Ordo Salutis

[Allan]

Additionally:

I asked RB in another thread some other question that surround (IMO) the issue of regeneration before faith or salvation: (not that I am insinuating or implying he is avoiding it but for the purpose of this thread I am moving here)..

Since the order of salvation is primarily a 'logical one' regarding Reformed theology I believe it is an important matter to ask "HOW regeneration makes a person reconcied without making a person justified, sanctified, filled with Holy Spirit, as well as being spiritually alive. When scripture states that one is only 'alive' when one is 'in Christ" which is only at salvation and therefore one can only be spiritually alive if one is saved.
I'll pose this question to you if I may..

From what are you saved if you are regenerate?


Subquestions that will shed more light to the above question:

If you are regenerate - are you not a new creation and thus no sin nature (old things are passed away - no more)?

If you are regenerate - are you not spiritually alive?

If you are regenerate - are you not 'in Christ'?

If you are regenerate - can one walk/live in righteous God honoring faith now if there was say a possibility of a 10 year span before salvation? (I know of some Calvinst who do believe in prolonged regeneration)

If you are regenerate - does one believe apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit since they are new creation and spiritually alive?

If you are regenerate - are you not in a reconciled relationship with God?

So in light of the above, if one is already regenerate but not yet saved (regardless of time between) - from what is one now needing to be saved?? Or better - What is the need for repentence and faith if one is already regenerate? What does salvation do that regeneration has not already done?

That person is already reconciles and justified and sanctified before and to God.

This is why I ask the 'How does it work" question regarding regeneration due to the regenerating work of God.

 

[Rippon]

(I know of some Calvinsts who do believe in prolonged regeneration)

You have made these outrageous claims before.I challenged you to cite any professed Calvinist who holds to that nonsense.You have not yet documented your claim.

 

[Allan]

You have made these outrageous claims before.I challenged you to cite any professed Calvinist who holds to that nonsense.You have not yet documented your claim.

Go back to the thread where I answered you and read it 'again'.

Now if you will be so kind as to get me a pop and something to eat, that way you can make yourself useful as you follow me around

 

[Rippon]

Go back to the thread where I answered you and read it 'again'.

Now if you will be so kind as to get me a pop and something to eat, that way you can make yourself useful as you follow me around

I'd be glad to give you a pop or a bop.

I'm not following you around Mr.Paranoid.

Would you kindly tell me the thread where you claim to have answered my question?Name any Calvinist who believes in prolonged regeneration.If you can't name em',don't claim em'. (I told WD the same thing about another issue).

 

[Allan]

I'd be glad to give you a pop or a bop.

I'm not following you around Mr.Paranoid.

Would you kindly tell me the thread where you claim to have answered my question?Name any Calvinist who believes in proloned regeneration.If you can't name em',don't claim em'. (I told WD the same thing about another issue).

The same one where you said "Name just one.This view is not mainstream Calvinism." .

My post back to you was:

Here is your "just one" : Gene Bridges of Triablogue. I don't know if he is still with StrangeBaptistfire anymore, and I think he wrote for Founders at one time as well (I may be mistaken here). In a thread there he and I debated back in 2006 or so (I don't remember the thread) at StrangeBaptistFire. He was affectionately called by them "the sharpest knife in the drawer" and yes he made just such a statement. Whether he 'still' holds this view, I'm not sure but I don't think he would have dropped it.

Are you really going to contend that there aren't Calvinists out there who believe that a person can be in a regenerate state for hours, days, weeks, et.. and not yet use their saving faith?? If this is about the term used "many" it was mearly and acknowledgement of them (and I have met quite a few) and not a definer of the mainline Calvinistic view.

Actaully there isn't a whole lot writen on how much time transpires between regeneration and repentence according to Sovereign grace doctrines. Some state split second the majority of writtings don't even address the time issue at all.

You also seemed to be under the assumption I was refering to Calvinism as whole or that it was a mainline view which in fact I did not but clearly stated that I have talked with many who do/did hold to such a view.

Gene is quite able to tell you all about those who hold such a view and will give you more than enough to satify your curiousity.


BTW - the other part was more jokingly said than anything - laugh a little, it might improve you disposition.

 

[Allan]

To be fair to the OP and my own posts requesting information I will begin with my own examination of the word - Regeneration. It only appears twice in the entire of scripture so it is easy to have a beginning which will lead into the various words used to convey the same general meaning with emphasis on differening aspects.

The two passages of scripture are Mat 19:28 and Titus 3:5.

However, I will have to get to this after a little while (maybe later today or tonight) as I am currently pressed for time.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The perfect tense is not referencing chronology (as some perpetuate) but a state of present being due to the past acts of belief and being born.

