Repentence and the elect

Lance,

On the internet and message boards such as this one, it is generally considered yelling to post in all bold and font larger than the norm. So, while I generally disagree that you did not intend the post to be full of animosity, you make an excellent point that this is not face-to-face, so I will take you at your word, friend.

Again, this is just silliness. But, just for laughs and giggles...let me address a few points.

You wrote:

Neither I nor other covenant theologians consider Israel to be cast away. This is an unfortunate (and likely an innocent) misstatement. The difference between Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensational Theology (DT) is that people who subscribe to CT necessarily see a distinction between believing Israel and national Israel. Because of Paul's New Testament discussions about Israel, it is clear that context determines if he is speaking of National Israel or of Spiritual Israel. DT tends to see Israel only in terms of its national identity. CT rejects this based on the "Analogy of Faith" where scripture is allowed to interpret scripture.

You continued:

Sure I did...there were bigger fish to fry. You have yet to explain what Paul meant in Romans 11. There are textual issues that I have raised that are not solved either by DT or CT. The text simply is the text and you have yet to convince me that Paul meant something other than what I (with many other commentators, I might add) said.

I readily agree that Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The difference, however, is that the Law (Mosaic) covenant is not abrogated but it is fulfilled in Christ because He kept the Law perfectly, something we (Jew or Gentile) could not do.

I am different (I think) than most CT's--I see one covenant with a narrowing scope: Adam/Noah to Abraham to Moses to David to Christ. I do not think that Israel and the Church are the same, but I do believe Israel and the Church are the heirs of the same promises. Also, it is important to say that those saved in the Old Testament (the true Israel) were saved by the death of Christ, just as the true Church is saved.

You said:

I would argue the inductive method has its limitations IF it does not seek the plain meaning of the original text in its original context (and the whole-Bible context as a whole). When I was taught to preach, my professor (who had a Ph.D in Greek and we couldn't get anything past him) insisted we diagram the passages in the original languages. In the epistles, we were instructed to look for the Main Finite Verb. In the the Prophets or Psalms, we did the same thing. I have not-a-few 4-page, sprawling diagrams that really help to interpret the passage.

Here is an example of this method: If you look at the "Great Commission," you see Jesus saying "Go....make disciples....baptizing...teaching..." The main point of Jesus command here is "Make Disciples," that is the verb. Go (which is better translated "after having gone"), baptizing, and teaching are all participles. Now, to be obedient to the main verb, one has to do the participles.

The goal of preaching and of all Bible study should be to make the author's main point the main point of the message. Jesus' main point in the "Great Commission" is "Make Disciples." To use that text to enlist people who will "Go" (especially if you don't mention Jesus' main point) does violence to the text and, therefore, Jesus' command.

And, yes, I am quite well-educated. But, that doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

You continued:

I do read what you post, I just don't agree with most of it. I'm afraid you may take my non-agreement as some type of non-understanding or non-reading. That is not the case.

You say this as if you don't look at the world through "Darby" or "Scofield" glasses, which you do. Darby's ideas, as I'm sure you well know, generally dates to the 1830's. The CT position is based on the Reformers who were generally Augustinian who was essentially Pauline. So, while I freely admit I look through Augustinian glasses, you too must admit you look through Darby-Scofield glasses.

I asked: Why was Abraham chosen?

Your reply was quite good (though I didn't agree with all of it).

But, you missed the intent of my question. I want to know why was it Abram from Ur of the Chaldeans that God chose and not Fred from Rome of the Italians? Put more simply: Why did God choose Abram and not someone else (regardless of the purpose)?

Unfortunately, you seem to be unwilling to discuss the text without bringing your DT into it. I am much more interested in what the text actually says that what a system (CT or DT) says it says. If you would like to continue textual discussions, I'd love to do so. However, this is not a forum to debate CT and DT, which is why I am reluctant to do so.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

AA, Lance, James,

Apparently this thread CAN go nowhere until the CT-DT distinctions are understood.

1) Salvation: OT salvation came by faith, it is true. But in the OT there was NO regeneration - NONE. So how did salvation work then? They BELIEVED in God, just like us. They obeyed God, just like we do BEFORE we receive regeneration. But THEIR faith was given when God began to fulfill His promises. What they SAW was "evidence" and "substance," hence FAITH given by God, every bit as much as the indwelling Holy Spirit is to us.

2) So NO, there is not just one covenant between the Father and the Son regarding certain "elect" from every age. If there was, it could be found in scripture somewhere. It's NOT. Again Reformers/CT adds "phantom information" into the discussion.

