Regeneration Before Faith

[saturneptune]

Dr. Walter,
This question relates also to the other thread about the definition of a NT church. Would you please briefly summarize your belief on reformed theology and Calvinism?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dr. Walter,
This question relates also to the other thread about the definition of a NT church. Would you please briefly summarize your belief on reformed theology and Calvinism?

In regard to Arminianism versus Calvinism and all the various shades of each, the crucial and essential line of demarcation between a true and false church is the contents and meaning of the gospel they preach in regard to the doctrine of justification (Gal.1:6-9).

The book of Galatians contrasts the true gospel against the false gospel in regard to justification (Gal. 1-4). The bottom line distinction or line drawn in the sand concerns what is included versus what is excluded in the doctrine of justification as presented in the gospel which is preached.

Any gospel of justification that includes any kind of personal performance by anyone in addition to the personal performance found exclusively in the life of Jesus Christ as the object of faith for full and complete justification before God is accursed.

This error is manifested in a postive and nagitive manner. Positively, such an accursed gospel teaches faith in Christ plus good works. Negatively, such a doctrine teaches that born again people can apostatize from salvation. Any church teaching either is a false church.

In regard to the term "Reformed" any church that claims to have originated from the Roman Catholic Church through its Church of England puritan or separatists connections is a false church regardless of what title it puts over its door and regardless if it practices immersion to believers only. They received their baptism and ordinances either from Rome indirectly or self-originated, both of which repudiate the Great Commission and only authorized "ye" that stands between "them' and Christ in the administration of the ordinances and constitution of churches.

 

[HankD]

In regard to the term "Reformed" any church that claims to have originated from the Roman Catholic Church through its Church of England puritan or separatists connections is a false church regardless of what title it puts over its door and regardless if it practices immersion to believers only. They received their baptism and ordinances either from Rome indirectly or self-originated, both of which repudiate the Great Commission and only authorized "ye" that stands between "them' and Christ in the administration of the ordinances and constitution of churches.

The immediate and obvious problem with this proposal is that no individual can have any assurance that the one (mortal human being) that baptized them in water no matter what title is over the door of his church of attendance (e.g. Landmark Baptist) has an unbroken "hands-on" chain back to the apostles. Unlike the Old Covenant chain with inspired geneologies back to Adam though to Christ, there is no infallible way to know if one's spiritual "baptismal" geneology is "pure".

All it takes is one link in the chain to be broken and the rest after it collapses.

One unsaved but professing "baptizer", one tare, one pretending child of the devil, one who has crept in unawares and the chain is broken.
No one can know.

HankD

 

[Dr. Walter]

The immediate and obvious problem with this proposal is that no individual can have any assurance that the one (mortal human being) that baptized them in water no matter what title is over the door of his church of attendance (e.g. Landmark Baptist) has an unbroken "hands-on" chain back to the apostles. Unlike the Old Covenant chain with inspired geneologies back to Adam though to Christ, there is no infallible way to know if one's spiritual "baptismal" geneology is "pure".

All it takes is one link in the chain to be broken and the rest after it collapses.

One unsaved but professing "baptizer", one tare, one pretending child of the devil, one who has crept in unawares and the chain is broken.
No one can know.

HankD

Not so! Churches that openly proclaim they originated with pedobaptist churches are obviously from the wrong Biblical source.

Most who use the term "Reformed" as a definitive noun for their churches freely admit they originated from pedobaptist sources.

The validity of baptism does not rest upon the unknown personal status of the individual administrator of baptism but upon the authority of the church the administrator represents. The "keys of the kingdom" or authority to administer the visible affairs of God's kingdom on earth has been given to the church (Mt. 18:17-18) rather to individual members or officers in that church.

 

[saturneptune]

Not so! Churches that openly proclaim they originated with pedobaptist churches are obviously from the wrong Biblical source.

Most who use the term "Reformed" as a definitive noun for their churches freely admit they originated from pedobaptist sources.

The validity of baptism does not rest upon the unknown personal status of the individual administrator of baptism but upon the authority of the church the administrator represents. The "keys of the kingdom" or authority to administer the visible affairs of God's kingdom on earth has been given to the church (Mt. 18:17-18) rather to individual members or officers in that church.

