So, you don't like to be labeled?

[Winman]

You are not paying attention. Look at the whole comment I made.

Second, Paul asks how anyone can believe on Jesus unless they have heard of him. No supernatural regeneration mentioned here whatsoever, just the logical question of how can a person believe on someone they have never heard of?

I was not denying that regeneration is supernatural here, I was saying that Paul when asking HOW can anyone believe on Jesus unless they have heard of him did not mention supernatural regeneration as being necessary to believe.

I'll go slow, maybe you'll understand.

Paul is discussing the ABILITY to believe. He starts the question with the word HOW. That is a term that refers to ability.

Does Paul mention regeneration in this question? NO. Paul asks how it is possible for anyone to believe in Jesus unless they have HEARD of him. That's it, Paul doesn't say or even imply that anything more is necessary, simply that they hear of Jesus.

If you had never heard of Jesus, it would be absolutely impossible for you to believe in Jesus. Do you get that?

Now, if your doctrine were true (but it is not) Paul should have asked a question similar to this;

And how shall they believe on him unless they be regenerated and hear of him?

Now, that is the kind of question Paul should have asked if it is true that a person has to be regenerated to believe. But Paul never mentions supernatural regeneration here or anywhere else in scripture as being necessary for a man to either hear or believe the gospel.

Now that is incredible. Your whole Reformed theology is founded on the belief that a person must be regenerated to have the ability to believe. Here in Romans 10 Paul is directly asking HOW a person believes, and yet Paul completely neglects to say one word about the necessity to be regenerated to be able to believe. Not one word. Not here, not anywhere. You can't show it.

So, like JesusFan/DaChaser1/Yeshua1, either you are a very poor reader, or you intentionally misrepresent what I said. I was not saying regeneration is not supernatural, I was saying that Paul did not mention supernatural regeneration being necessary to believe.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are not paying attention. Look at the whole sentence.



I was not denying that regeneration is supernatural here, I was saying that Paul when asking HOW can anyone believe on Jesus unless they have heard of him did not mention supernatural regeneration as being necessary to believe.

I'll go slow, maybe you'll understand.

Paul is discussing the ABILITY to believe. He starts the question with the word HOW. That is a term that refers to ability.

Does Paul mention regeneration in this question? NO. Paul asks how it is possible for anyone to believe in Jesus unless they have HEARD of him. That's it, Paul doesn't say or even imply that anything more is necessary, simply that they hear of Jesus.

If you had never heard of Jesus, it would be absolutely impossible for you to believe in Jesus. Do you get that?

Now, if your doctrine were true (but it is not) Paul should have asked a question similar to this.

And how shall they believe on him unless they be regenerated and hear of him?

Now, that is the kind of question Paul should have asked if it is true that a person has to be regenerated to believe. But Paul never mentions supernatural regeneration here or anywhere else in scripture as being necessary for a man to either hear or believe the gospel.

Now that is incredible. Your whole Reformed theology is founded on the belief that a person must be regenerated to have the ability to believe. Here in Romans 10 Paul is directly asking HOW a person believes, and yet Paul completely neglects to say one word about the necessity to be regenerated to be able to believe. Not one word. Not here, not anywhere. You can't show it.

So, like JesusFan/DaChaser1/Yeshua1, either you are a very poor reader, or you intentionally misrepresent what I said. I was not saying regeneration is not supernatural, I was saying that Paul did not mention supernatural regeneration being necessary to believe.

Winman, using this reasoning you can say anything.
Paul did not mention;
1]the trinity

2] being born again

3] the second coming

4] indwelling of the Spirit


you cannot expect every verse to contain every doctrine.:type: ps did you see what i added when you were typing......

i do not think I mis-read it because you then say this:
Now, if ever there was a time to tell folks that regeneration is necessary for a person to hear and believe the gospel, this passage is where Paul should have told us. But Paul does not mention one word about the necessity of being regenerated to have the ability to hear and believe here, or anywhere else in all of scripture. It is incredible to believe that Paul would forget to mention such an important doctrine if it were true, but that is exactly what happened, Paul did not mention the need for regeneration to hear or believe.