3) DT's, as should all Christians, see THREE, not two Israels: 1) Spiritual Israel - the "vine;" 2) national Israel - the "fig tree;" and 3) religious Israel - the "olive tree." Each of these forms has special privileges before God. WE happen to have the like spiritual privileges/inheritances but NOT national nor religious privileges which is why we don't gravitate to Israel and practice Judaism.

4) Here's something about DT that may teach both of you. I can't find it in scripture just now but there is a passage that says that Israel is not complete without us nor we without them. What does this mean? We are not complete until we have seen (learn the same TEMPORAL lesson), as they did, the impossibility of salvation through innocence, conscience, human authority, family, law, or through the coming of Christ's kingdom (the first 6 dispensations). What is the only thing that saves? Christ, crucified and raised again! GRACE!

But THEY are not complete until they learn the same SPIRITUAL lesson we have, come to Christ, and receive the same spiritual inheritance -- the indwelling Holy Spirit. Now how is that to happen? It happens when they, the "just," are resurrected to the earth into Christ's MK! They were saved by faith in God -- they will be saved by faith in Christ's death and resurrection (which they never knew but in symbols).

5) This last "theology" is older than both of yours so arguing about when a truth was discovered serves only vanity.

6) Why did God choose Abram? From what we are given, Abram was the one who "got up and went" -- obeyed. He obviously was of the line of Shem from which God foreknew and prophecied that he would come. But we have no way of knowing whether Abram was the first approached by God or one of many -- only that he "got him up" and left Ur and that is how he was "elected."

skypair

 

Hello sky,

A few things I want to address here. But i want to be clear what you believe 1st.

What grounds do you have for making this statement?

"But in the OT there was NO regeneration - NONE"

 

John 14:16-17 -- particularly He shall give you another Comforter ... He dwelleth WITH you but shall dwell IN you."

Again 14:23 -- "and we will make our abode with him." God "abode" with OT Israel in the tabernacle/temple. Now our bodies are His temple, "your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is IN you." BUt what did David say? "Cast me not away from your presence and take not thy Holy Spirit from me." (Psa 51:11) Does that sound to you like the Spirit permanently indwelt David as He does us? NO. Even unto Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the promise of a "heart of flesh" awaited the final regathering of Israel in belief.

Calvin made a grave error is his useage of this "heart of stone - heart of flesh" analogy. This tells ISRAEL that God will resurrect OT believers by the Holy Spirit into bodies indwelt by the Holy Spirit! It in no way speaks to NT believers that God changed their hearts before they could believe. As is obvious to me, the OT saints have to believe BEFORE this promise is fulfilled to them.

1Cor 2 is another "dissertation" that Calvinists take wrong regarding the Spirit. In 2:1-6, Paul tells them that he came in simplicity preaching the gospel because they did NOT have the Spirit as natural men. All the Spirit could do is convict and draw them to believe on Christ receiving the Spirit as a result (cf: Acts 2:38-39). In the remainder of the chapter, 2:7-14, he describes how, being alread saved, they have the Spirit by which they can receive the "deeper things of God" --- secrets that were kept from the OT saints!

How was this Spirit "passed" to men? Like God "passed" a "living soul" into man --- Christ breathed on his disciples saying "receive ye the Holy Ghost." (John 20:22) We pass Him into others through preaching the word and He enters into those who believe.

Go back to John 14:26. 16:13 -- "when He, the spirit of truth, is come..." He was NOT in them in the OT - only in the NT. This is the grounds by which I maintain that unbelievers can be known: 1) do they know the mysteries and parables of the NT OR 2) do they accept the true rendering of their meaning once they study it out with the Spirit's help. As in 1Cot 2:7-14, the Spirit teaches His own.

John 17:22-23 speaks of the "glory" God gave Jesus which He gives to us. That "glory" is the Holy Spirit --- "I IN them and Thou in Me that they may be made perfect in one..."

Do we need to go on? "Regeneration" for OT saints meant resurrection into Messiah's kingdom receiving the indwelling Spirit, "heart of flesh," then. Clearly then, faith precedes regeneration in us as well.

skypair

 

Sky,

Takes for your civil reply. Thanks also for sharing your views on this. I understand why you may think this, however I feel you have just shown a weakness in your doctrine. Lets look at what you said.

The coming of Holy Spirit as a EVER indweller is limited to the NT. All will agree with this. This however works against your doctrine. It is clear their were believers in the OT. Many passages to chose on this. Lets look at Romans 9..

As it was in the OT so it is now. Men are not saved by the work of the flesh, but because of the work of God in election wherein the eyes of the sinner is open to the truth and thereby believe.

God worked in the heart of all believers, even though Holy Spirit did not live in them.