Dr. Walters,
Although I do not agree with everything you say, I do agree with lots of it. You have certainly made me think in the last several weeks.

 

[convicted1]

I have read both sides of this argument, and I believe that faith does precede regeneration.

Let us take at look at Noah. God told Noah that He was going to destroy all of mankind with the flood, because their thoughts were continually evil. Noah believed what God said, and followed His commands to "the T". Now, if Noah hadn't put faith into what God said, and believed in his heart that God would not cause it to rain upon the earth(because before the flood, it never rained), it would have been too late to put that faith to use when the first raindrop fell to the earth. I think it took Noah around 100 years to build the ark, so he really had FAITH in what God told him He was going to do, YEARS before it took place. So, IOW, Noah's faith in God, and believing(faith put to action) He was going to do that which He said, was YEARS before the actual flood.

i am I ams!!

Willis

 

[webdog]

I believe that most on this forum would not argue that regeneration and justification are synonyms.

I doubt that. You cannot be regenerated without being justified, and vice versa.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have read both sides of this argument, and I believe that faith does precede regeneration.

Let us take at look at Noah. God told Noah that He was going to destroy all of mankind with the flood, because their thoughts were continually evil. Noah believed what God said, and followed His commands to "the T". Now, if Noah hadn't put faith into what God said, and believed in his heart that God would not cause it to rain upon the earth(because before the flood, it never rained), it would have been too late to put that faith to use when the first raindrop fell to the earth. I think it took Noah around 100 years to build the ark, so he really had FAITH in what God told him He was going to do, YEARS before it took place. So, IOW, Noah's faith in God, and believing(faith put to action) He was going to do that which He said, was YEARS before the actual flood.

i am I ams!!

Willis

Genesis 6:8 "grace" occurs BEFORE Genesis 6:21 "Thus did Noah"

 

[Dr. Walter]

I doubt that. You cannot be regenerated without being justified, and vice versa.

I certainly agree with you that you cannot be regenerated without being justified and vice versa but we are not talking about that. We are talking about whether they are snyonomous terms. If they are not synonomous terms then we must ask which logically occurs first.

Regeneration has to do with your PERSON while justification has to do with your LEGAL POSITION. The Roman Catholic church and all others that believe in justification by works may argue that "justification" means to "make righteous" and therefore make it synonomous with baptismal regeneration or some other action we participate in doing but Evangelical theologions define "justification" in terms of the "ungodly" being declared righteousness by imputation through faith in Christ.

 

[webdog]

I certainly agree with you that you cannot be regenerated without being justified and vice versa but we are not talking about that. We are talking about whether they are snyonomous terms. If they are not synonomous terms then we must ask which logically occurs first.

Regeneration has to do with your PERSON while justification has to do with your LEGAL POSITION. The Roman Catholic church and all others that believe in justification by works may argue that "justification" means to "make righteous" and therefore make it synonomous with baptismal regeneration or some other action we participate in doing but Evangelical theologions define "justification" in terms of the "ungodly" being declared righteousness by imputation through faith in Christ.

They are two sides of the same coin...but the same coin none the less. The definitions may differ, but they mean the same thing...we are saved. Whether someone says they have been born again, or Christ died for their sins, the meaning is the same.

 

[HankD]

Not so! Churches that openly proclaim they originated with pedobaptist churches are obviously from the wrong Biblical source.

Most who use the term "Reformed" as a definitive noun for their churches freely admit they originated from pedobaptist sources.

The validity of baptism does not rest upon the unknown personal status of the individual administrator of baptism but upon the authority of the church the administrator represents. The "keys of the kingdom" or authority to administer the visible affairs of God's kingdom on earth has been given to the church (Mt. 18:17-18) rather to individual members or officers in that church.

As far as I am concerned my rebutal still stands.

With all due respect Dr. Walters this sounds like a convenient way out of the principles taught in Matthew 13 as well as the affirmation of the secular history of Christendom that the "whole" will be leavened.