Paul teaches on it....he assumes it....like being BORN AGAIN...is a given:thumbs:

 

[Herald]

For those not familiar with the extensive namecalling protocol of these Reformed Baptist types, here is a chart compiled by their Elder Nichols, complete with glossary, outlining the numerous damning heretical doctrines and bugaboos (for them) such as sovereign grace, congregationalism, decisionism, dispensationalism, etc., etc. etc.:

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/docdist.htm

I don't know of pastor Nichols, but he did a great job with that document. Is it name-calling to posit what you believe and juxtapose it against error? Read Geisler, Hunt, and Caner and you'll have your fill of those who accuse those who hold to the doctrines of grace of being heretical. I disagree with those men, but they're free to make their arguments.

 

[Winman]

Winman, using this reasoning you can say anything.
Paul did not mention;
1]the trinity

2] being born again

3] the second coming

4] indwelling of the Spirit


you cannot expect every verse to contain every doctrine.:type: ps did you see what i added when you were typing......

i do not think I mis-read it because you then say this:
Now, if ever there was a time to tell folks that regeneration is necessary for a person to hear and believe the gospel, this passage is where Paul should have told us. But Paul does not mention one word about the necessity of being regenerated to have the ability to hear and believe here, or anywhere else in all of scripture. It is incredible to believe that Paul would forget to mention such an important doctrine if it were true, but that is exactly what happened, Paul did not mention the need for regeneration to hear or believe.

Paul teaches on it....he assumes it....like being BORN AGAIN...is a given:thumbs:

What is Paul discussing in Romans 10:14? He is asking HOW a person can believe in Jesus. That is the topic of discussion. Now, if there was one place in all the scriptures where Paul should have informed us that regeneration is necessary to believe, this verse is it. He should have made it abundantly clear that no person can believe unless he is supernaturally regenerated. Paul absolutely neglected to do that, he did not say we have to be made alive, or regenerated, or born again, etc... to believe. NOT ONE WORD.

This is the whole foundation of Reformed theology, yet Paul completely neglects to mention a word about the necessity to be regenerated to have the ability to believe.

Was Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit forgetful? Did he make a mistake and forget to tell us we must be regenerated to believe? Absurd!

You just go right on believing what you want, but it is not scriptural. You cannot show a single verse that says a man must be regenerated to have the ability to believe. Your whole theology is founded on NOTHING.

Paul did not mention that a person needs to be regenerated to have the ability to believe because it is not necessary. Men can hear the gospel, and the gospel has the power to convict and enlighten that sinner to his need to trust Jesus and be saved. That is all that is necessary, and that is all Paul mentioned.

Now, once a man believes, God regenerates that man. This regeneration is a supernatural work that only God can perform. But God does not regenerate a man until he receives and believes on Jesus (Jhn 1:12-13).

 

[Jon-Marc]

I would have no problem being called a Christian, but there are way too many calling themselves "Christians" when they have no idea what it means to be one.

One woman told me she was a Christian because she was an American. Everyone knows this is a Christian nation, but IS it?

Another woman told me that she and her husband were both raised that way. I never did find out what she meant by that.

Then there are the man-made religions that deny the deity of Jesus, and they come up with all kinds of ways to be saved when we are told that the ONLY Mediator between us and the Father is the Son.

Jesus didn't start a denomination, and no one can point to any one denomination and claim that it's the one Jesus started. Still, some religions believe themselves to be THE one true church.

I am a Baptist, but what does that mean? I was told by one pastor many years ago that there were (at that time) over 40 different kinds of Baptist churches. So what DOES it mean to be a Baptist? I like to think that the Baptist religion is closer to the truth of the scriptures than any other denomination, but how do I know that to be a fact? In my home city, there is a 7th Day Baptist church.

Generally, I like to say I am "born again" as Jesus told one man He must be, "Ye must be born again." Still, I've heard of some very non-Christian types calling themselves "born-again". I believe that the owner of a porn business made that claim and then said he was going to do a series in his magazine on Adam and Eve. I don't know if he did, but I can just imagine that it wouldn't have been very Christian in content.

