Regeneration and sanctification

I am not sure if you understand PB views or not. (Primitive Baptists)
They hold that the elect are eternally saved (but still need to be regenerated) even if they never place faith in Christ or even know him. They also hold to what they term Temporal salvation which in essence means God has allowed 'some' of His elect to know Him and Christ and thus follow Him in/by faith.

Thus when you see them qualify with words like 'eternally' or 'temporally' they are not referring the same things you are or think they are. Like when he is speaking of 'eternal consequences' he is referring to what you term as salvation, and therefore it does not refer to whether or not one is eternally saved in his view.

 

is that different than view held by some in the reformed group that regeration can at times occur YEARS before one is actual "saved?"

 

No.. they hold that one is saved (in our view) because God saves them irregardless of faith in him. In truth theirs is the only monergistic system. God saves and man has no part in it - not even faith.

In their view, a person can be saved and even a devout in a pagan religion because salvation is both of and from God and man has no say. However in relation to temporal salvation, THESE are some of the Elect whom God deems they could know Him and follow Him by faith. Yet in either case, the elect are eternally saved and will be regenerate even if they never believe or ever know Christ. They hold like others that regeneration is what makes us unified in and with God, and thus eternally His.

On this point I get confused and they can expound. I'm just giving the gist of their view regarding salvation.

 

Faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word of God.

The just shall live by faith. I assume most would say first he would have to be justified by the blood of Jesus and then he would start to live by his faith. It is the blood of Jesus that justifies a man of is it the man's faith in the blood of Jesus by which he is justified.

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through the faith.

How does the Word of God tell us that Jesus is able to give us the promise of the Spirit? Just above it says we receive it through the faith.
The seed of Abraham that was given a promise of something along with Abraham was Jesus born of Mary. Whatever this promise is Abraham and Jesus are the only ones that it is made to. When is Jesus given this promise? Did he have it when he was born of Mary? After all he is the God the Son. Why did he tell his disciples this? "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." After all he is God the Son. Did the Word made flesh, a living soul pour out his soul unto death for my and your sin. Did he who made himself of no reputation relative to the eternal Godhead die, become a soul in Hades for three days and three nights for you and me? Was his soul not being left in Hades at least part of the resurrection of the Christ? Did the Word made flesh, Jesus exercise any faith in his Father in heaven when he died fro me and you?

Do you believe you are saved because of the faith you have in Christ ot do you believe you are saved by the faith of Christ?

Everyone please wade in.

 

We are not saved because of the faith of Christ, but because of the WORK of Christ. Christ came to perform the work He determine from the beginning to do, and knew full well what that out would be. He did not 'have faith' in God as He Himself states the very power to die and live was given to Him. He and His Father 'are' one (though separate beings). To place faith in His Father was to place faith in Himself. A kingdom divided against itself shall fall/fail, how much more so a being divided against himself!

Scripture is firm on this in my mind. We are saved by grace through faith. It is the work of Christ (life, death, burial, and resurrection) that saves.

Additionally - scripture states we are justified - by faith - not prior to it. (Rom 3:28; Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16; Gal 3:11; Gal 3:24)

 

I believe the word shows that the work of Christ is the Faith of Christ.
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
The works of the Son and his Father.

Allen, I understand the difference of why we think/believe what we do. I believe man Adam was created a mortal being (soul, living by the breath of God from God) subject to death that is to return to what he was created from. Therefore the Lamb was slain before Adam was created or sinned. Not a mortal being (body) with an immortal soul that can not die. God knew he was going to sin. It was part of the plan. The Word (Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God) was made flesh and dwelt among us (But made himself of no reputation, YLT but did empty himself) Because he loved us, that said above is going to happen to the one who created the ones he loved.

From your post: Scripture is firm on this in my mind. We are saved by grace through faith. It is the work of Christ (life, death, burial, and resurrection) that saves.

One you do not think/believe Christ being God could die.
Two you do not think/believe Christ being God would need to be made alive again. What about life, death, burial and resurrected to life. For me Christ died for our sins. For you the body of Christ died for our sins.

Please bare with me and considering all above both what you and or me believe answer me this.

From Rev. 1:5 and washed us from our sins in his own blood. This is speaking of the death of Christ is it not? Is that not the very same washed as spoken of in Titus 3:5 he saved us, by the washing?

In Titus 3:5 is not that washing only effective along with regeneration?
he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
Does not Romans 5:9,10 not say the exact same thing?

In the passage from Rev. 1:5 was the being washed from our sins in his blood related to him being the first begotten (firstborn in Col.1:18) of the dead?

