, only those who will come/believe and thus partake of the proposition are counted as guests at the feat.

I'd reject the illustration--although my mouth is watering for some fried chicken! I would say that God would have to give the taste for the Southern fried foods.

Now see, I agree with you. At least until you add the the Holy Spirit to the picture whereby He fulfills His ministry of convicting the world of sin, His righteousness, and the judgment to come. And since He is that 'power' which we have been separated from, and that He has the information which was have lost through corruption, that when His moves upon that person - it is much like that master boot-disk which enables that programs basic functions to respond, whereas previously of and by itself it could do nothing.

I don't quite get this. Maybe I do... I don't know why the Holy Spirit is called "the 'power' which we have been separated from." I may be misunderstanding, but it seems you are suggesting we had the power of the Holy Spirit before the Fall and then lost it because of the Fall. If that is the case, I wouldn't agree.

I agree in principle that something different has been added but I don't agree that is the 'regeneration'. It is this point which is really the root of the issue brother, from which all other variations of our views come into being.

Agreed that this is the root issue.

Is regeneration salvation or something that precedes it?

I honestly believe that if this is answered many of either sides views will move into more unity than difference because it is primarily this single issue that establishes how one percieves soterology and any order therein.
I have to thread which I have attempted to engage people on concerning this very issue but had little success. So if you would wish to continue in speaking to 'regeneration' I would ask you entertain the possibility of coming to either:

Regeneration: Is it a prelude to OR the Act of Salvation ~Born Again~

Ordo Salutis 2 - The Regeneration


I am under the persuasion that our 'spirit' is no longer in sin but has been cleansed from all unrightousness and therefore stands spotless and without taint, and that is it our bodies that shall be renewed.

Well...I would agree that we have been cleansed from "all unrighteousness" but only in a forensic or judicial sense. I don't think our 'spirit,' to use your term, although it is not, probably, the best term, is now righteousness because we still, as Christians, sin.

That said however, I can see the point in theory since God remakes the Heavens and the Earth because of the taint of sin that has touched them.

I think the theory is easy to see, although that doesn't mean it is easy to agree with! I don't think I've read any explication of this quite like I've stated. But, I don't usually read eschatological stuff as I tend to concentrate on other areas of theology. So, I don't know how many, if any, historical reformed thinkers would agree.

Again, it is a pleasure.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[OldRegular]

Darren,

Before I begin, I should also mention that I have enjoyed our conversations too.

Again, our fundamental difference is this: the New Testament must be allowed to inform our understanding of the Old Testament. Any biblical theology, even a rudimentary biblical theology, does this. (And, no, I'm not saying you have a rudimental theology).

A further barrier to our agreement with one another is that of free will. The Reformed position, which I whole-heartedly support, is that until regeneration, man's will is not, in fact, free but is a slave to sin and we are, by nature, children of wrath.

The will is never really "free" until there is a new heart. This is why we claim that regeneration must precede redemption.

Blessings!

The Archangel

Good points! Strange, though man will agree to the "Fall" they will not agree that "free will" went with it.