Membership and establishment of the "true" church (the Church of the Firstborn) has it's authority in the Triune God in whose name of deity we are baptized in the Spirit by God the Son.

I personally share your belief to an extent that water baptism must be done in the proper way by the proper administrator as I am a former Catholic and sought out a Baptist church to be baptized, associated and serve with after I was saved as led of the Spirit.

However, I don't believe that the hands of almighty God in the building of His church are limited to "ye" and "them" today as obviously none of us today can possibly fulfil the requirements of apostles.

Neither is there an infallible record of the line of water baptism administrators of this "Baptist" church in the Scriptures or elsewhere.

No matter what a local church claims there is no guarantee that there is an unbroken continuance of a proper authority of baptising administrators of which there has been non-infitration of the tares, heretics and pretenders (know or unknown).

Anyone skilled by the fathers of lies could take the church model you have presented and use deceitful methods, falsify records and the like (unawares) breaking this continuum. And so tesfied Christ that the "whole" would eventually be leavened.

A local church testimony is no guarantee.

Secular history is no proof either.One of the documents you presented intimated that the Waldensian churches of the Piedmont were "Baptist". Other historians including Waldensian say otherwise. We cannot depend on secular history either.

We cannot depend on early church "fathers". As far back as Origen (yes, he was heretical) and Tertullian, pado-baptism was accepted along with immersion and even claimed (so they say) as acceptable by the apostles themselves.

Many local churches from the 2nd century on were a "mixed multitude" which would have polluted the line.

My point is that members of the Church of Matthew 16:18 have their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life (Revelation 21:27) in heaven, the Church of the Firsborn (Hebrews 12:23) whose membership was purchased at the cost of His blood (acts 20:28) by Jesus Christ Himself.

Water baptism is an earthly affirmation before God and man of the membership (by the blood of the New Covenant) in this Church and not the cause.

I don't like the terms "universal" or "invisible" and don't use it of this Church except to say that this membership is known ONLY unto God and spans both heaven and earth, the Church of the Firstborn.

That is NOT to diminish the importance of the local church here on earth as an apostolic institution commissioned by Jesus Christ by which we serve God during our sojourn here on earth and my advice to all FWIW is to indeed seek out as best we can such a church as you have outlined, (along with other scriptural criteria of purity), be baptized as a witness to God and man and serve Him.

HankD

 

[Dr. Walter]

They are two sides of the same coin...but the same coin none the less. The definitions may differ, but they mean the same thing...we are saved. Whether someone says they have been born again, or Christ died for their sins, the meaning is the same.

If the definitions differ than they cannot mean the same thing just as the definitions of the words "hot" and "cold" differ and cannot mean the same thing.

Saying you were born again was something God did TO you but saying Christ died for your sins is something that Christ did FOR you before you existed and so they are not the same nor do they mean the same.

Pick up a good theology book of your choice and see if theologions who you regard as good bible teachers define these things as the same meaning or same character and application.

 

[webdog]

If the definitions differ than they cannot mean the same thing just as the definitions of the words "hot" and "cold" differ and cannot mean the same thing.

That is a strawman as you chose two opposite words. Regeneration and justification would be more similar to "hot" and "spicy" (or "fiery").

Saying you were born again was something God did TO you but saying Christ died for your sins is something that Christ did FOR you before you existed and so they are not the same nor do they mean the same.

This is a matter of semantics as the label "justified" has been applied to me.

 

[Dr. Walter]

That is a strawman as you chose two opposite words. Regeneration and justification would be more similar to "hot" and "spicy" (or "fiery").

This is a matter of semantics as the label "justified" has been applied to me.

Seriously, have you ever read a good theology book by someone you admire as a good Bible teacher?

The term "justification" has absolutely nothing to do with the term "regeneration" they are as different as "hot" is from "cold." The term "justification" deals with your legal position before God in heaven whereas regeneration deal with your spiritual condition here on earth. They are as far apart as heaven and earth. They are as different as the court room in the government building in comparison to the maturnity ward in the hospital.