2 Chronicles 30:11-12

This passage tells us some tribes resisted the call to repentance, but only those which "the hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart", repented

This is the true view of regeneration.
God brings the truth to light.

Sky you said...

Again this only shows the weakness of your doctrine. Regeneration comes before Salvation.

Notice this verse please...

The passage clearly shows they knew the Holy Spirit and NOW Holy Spirit will abide IN them. This was not the case in the OT. However, in men Holy Spirit did rest up on them.

You said....

Regeneration and indwelling are not exactly the same the same for in regeneration the Spirit works to illumine our minds and renew our hearts prior to our faith in which He comes to indwell us. That pre-salvific action is not called indwelling. This does great damage toward your doctrine.

The INDWELLING of the corporate body by the Spirit presupposes the resurrection. The Spirit helps us to obey Jesus commandments where the righteous demands of the law are met for those who walk according to the Spirit. Of course the Jews are also part of Christ's body but they only experienced the promises in the form of types and shadows. Look at the hall of faith in Hebrews.

Furthermore passages like Joel speaks of the Spirit being poured out on all mankind (Jew & Gentiles), so that this promise was no longer just confined to the Jews.

Do we need to go on? I think not.

 

Yes, there were many believers in the OT. They were "JUSTIFIED" in their faith by 1) believing/trusting God and 2) obeying, wouldn't you agree? That is what justification is -- and it is the first step of salvation, the part, I add, that does NOT include receiving the Holy Spirit.

Now you are right -- no one is saved by the "motions of the flesh" as Paul called ritual and law-keeping. So what we have for ALL time is that FAITH JUSTIFIES.

But in the NT, as you observe, something is added -- something that Paul in Hebrews called "some better thing." (Heb 11:40) We are SANCTIFIED by the indwelling Holy Spirit. So yes, we then share the spiritual promises to Abraham just as Paul points out in Rom 9 that we partake of their promises. BUT we do NOT particpate in their national nor religious promises. Imagine us today sacrificing a real lamb thinking that we had religious promises thereby for forgiveness of our sins! No.

"Work of God in election?" God didn't need to regenerate those unbelievers in the OT to bring them to salvation. We just established that, didn't we? You believe that "regeneration" includes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit if you demand to use 1Cor 2:14 for proof of inability.

Absolutely! But now you are talking about conviction and persuasion, not regeneration.

Plus, I don't know if you will acknlowledge this or not but the Spirit speaks through the "7 spirits of God which have gone out into all the earth." This is why we can say that all men are "without excuse." What "election" did those before Abraham know? There was none.

"One heart" = one will. You will no doubt see the same thing in Acts where "God opened the heart" of Lydia, Acts 16:11. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit sheds light into the darkness of the sinful heart? Isn't that why WE are to be "the light of the world?" WE, through preaching and teaching through the power of the Spirit, open the heart.

You know -- you believe that the spirit is "dead" but it is not. In fact, pastor was preaching on body, soul, and spirit today and it occurred to me that the normative way of describing them is really Calvinistic -- maybe y'all got to these definitions first (systematic theology) but I can't figure them the same way with what I know. If yall make the soul the "mind, emotions, and will" then I can see why you would say it is "dead" (Ezek 18:20) and cannot hear God. But that is totally wrong! The soul is the innermost aspect of our being and our "compass" -- our conscience -- and either God rules there (pre-sin) or self (post-sin).

Our spirit is still alive and listening through the body for God's Spirit (Boy! I gotta pray for my pastor too!). Listen, James. Can you still think? Laugh? Make decisions? Then your spirit is alive and responsive to "inputs" of all kinds. Even if you won't hear something, that is your decision.

Persuasion it is then?!

Of course they knew Him. 1) They were believers justified already. Of course they know the Spirit! 2) They were saved without His indwelling already, right? they were saved in the OT way. don't get the idea that the disciples weren't saved until Christ arose. Look at John the Baptist's disciples in Acts 19:1-6. They didn't know there was a Holy Ghost but were already saved/justified. They received the Spirit when they believed on the name of Christ, right?

If you want to call "persuasion" regeneration in order to reconcile it all in your mind, go ahead. I believe that the unsaved today are "filled with the Spirit" just before the repent. That was possible in the OT too. But ot me and to most Christians, regeneration is rebirth in the Spirit -- Spirit indwelling, not filling.

Gotta come back later. Wife now decided I can help her make potato salad for the SB get together. :wavey:

skypair

 

Yes work of election.

Jeremiah 31:31-3

Isa 43 the chapter all non Calvinist hate to remember...

