Regeneration, Prior to? IS? After "new birth"

Crystal clear Gene... Crystal...

That's why you see many of the intelectual Arminian's knowing their flaws HAVE to retreat to admitting that their wrong OR slide into Open theism and eventually to Dualism ! Greg Boyd for example in Minnesota is going that route... shame.

 

"It's ordo salutas not salutas ordo.. You say that I have the order reversed....Prove it!


by the way, we all speak english here, so it is OK for you to follow suit! "

But Wes, then he would not be able to impress us all with his learning!

 

The Bible says we receive new life as a result of FAITH. Period. I don't care how many degrees you have, or how many nice philosophical reasons you construct - I am going with the Bible.

 

Once again, no positive exegesis to that effect just a nice blanket statement...

Well, since in Systematic Theology the term means "order of salvation" and even Arminian systematic theology texts that use the term (Pope, Wiley, Miley, Cotrell) also refer to it that way, one shouldn't have to go far...

 

To say that something CANNOT be must mean you do not believe God has the power to effect change in any man's will. Your God is powerless to change man.

Then why are some willing and not others?

That's right, and God does not coerce any person, because He does not believe for them or repent for them. They do it as a natural, voluntary, joyful result of being regenerated.
Persons are drawn not "wooed" into the kingdom.

One must hear in order to understand and believe. One believes because one hears. In John seeing and hearing are synonymous, parallel grammatical terms. Just as one must hear prior to believing, one must see prior to believing, and Jesus in John 3 very clearly says one must FIRST be born again in order to see the kingdom of God. Seeing the kingdom of God is synonymous with believing. Regeneration logically precedes saving faith, for those who are dead in sin cannot believe. No one can enter the kingdom of God, Jesus said, unless he is born again (cf. John 3:5). Again, entering and seeing are parallel grammatical constructions.

Apparently, you all do not understand Johnanine theology. These synonymous grammatical relationships are also acknowledged by Arminians and even dispensationalists like Herrick. The problem that Calvinists have with Arminian exegesis is the inconsistent application of these relationships to satisfy Arminian tradition, not the recognition that these grammatical constructs are present, as seen, for example, in the work of other dispensationalists like Keathley.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dean198:
The Bible says we receive new life as a result of FAITH. Period. I don't care how many degrees you have, or how many nice philosophical reasons you construct - I am going with the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, no positive exegesis to that effect just a nice blanket statement...


There is no need for positive exegesis....the scripture was not written for pseudo intellectuals to vainly speculate on....its teaching is so clear it often just needs to be stated.

I agree with the apostle John on the matter, no matter how 'intelligent' your arguments may appear:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

John 20:30-31.

 

Ok, let's look at this. Is God innocent? Liberine free will is characteristic only of an innocent creature. If we are created in God's image and God has libertine free will, then God must be innocent.

The ONLY time, man EVER had libertine free will was prior to the fall. After that he had free agency, JUST LIKE GOD.

Citing God's image does nothing to bolster your position, Wes, because God does NOT have libertine free will. He will not and CAN NOT do things outside of his character! He can not sin, because He is completely righteous.

God says of man: The unregenerate is deceitful and sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mk 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).

If Adam and Eve who were not slaves to sin but chose to sin, what makes you think that the unsaved, who are slaves of sin, are going to choose to not sin by choosing God when the Bible says they cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14) and are haters of God (Rom. 3:10-12)?

Man is created in God's image, ABSOLUTELY, but man is NOT innocent, and since God does not have libertine free will, MAN DOES NOT EITHER NOW THAT HE IS NO LONGER INNOCENT! What do you not understand about this?

Then God must be lying every time He says man does not have the ability to come to Christ, understand spiritual things, or submit himself to God.

You have YET to prove libertine free will from Scripture. It exists solely as a philosophical construct of your mind.

This is a HUGE flaw in your theology, Wes. Biblically, salvation extends to the full range of human beings without respect to genetic content, congenital factors, or level of education. Christianity is not a faith for scholars only. Rather, Christ says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden" (Mat 11:28). If this option is true however, we are saying that the believer that believes has a superior mind and is intellectually superior to the unbeliever. Intellect becomes a meritorious thing. Yours is belief by intellectual superiority or environmental superiority. Thus you have room to boast about your understanding which caused your belief, contrary to Eph. 2: 8,9.

I also noticed NOT ONE TIME did you cite Scripture to support your view.

(Absolutely, your posts are a prime example of that, since you avoid interacting with Scripture to support your views).

Then, God is unjust for judging that person for not believing if the church itself is responsible. If the church is responsble, then why is God judging that person?

Once again, no basis in Scripture to show this is true...You keep avoiding this like the plague. Have you ever looked up "regeneration" in a historic confession? Regeneration is either the cause of believing or a result of believing, but it is NEVER believing itself, not in ANY usage of the term in ANY theological work, from the most basic to the most academic!

No, there are certain parallel constructions in John's writing, like seeing and hearing and coming. Seeing, hearing, and coming are parallel to believing as believing itself and/or the cause of believing. (In fact, the phrase, "Seeing is believing in the English language is, historically, based on this very understanding of the meaning of seeing in John's Gospel). Being born again is regeneration. One must be born again in order to see, e.g. believe and be justified. John never says one is born again AFTER one believes or that one sees the kingdom BEFORE one is born again. "Verily, verily, I say to you, unless one is born again, he can not see the kingdom of God."

No, Wes, theology is based on exegesis, not the other way around. The grammatical constructs determine the exegesis of the text, which determines our theology. This is the reason you don't refer to Scripture and interact with it, because the grammar and syntax, not one line of it, supports your contentions.

 

That regeneration is solely the work of God is clearly shown in Ephesians 2:1-10. Unregenerate man is spiritually dead and cannot do anything regarding his salvation until he is made spiritually alive [born from above] by the work of God. Man is then given the inclination and faith to believe God. The Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. The natural man is the unregenerate man.

John Dagg in his Manual of Theology [page 322] comments on the natural man’s inability regarding salvation, as follows:

“Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition is defective. It has always been found that men will not come to Christ for life. The Gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of man must be changed; and this change the will cannot itself effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God works in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible.”

 

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

John 20:30-31.

Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent...

 

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

John 20:30-31.

Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent... </font>[/QUOTE]"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me--not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life." (John 6:44-47)

Your verse doesn't prove what you think it does.

 

It is presumed this is a declarative statement of fact. and there is no rebuttle to it. however,

Have you considered that this verse is saying that, The son of God does things, so that we 'might' believe.

"So that we might believe." Sounds like man must do something for his own salvation. Also notice that is so "might believe" not that we will but that we might! Now that could mean that Jesus does things for us to believe because he has regenerated us so that we can believe-- or --It could mean that He did those things so that we have a reason to believe and thereby be regenerated! After ALL scriptures do say that we must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. So HE gives us reason to believe in Him as the Christ! </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I have considered all of that. I used to make arguments like that. In order to do so, though, I had to ignore passages like John 6:44-47. The reason that passage in particular is important is that Jesus affirms that "no one can" in verse 44 and "whosoever will" in verse 47. So, we know that both are true, and we cannot afford to let go of either truth. If you give up verse 44 then you end up where you are. If you give up verse 47 and John 20:31 then you end up with fatalism.

 

This illustrates what I mean. You can't believe verse 44, so you have to go over 11 chapters later and find statements in a completely different context and bring their meaning back here, because verse 44 just can't mean what it appears to mean. That works for you but it doesn't work for me.

 

I'm ranting and raving?