This is not a matter of semantics nor straw men. Try to use these terms as synonyms in the Bible passages. We are "justified by the blood" of Christ but we are regenerated by the Spirit of God. I would encourage you to dig a little deeper.

 

[webdog]

Seriously, have you ever read a good theology book by someone you admire as a good Bible teacher?

The term "justification" has absolutely nothing to do with the term "regeneration" they are as different as "hot" is from "cold." The term "justification" deals with your legal position before God in heaven whereas regeneration deal with your spiritual condition here on earth. They are as far apart as heaven and earth. They are as different as the court room in the government building in comparison to the maturnity ward in the hospital.

This is not a matter of semantics nor straw men. Try to use these terms as synonyms in the Bible passages. We are "justified by the blood" of Christ but we are regenerated by the Spirit of God. I would encourage you to dig a little deeper.

I've read the best one out there...The Bible I know what those terms mean, and they are NOT opposite no matter how many times you try to tell me they are. I think you allow your theology to interpret Bible. Both regeneration and justification are events that occur simultaneous when one puts their faith in Christ. That is what the Bible teaches and what I will continue to believe.

 

[HankD]

I've read the best one out there...The Bible I know what those terms mean, and they are NOT opposite no matter how many times you try to tell me they are. I think you allow your theology to interpret Bible. Both regeneration and justification are events that occur simultaneous when one puts their faith in Christ. That is what the Bible teaches and what I will continue to believe.

Hi webdog,

Since this is an open forum I'll give my take on this.

Because two things work together in the same venue does not necessarily mean they are synonymous.

A 747 jet plane needs at least two different things to happen to achieve flight.

1) Aerodynamic rotation (wing vacuum to produce lift) and 2) jet propulsion.

These two different things work together simultaneously to the same end.


HankD

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your personal profession in Christ is no guarantee you are a child of God either. However, if your profession contained all the essential Biblcal salvation characteristics would it not be incumbant upon me to accept it as genuine if I had no evidence to reject it?

Matthew 13 does not promise complete leavening of God's kingdom on earth. Matthew 16:18; 28:20 and Ephesians 3:21 repudiate that idea completely.

Matthew 28:19-20 promises that "all the days" of this age there will never be absent not merely Christians, but properly baptized Christians observing the faith and order of Christ as a New Testament assembly.

Throughout history apart from the Roman Catholic Church since the apostles there has been such groups of Christians who opposed Rome and claimed to be apostolic in origin in a perpetuity from the apostles. Rome called them "Anabaptists."

I will stick with the promises of Scripture and when you find something that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck I will presume upon the basis of scriptures alone that it is a duck and that it did not evolve from nothing but that it has come from another duck all the way back to the first duck.

As far as I am concerned my rebutal still stands.

With all due respect Dr. Walters this sounds like a convenient way out of the principles taught in Matthew 13 as well as the affirmation of the secular history of Christendom that the "whole" will be leavened.

Membership and establishment of the "true" church (the Church of the Firstborn) has it's authority in the Triune God in whose name of deity we are baptized in the Spirit by God the Son.

I personally share your belief to an extent that water baptism must be done in the proper way by the proper administrator as I am a former Catholic and sought out a Baptist church to be baptized, associated and serve with after I was saved as led of the Spirit.

However, I don't believe that the hands of almighty God in the building of His church are limited to "ye" and "them" today as obviously none of us today can possibly fulfil the requirements of apostles.

Neither is there an infallible record of the line of water baptism administrators of this "Baptist" church in the Scriptures or elsewhere.

No matter what a local church claims there is no guarantee that there is an unbroken continuance of a proper authority of baptising administrators of which there has been non-infitration of the tares, heretics and pretenders (know or unknown).

Anyone skilled by the fathers of lies could take the church model you have presented and use deceitful methods, falsify records and the like (unawares) breaking this continuum. And so tesfied Christ that the "whole" would eventually be leavened.

A local church testimony is no guarantee.

Secular history is no proof either.One of the documents you presented intimated that the Waldensian churches of the Piedmont were "Baptist". Other historians including Waldensian say otherwise. We cannot depend on secular history either.