Rev. 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Is this not speaking of resurrection, regeneration and being born from the dead as all pertaining to the same event?

Is this what happened to Jesus of Nazareth or not?

 

allinall and kyredneck

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyredneck View Post
I reiterate, sometimes I think the term 'born again' can lead off in wrong directions. It is a mistake to confuse the birth of the Spirit with the baptism of the Spirit.


I believe that the Spirit baptism is what places us into the Body of Christ, which results in our being born again. So I would also consider both of them two different things, yet one is not possible without the other.


I believe this to be relative to both of your quotes.

Who/what is Zion relative to the above quotes?

 

regeneration from the greek "paligge" re-creation or as it is found only twice in scripture as regeneration. Matthew 19:28 and Titus 3:5. We become re-created by faith. We were dead in sin and our human spirit came alive and was regenerated or re-created because of faith.

Sanctification from the greek "hagiasmos" Seperation a setting apart. We are set apart from the world because of Faith in Christ. We are seperated to God as His children in Sanctifaction again by Faith.

They are not synonymous terms.

 

Take as long as you need or like. Duty is requiring me to spend less time at my computer recently, and my DSL modem went bad, I'm on dial-up service till the new one gets in; man o man, has high speed internet ever spoiled me!

I cannot answer that question, I don't know. If they weren't, they sure missed a good opportunity, IMO. The Comforter had not yet come, they had not yet been clothed with power from on high, but Christ was present. I must admit though, from reading the accounts it seems to me they were more carnal than spiritual.

Notice in Jn 3 Christ is not saying that all who have been born from above will enter into the kingdom, or will always abide in the kingdom; He is saying that before one can see the kingdom, or enter into the kingdom, one must first be born from above. In Jn 1:12,13, those that were born of God (from above) and received Christ were given the power to become children of God (practically, experientially, in name), it doesn't say that they fully exercised that power. In the beatitudes, Christ is giving some common traits of those that have been born from above, and to whom also the kingdom belonged; fortunate indeed they were, because these traits came not from the flesh, but from the divine nature that had been given to them from above. I often wonder how many of God's redeemed, born from above children have actually ever 'laid hold on eternal life', and have experienced the joy and peace and righteousness of the Holy Spirit, which is the kingdom of God, which is their birthright, which is their salvation. Edersheim on Lu 13:23,24 (which I think can also apply to Jn 3:3,5):

“Viewed in connection with Christ's immediately preceding teaching about the Kingdom of God in its wide and deep spread, as the great Mustard-Tree from the tiniest seed, and as the Leaven hid, which pervaded three measures of meal, we can scarcely doubt that the word 'saved' bore reference, not to the eternal state of the soul, but to admission to the benefits of the Kingdom of God, the Messianic Kingdom, with its privileges and its judgments, such as the Pharisees understood it......”

....and as Nicodemus the Pharisee would have understood it. I would paraphrase what Christ is saying in Jn 3:3,5 thus:

'Except one be born from above, one can neither see the kingdom of God nor gain admission to it's benefits.'

...and again, it doesn't say that all those that have been born from above will experience the benefits of that kingdom. Yeah, I dare say there were many of that generation in particular who had been 'enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come', and then fell away, and returned to that apostate Jewish ecclesiastical system that had crucified their Lord; and by doing so 'they put Him to an open shame', and 'trod under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant wherewith they were sanctified an unholy thing, and did despite unto the Spirit of grace', and there remained for them [only] 'a certain fearful expectation of judgment', which indeed came upon that evil generation.

Probably I'm not following you again, but bear in mind the letter is addressed 'to them that have obtained like precious faith with us'. These were redeemed, born from above children of God that Peter was telling that by diligently following after faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love, the doors of the kingdom would be abundantly opened to them, for, 'He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him'.

It's apparent from Jn 3:3,5,7,8 that born from above and born of the spirit are synonymous. And I do believe that in Jn 3:5 in particular Christ is making reference to Ezek 36:25-27, and that He knew that Nocodemus would recognize that reference. To be born of the Spirit is to be made spiritually alive, and there was nothing new about the need for that quickening, 'The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.' Take note, that was BOTH a future promise and true at that time; 'the hour cometh, and now is'.

Concerning Jn 1:13 you wrote:

...and my apologies, but I still don't get your point (it must be important to your position), please explain. I'll increase the scope of the text:

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13 And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven.

....and I see there in v 13 a verification of ' We speak that which we know' [v 11], and a qualification to tell of the heavenly things [v 12], because Christ had ascended into and descended out of heaven, and was in heaven [v 13] (someone explain that one please). Verse 13 is akin to verse 31, 'He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh: he that cometh from heaven is above all'.