The very fact one is in pesently continuing in belief is proof that he has been born again. Both events (belief and born) look back to a past event that is proven through present realities. Thus if one is no longer of belief that first testified of it, it is proof that he has not been born again. Which is why they leave us because they were never of us.

Allan,

This is exactly why I am not dogmatic with this idea yet. As I said in a previous post, I don't think the Scripture positively asserts an ordo salutis. I think this subject gets discussed because of our own questions and reasoning, but it is right to look at the Scriptures to give us some guidence in this area.

Logically, if present believing is proof that I have been (past tense, see...it cannot even be logically discussed without time) born again, then I conclude that present and past believing are the result of my new birth.

Your post contained an example of a man cutting off his hand. I think its a bad example. I would prefer the example of sitting in total darkness. Then, someone turns a light on, and I see. I was dead in my sins and trespasses (I am speaking of my personal testimony now) and the Lord caused His light to shine in my heart and I trusted INTO Him. Did my faith, that kind of faith/trust, occur before the Holy Spirit quickened me? No. Did it happen after? Kind of...

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Allan,

To your questions:

Since the order of salvation is primarily a 'logical one' regarding Reformed theology I believe it is an important matter to ask "HOW regeneration makes a person reconcied without making a person justified, sanctified, filled with Holy Spirit, as well as being spiritually alive. When scripture states that one is only 'alive' when one is 'in Christ" which is only at salvation and therefore one can only be spiritually alive if one is saved.
I'll pose this question to you if I may..

From what are you saved if you are regenerate?

I am thinking there is some other kind of idea your posing your question here to other than my own. For example, it is very odd to me think along the lines that a person is regenerate without also being justified, sanctified, filled with the Holy Spirit and spiritually alive in Christ.

So, probably not answering what your looking for, the answer to "From what are you saved if you are regenerate?" My answer is simplly to answer the question, "From what are saved at all?" Biblically I would say that answer is from the wrath of God.

If you are regenerate - are you not a new creation and thus no sin nature (old things are passed away - no more)?

If I am regenerate then I am a new creation. However, this does not mean biblically that remaining sin is entirely removed.

If you are regenerate - are you not spiritually alive?

Yes, I am.

If you are regenerate - are you not 'in Christ'?

Yes, I am.

If you are regenerate - can one walk/live in righteous God honoring faith now if there was say a possibility of a 10 year span before salvation? (I know of some Calvinst who do believe in prolonged regeneration)

I have never heard of such a concept as prolonged regeneration. Regeneration according to my understanding is a creative and sovereign act of Almighty God, it is instant, complete, and whole. I have never seen prolonged regeneration in Scripture.

If you are regenerate - does one believe apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit since they are new creation and spiritually alive?

If the question is, does someone have faith and trust in the Lord Jesus apart from being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (consequently being a new creation and spiritualy alive) my anwer is no. If Christ is not in us, we are none of His.

If you are regenerate - are you not in a reconciled relationship with God?

Don't like answering negative questions because I probaly get them wrong. lol If I am regenerate am I also reconciled to God in relationship (covenant) with Him? Yes.

So in light of the above, if one is already regenerate but not yet saved (regardless of time between) - from what is one now needing to be saved?? Or better - What is the need for repentence and faith if one is already regenerate? What does salvation do that regeneration has not already done?

I have no clue. I think those to understand their salvation in such ways are confused.

RB

 

[Allan]

Allan,

This is exactly why I am not dogmatic with this idea yet. As I said in a previous post, I don't think the Scripture positively asserts an ordo salutis. I think this subject gets discussed because of our own questions and reasoning, but it is right to look at the Scriptures to give us some guidence in this area.

Understood. :thumbs:

Logically, if present believing is proof that I have been (past tense, see...it cannot even be logically discussed without time) born again, then I conclude that present and past believing are the result of my new birth.

Actaully you are still leaving out the equally important fact that the faith is a past act as well and because of BOTH past actions it is continuing in its present belief. Both faith and being born again are reference here as 'past' acts though reflecting present results.

Not as what came first but that both things done in the past show proof in the present in that they are still 'currently' (present tense) continuing in faith. This is why no chronolgy can be pulled for the 'prefect tense' with 'present force' because it is refering to two past actions (no chronology) being done with present results continuing with emphasis on that which is able to be seen but not negating the other - IOW - both being saved and presently continuing in faith.

Same with the passage of Love and being born of God.

Your post contained an example of a man cutting off his hand. I think its a bad example.

The example illistrated the structure of the Greek phrasing with regard to the tences and not to per se illistrate one's view or opinion of how they thought it was saying it. Just explaining this example and nothing negative towards you.