Notice verse 13...
"I work, and who can turn it back?"
This working is talking about salvation as seen in verse 10,11 and 12.

Sky...man you just need to get over yourself. It is not YOU but God that teaches and opens the heart You are not God. God can and does USE the church, but God in no way NEEDS the church.

.
You talking to me or God? Gods Word proclaims it, so you need to tell God He is wrong, not me.

Then it is clear you do not know. Maybe we should trust God on this one, not what Sky knows.

There is so much wrong with this line, i'll not waste my time. This is pure "free-willism". Many non-calvinist will not agree to this statement.

 

MY PEOPLE is Israel (NON-Gentile) by God's own word. He never refers to the church as MY PEOPLE -- in fact, the church are CHRIST'S, THE SON'S, PEOPLE.

Yes, of course Jer 31:31 and John 14:26-27 match. The disicples were Jews and Jesus was telling them that the era was about to be open to them which Jeremiah spoke of. But not yet as it would be in the MK when all would "know" Him face-to-face.

James, non-calvinists don't hate ANY passage of scripture. You are obviously thinking that we hate God as well. See, this is the same thing you accuse me of. You're lying about my beliefs. Are we going to discuss or try to understand like I do or not?

Isa 43 speaks of Israel to whom are the covenants and promises (Rom 9:4) through the word of God. Mt 25:14-31 pictures them as having been given "Talents" to invest. And did you note "when there was no strange god in the land" is when God "declared and saved and proclaimed?" There was something that could withold His hand. But true enough, there is no one can "deliver" from His hand once He has saved -- preserving the saints is His "work." Pls reread it for yourself. If you let the spirit of God speak rather than the spirit of Calvin, you will not be making rash accusations and hasty, flawed interpretations.

Or maybe I should have a "big brother" like you explain it to me. :love2: How do you find that the soul is the mind, emotions, and will? that is is the "filter" and "microprocessor" between the body's senses and the spirit's "command center?" Or have you not given it a thought?

Dr Rogers gave a very poignang statement --- "The OT saints were saved by revelation; the NT saints by contagion." In the OT, the Jews (as scriptures tell us) saw God's plan and had faith through signs (rainbow, dreams, angel of the Lord visions, burning bushes, etc.) These were all part of their direct connection with God.

We Christians are, on the other hand, "contagious." It passes from person-to-person, or better, Spirit-to-person ("faith to faith"). So yes, WE open hearts. Read the context again (with the spirit of God, not the spirit of Calvin again). Luke says Lydia "heard us whose heart the Lord opened that she attended to [acted upon] the things SPOKEN of Paul." You very much have to want to believe Calvinism to say that there was nothing but God monergistically regenerating Lydia here.

I won't ask you to believe my "Theology 401." :laugh: Let me ask you a related hypothetical --- If you were to agree that God created us in His image and you, therefore, took note of the correspondence or Father, Son, Holy Spirit of God to spirit, soul, and body of man, how would you arrange them? line the "trinities" up? Would Father correspond to spirit or soul? How about the Holy Spirit -- would He most likely commune with your spirit or your soul?

See, I'd just take a "wild guess" that God's Spirit and mine would commune. Wouldn't you? And I'd just take another to say that the Father, being Head over All, would correspond to my own "head" which I see as my soul which would be oriented toward God or away from Him. And understanding what I do clears up alot of theological nonsense about the nature of man and whether he has free will or not.

skypair

 

. Nay, but rather to YOURS. :laugh: There is no such description in all of scripture as "regeneration" in the way you describe it! There is "the regeneration" in Mt 19:28 which speaks of the resurrection from the grave!

Then in Titus 3:5 there is "the WASHING of regeneration; and renewing of the Holy Ghost." So first off, it is NOT illumination, is it. Indeed, the "washing" is the BAPTISM of the Spirit and the "renewing" is resurrection with Christ from the dead! And when does the gospel say we are "baptized?" Acts 2:39 again "Repent and be baptized..." Like Lydia -- believe the spoken word, repent, be baptized.

Thos are the only 2 instances of "regeneration" in all the Bible, James. To make what Calvinism does of the term is pure eisogesis!

Yup.

Entirely different, isn't it? It's the difference between being unsaved but "helped" (or, in the OT, justified and "helped") and being saved and sanctified (NT believer).

Now this is a VERY serious error, James. This error would have those who are NOT "His at His coming" (1Cor 15:23), those who are "none of His" (Rom 8:9), raptured with those who "dead" (or "alive") "in Christ" 1Thes 4:16-17)! If you study scripture at all you should know that the difference between being resurrected pretrib and postrib is whether you are indwelt by the Spirit!

skypair