The third question arises from 1 Cor 15:45:

'So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.'

Was it a 'new' thing for Christ to become a life-giving spirit (as in Jn 3:8), or had He always been that life-giving spirit? If you say it's a 'new' thing, when specifically did Christ become that life-giving spirit, and how do you reconcile the 'new' change to, 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever' [Heb 13:8]?

By 'saved', I reckon you mean 'go to heaven'. How did men, Jew or Gentile, make it to heaven prior to Pentecost?

 

I have never heard such a skewed view of salvation.
A person can be a child of God, and still not be able to enter heaven? How is that??
Your interpretation of John 1:12,13 is just wishful thinking. Verse 11 says that HIS people (the nation of Israel) rejected Him. But in contrast, those that received Christ by faith (believing on his name) became His children (children of God). Fairly clear isn't it? Continue on: Which were born...of God. How were they born of God? By receiving Him on whom they believed. And that gave them the authority, the right, to become the children of God. Therefore, as Paul says: we are heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.

The Calvinist view of the new birth/regeneration is odd. I picture it as an unsaved man going out into the middle of a farmer's field and there sitting down, perhaps in a lotus position and meditating in Zen fashion. Maybe he looks like he is trying to reach Nirvana, like most of those Eastern religions do by meditation. But he sits there and waits, waits for this supernatural mystical experience for the Holy Spirit to come upon him and regenerate him just as the Hindu or Buddhist would wait for Nirvana in their hours of meditation. This is the Calvinistic method of regeneration, right? Man is totally passive. He cannot do anything. This is what you mean when salvation must be 100% of God. (It is not what I mean when I say the same thing). But, you say, if salvation is 100% of God, then man must become a zombie, totally passive, and allow God to regenerate him.

An Arminian (which I am not), on the other hand, believes he can lose his salvation. Thus, when it comes to this very important command: "you must be born again," he must reinterpret the command to: "You must be born again and again and again."

Two contrasting interpretations: both very wrong.

 

You really have not paid the least bit attention to this dialog, have you?

As Allan, your intent is to skew the Old Baptist teaching on the birth from above. Does it threaten you in some way?

 

No, I haven't read through the entire thread. I have read the last two pages. But I have interacted enough with you to know where you stand on many of these issues. However, Allan, seemed to clarify some of your beliefs, if he got it right. I am not sure that he did. Only you can verify that.

When I see a post that explains a passage of Scripture that goes directly against the truth of Scripture, whether I have paid attention to the thread or not, it doesn't matter. What matter is what is being posted measured up against the truth of God's Word, our final authority. What you posted went directly contrary to God's Word as far as I am concerned.

If you had posted against the deity of Christ (you didn't), but if you had do you think I would need to have read the entire thread before pointing out the error? No. There is no need. I didn't think there was a need here either.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyredneck View Post
I reiterate, sometimes I think the term 'born again' can lead off in wrong directions. It is a mistake to confuse the birth of the Spirit with the baptism of the Spirit.

I agree with you and ask if the following question is relative to your thoughts on this matter.

Who/what is Zion relative to the above quotes?

Are we baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ, the church, the whole assembly being the heavenly Jerusalem, Mount Zion, the Jerusalem above which is mother of us all?

If so, to whom does Zion give birth and from whence is that birth said to take place?

Would like your thoughts.

 

-----disregard----

 

I have almost no time to be here (and there are quite few posts I would like to address in other topics.. but just not enough time.

However, I didn't say anything about Old Baptists (and I'm assuming your are referring to Old 'Regular' Baptist). My statement was regarding Primitive Baptists. This is a subject that many PB's on here have made abundantly clear (specifically to me - cause I didn't really get the whole thing) that a person can be eternally saved, having never placed faith in/on Christ Jesus (not only do they not have to know but they can even hate him).

So there is a quick easy way to clear up my misconception.

Please answer "Yes" or "No":
Do you believe there are people who are 'eternally' saved who (past, present, or future) have never, nor will ever place faith into/on Christ Jesus?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will allow my statement to stand or fall and will show my misunderstanding of the PB view. I am not afraid to say I was wrong, but please let me know where I'm wrong.

 

NO per the Bible one MUST believe on/in name of the only Son of God, only name given under heaven by which we MUST be saved...

even IF one held that regeneration preceeds faith, and that it CAN be a lenght of time, still has to be in this life a time when personal faith would be exercised, or else you have a "second chance" after death!