 

[Allan]

Allan,

To your questions:



I am thinking there is some other kind of idea your posing your question here to other than my own. For example, it is very odd to me think along the lines that a person is regenerate without also being justified, sanctified, filled with the Holy Spirit and spiritually alive in Christ.

So, probably not answering what your looking for, the answer to "From what are you saved if you are regenerate?" My answer is simplly to answer the question, "From what are saved at all?" Biblically I would say that answer is from the wrath of God.



If I am regenerate then I am a new creation. However, this does not mean biblically that remaining sin is entirely removed.



Yes, I am.



Yes, I am.




I have never heard of such a concept as prolonged regeneration. Regeneration according to my understanding is a creative and sovereign act of Almighty God, it is instant, complete, and whole. I have never seen prolonged regeneration in Scripture.



If the question is, does someone have faith and trust in the Lord Jesus apart from being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (consequently being a new creation and spiritualy alive) my anwer is no. If Christ is not in us, we are none of His.



Don't like answering negative questions because I probaly get them wrong. lol If I am regenerate am I also reconciled to God in relationship (covenant) with Him? Yes.



I have no clue. I think those to understand their salvation in such ways are confused.

RB

I appreciate the fact you took time to actually answer them. It is written in the way I did so I can better know yours (or another persons) form of Calvinism. As I have said before there are as many different varieties of Calvinists as there are baptist .. lol..

With regard to the regenerate being lasting (though I have spoken with those who hold it - I never understood their view either).. anyway with it being lasting .. completely hypothetical for the purpose of understanding what regeneration entails to you just before faith. Though many calvinist will state they are simultanious events with no real measurable time between.. I wanted something to let me know what their view encompassed just before faith.

I will have to get back with you later on the rest.. way past my bed time..

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Actaully you are still leaving out the equally important fact that the faith is a past act as well that is continuing in its present belief. Both faith and being born again are reference here as 'past' acts though reflecting present results.

Not as what came first but that both things done in the past show proof in the present in that they are still 'currently' (present tense) continuing in faith. This is why no chronolgy can be pulled for the 'prefect tense' with 'present force' because it is refering to two past actions (no chronology) being done with present results continuing - both being saved and presently continuing in faith.

Allan,

Ok, run this by me again because I don't see it in the text. Based on my understanding of what the text is saying, the tense of believing is present and the tense of being born is what we discussed.

We may read an inference or logical conclusion that if I am presently believing, having been born again, then I was believing in the past, as long as I was born again in the past. But the tense of 1 John 5:1 in believing is present, not past.

Whosover believeth, present tense, active voice.

is born - perfect tense, passive voice.

I am presently believing, and I am the one believing (God is not beleiving for me)

I was born, and it was something done to me. I didn't cause myself to be born. I am the receiptient of the action.

Here is the example the Blue Letter folks use:

"Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI ("It is finished!") is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely "It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time."

What am I missing here?

 

[skypair]

Since the blood of animals could not save according to Hebrews is the Ordo S. different for the Old Testament saint? If so how is it different? :wavey:

The Ordo Saludis in the OT was this: Justification, period. And, in fact, this is how we know what it is in the NT! Justification before/ (AKA: reconciliation with) God comes first.

They could be somewhat "sanctified" in spirit by the blood of beasts but since these were only figures of Christ's work, they did not -- as the Holy Spirit does for us -- illuminate, guide, conform, etc. the believer's life in any significant way to Christ. And according to Rom 8:29, this is the purpose of God's predestining of whom He foreknew, right? There really is only one "Way, Truth, and Life" and that is Jesus Christ, not blood sacrifices.

Now in the resurrection of the just, these OT saints will reassume their old bodies somewhat glorified (no 2nd death, no procreation, as the angels in some respects). They will "come" to Christ (as the Calvies like to put it), already "drawn" and now "given" by God to His Son. And so they will begin to be like the church before them until they, too, are raptured to glory.

skypair

 

[Allan]

deleted.. I'm too tired to make it make much sense .. I'll get back to you

 

[skypair]

My own view is that there is no passage to support any one view because we can find passages to support different views. I think God doesn't want to tell us the order because it's none of our business.

No, that would be Satan not wanting us to know, dear. Cause if we don't know, how can we come?