We cannot depend on early church "fathers". As far back as Origen (yes, he was heretical) and Tertullian, pado-baptism was accepted along with immersion and even claimed (so they say) as acceptable by the apostles themselves.

Many local churches from the 2nd century on were a "mixed multitude" which would have polluted the line.

My point is that members of the Church of Matthew 16:18 have their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life (Revelation 21:27) in heaven, the Church of the Firsborn (Hebrews 12:23) whose membership was purchased at the cost of His blood (acts 20:28) by Jesus Christ Himself.

Water baptism is an earthly affirmation before God and man of the membership (by the blood of the New Covenant) in this Church and not the cause.

I don't like the terms "universal" or "invisible" and don't use it of this Church except to say that this membership is known ONLY unto God and spans both heaven and earth, the Church of the Firstborn.

That is NOT to diminish the importance of the local church here on earth as an apostolic institution commissioned by Jesus Christ by which we serve God during our sojourn here on earth and my advice to all FWIW is to indeed seek out as best we can such a church as you have outlined, (along with other scriptural criteria of purity), be baptized as a witness to God and man and serve Him.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Your personal profession in Christ is no guarantee you are a child of God either. However, if your profession contained all the essential Biblcal salvation characteristics would it not be incumbant upon me to accept it as genuine if I had no evidence to reject it?

Matthew 13 does not promise complete leavening of God's kingdom on earth. Matthew 16:18; 28:20 and Ephesians 3:21 repudiate that idea completely.

Matthew 28:19-20 promises that "all the days" of this age there will never be absent not merely Christians, but properly baptized Christians observing the faith and order of Christ as a New Testament assembly.

Throughout history apart from the Roman Catholic Church since the apostles there has been such groups of Christians who opposed Rome and claimed to be apostolic in origin in a perpetuity from the apostles. Rome called them "Anabaptists."

I will stick with the promises of Scripture and when you find something that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck I will presume upon the basis of scriptures alone that it is a duck and that it did not evolve from nothing but that it has come from another duck all the way back to the first duck.

Again, thank you Dr. Walter for the responses.

As to the leavening of the whole lump:

Jesus did ask what appears to be a rhetorical question in Luke 18:8b ... when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

One last item... an inquiry concerning your position

Lets us consider a regenerated Christian such as Charles Wesley (e.g.), a Child of God involved in an unauthorized "church".
Was he a member of the church Christ spoke of in Matthew 16:18 (or Hebrews 12:22-24)?
Is he now?
Will he ever be?


Thanks
HankD

 

[Dr. Walter]

Again, thank you Dr. Walter for the responses.

As to the leavening of the whole lump:

Jesus did ask what appears to be a rhetorical question in Luke 18:8b ... when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

One last item... an inquiry concerning your position

Lets us consider a regenerated Christian such as Charles Wesley (e.g.), a Child of God involved in an unauthorized "church".
Was he a member of the church Christ spoke of in Matthew 16:18 (or Hebrews 12:22-24)?
Is he now?
Will he ever be?


Thanks
HankD

Charles and John Wesley both denied they were starting any kind of church or their groups were churches. They devised certain methods in their religious training and were using such "methods" to disciple their converts and that is where the term "Methodists" came from. Their doctrine and practice can be seen in Methodists today. They certainly did reproduce after their own kind but it is not the New Testament kind of church.

They were both pedobaptists and both defenders of apostasty from salvation. No, they will not be in the bride of Christ now or then but will be among those outside on the new earth as I don't doubt their salvation experience which occurred after their initial preaching tour.

 

[webdog]

Hi webdog,

Since this is an open forum I'll give my take on this.

Because two things work together in the same venue does not necessarily mean they are synonymous.

A 747 jet plane needs at least two different things to happen to achieve flight.

1) Aerodynamic rotation (wing vacuum to produce lift) and 2) jet propulsion.

These two different things work together simultaneously to the same end.


HankD

...but justification and regeneration are not working together, so to speak. They are spiritually dead people coming to spiritual life...salvation. In jet propulsion there is a linear order, there is no linear order with justification and regeneration, they are concurrent.