Stick with this: justification - sanctification - glorification and then the requirements of each.

skypair

 

[EdSutton]

It just occured to me that this discussion can easily turn on the covenantal christian vs. the dispensationalistic christian. Can justification be understood apart from a covenantal perspective? Here is a quote from Edward Hamilton which seems resonable from a historical perspective

Does this mean that there is an opposition between faith and rite? As Paul might say, me genoito, may it never be! Rite remains a vital expression of the community's active spiritual life and communion, and Paul was more than willing to continue to execute the requirements of the Torah with every bit as much zeal as before. But he would firmly forbid any suggestion that the fully realized grace of the new oikonomia of Christ was contingent on universalizing those ritual elements. Gentiles remain ethnoculturally Gentiles, Jews remain ethnoculturally Jews, and the latter cannot force the former to comply with their praxis. God will, in the end, declare all those in Christ to be members of the covenant community on the basis of their faith, and nothing else. And so nothing other than faith could be required as a badge of identification within that community. The circumcised and the uncircumcised alike were truly the heirs of Abraham. (Edward L.? Hamilton)

Assuming this quote is from the Dr. Edward L. Hamilton I know (the wording of the quote certainly is consistent with this), let me offer that I have learned much from him, when I am able to actually comprehend what he is writing, in the scientific field.

In the Biblical field, I have a somewhat easier time understanding, fortunately. He is a personal friend of mine, and his father, Robert W. (Bob) Hamilton, was one of my college roommates at Bible College, and the valedictorian, as well, and is a great and long standing personal friend and great brother (and his wife, Pat, is likewise a great sister), and Bob Hamilton actually gave the 'message' at my wedding nine years ago, driving more tha 8 hours each way just to do so. I love all the Hamiltons dearly and can usually highly recommend what they (both) have to say (when they both are not so far over my head that I do not get it, that is).

However, I do disagree here, in the respect that "Paul was more than willing to continue to execute the requirements of Torah, with every bit as much zeal as before."

Not so.

Paul in fact, specifically used the illustrations and phrases such as "loosed from the Law," "died to the Law," "free from the law," "not under the Law," and many others to show that the 'Torah' Law was 'superceeded,' for one in Christ, by 'Christ's' Law, known as ""the Law of the Spirit of life, in Christ Jesus," and "the Law of Liberty," "His Commandments" and also by other designations elsewhere, with the entire principles rooted fully in 'grace'. And Paul's "calling out" Peter at Antoich, written about in Galatian 2, gives even more weight to this, as well. In fact, the Jerusalem Council had effectively said the same thing in Ac. 15. "Torah" was no longer any issue, despite my own admiration for Dr. Ed.

The rest of what " t'other Ed" says, I fully agree with, here. And I will still generally say that one will not be led far afield by reading what either Dr. Ed Hamilton or Bob Hamilton writes, and one will be blessed and learn from either of which that one has the opportunity to hear and/or 'sit under' the teaching, which I highly recommend. :thumbsup:

I can and will come around later to "iron out" any leftover wrinkles. :laugh:

Ed

 

[webdog]

I'd be glad to give you a pop or a bop.

I'm not following you around Mr.Paranoid.

Would you kindly tell me the thread where you claim to have answered my question?Name any Calvinist who believes in prolonged regeneration.If you can't name em',don't claim em'. (I told WD the same thing about another issue).

...and like Allan, I did answer you. You didn't like who I referenced, if my memory is correct (Gill?) because he was not "modern" enough for you.

 

[EdSutton]

Your post contained an example of a man cutting off his hand. I think its a bad example.

The example illistrated (sic) the structure of the Greek phrasing with regard to the tences (sic) and not to per se illistrate (sic) one's view or opinion of how they thought it was saying it. Just explaining this example and nothing negative towards you.

Well, I've heard of "cutting off your nose to spite your face", and might even be tempted to make a crack or two about that, with what I discovered about who actually said the words in the quote, but I will exercise a good deal of restraint on this, even though that is proving extremely difficult.

(Not to even mention that ol' L.C. is already having a 'field day' on the Baptist Board today, with grammar and spelling.) :laugh: :laugh:

I hadn't noticed any such quote, previously, so went back to check. The 'example' was actually contained in a quote by Allan, from the late of the BB, Alex Quackenbush, FTR, and not from anything Allan actually wrote.

Ed

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ubi est Ordo Salutis in scriptura Sacra?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Ubi est Ordo Salutis in scriptura Sacra?

I couldn't figure the translation out. The onlne translator gave me "When is Order Advantageous upon to write Sacra"

:laugh:

 

[Marcia]

No, that would be Satan not wanting us to know, dear. Cause if we don't know, how can we come?

Stick with this: justification - sanctification - glorification and then the requirements of each.

skypair

Well, I admit I was being a bit glib there.

Probably due to my frustration at times in this kind of topic.

I guess what I was wanting to say is that we cannot dissect it down to the nitty-gritty.

I do believe it is faith-regeneration-justification all pretty much at the same time, then sanctification, glorification. But God opens our eyes to the need for Jesus.