I used to call myself a Fundamentalist until terrorists were called Fundamentalists, and I have NO desire to use the same classification as a terrorist.

How about "Follower of Jesus Christ"? I have a T-shirt I really like and often wear in warm weather that reads, "I'm not perfect--Yet. Just FORGIVEN!"

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't know of pastor Nichols, but he did a great job with that document. Is it name-calling to posit what you believe and juxtapose it against error? Read Geisler, Hunt, and Caner and you'll have your fill of those who accuse those who hold to the doctrines of grace of being heretical. I disagree with those men, but they're free to make their arguments.

Pastor Nichols is a gifted teacher and preacher.His recent book on covenant theology [from a reformed baptist point of view]is excellent.He teaches some at the seminary in Greenville, SC.
He was a co elder at Trinity Montville with Al Martin.:thumbs::thumbs: He is one of the most able men in ministry today.

 

[MB]

If you really desire to lable people then do it correctly. For instance I have never followed Arminius. So why say that is what I am. It's because it makes the labler feel somehow above me. I do not hold to any of his doctrines.However I do hold to the doctrine of Christ and like it or not that makes me a Christian. It isn't that this is to generic that bothers some it's simply because it's the truth. MB

 

[Herald]

If you really desire to lable people then do it correctly. For instance I have never followed Arminius. So why say that is what I am. It's because it makes the labler feel somehow above me. I do not hold to any of his doctrines.However I do hold to the doctrine of Christ and like it or not that makes me a Christian. It isn't that this is to generic that bothers some it's simply because it's the truth. MB

MB, the term Arminian commonly is used to describe the theological position of those who hold to the free will view of salvation. Calvinist is used to describe those who believe in divine election (not the foreknowledge view) in salvation. Most "Arminians" on the BB disagree with Arminius on no original sin and that salvation can be lost. Most Baptist Calvinists disagree with Calvin on infant baptism and Presbyterian ecclesiology. The terms, as commonly used here, relate to salvation.

 

[12strings]

I just find it odd that most BB non-cals do NOT want to be called Arminians (because they disagree with one point and don't believe you can lose your salvation...which not all arminians believe anyway)...BUT, if someone were to come on the BOARD and promote Total depravity, God's choice of who will be saved, irresistable calling, and perserverance of the saints, and maybe even limited atonement as well...but that person insisted they were not a calvinist...WOULD THEY BUY IT? OR WOULD THEY CONTINUE TO CONSIDER HIM A CALVINIST?

 

[Iconoclast]

What is Paul discussing in Romans 10:14? He is asking HOW a person can believe in Jesus. That is the topic of discussion. Now, if there was one place in all the scriptures where Paul should have informed us that regeneration is necessary to believe, this verse is it. He should have made it abundantly clear that no person can believe unless he is supernaturally regenerated. Paul absolutely neglected to do that, he did not say we have to be made alive, or regenerated, or born again, etc... to believe. NOT ONE WORD.

This is the whole foundation of Reformed theology, yet Paul completely neglects to mention a word about the necessity to be regenerated to have the ability to believe.

Was Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit forgetful? Did he make a mistake and forget to tell us we must be regenerated to believe? Absurd!

You just go right on believing what you want, but it is not scriptural. You cannot show a single verse that says a man must be regenerated to have the ability to believe. Your whole theology is founded on NOTHING.

Paul did not mention that a person needs to be regenerated to have the ability to believe because it is not necessary. Men can hear the gospel, and the gospel has the power to convict and enlighten that sinner to his need to trust Jesus and be saved. That is all that is necessary, and that is all Paul mentioned.

Now, once a man believes, God regenerates that man. This regeneration is a supernatural work that only God can perform. But God does not regenerate a man until he receives and believes on Jesus (Jhn 1:12-13).

Winman, Paul in romans 10...is only focusing on the necessity of saving belief. He is giving a parallel to the people in Moses day from Deut. 30

You correctly point out that his focus is BELIEVE. No one disputes that.

10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;

18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
20 That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

The focus is on what is the only proper behaviour...not on the mechanics of regeneration which he addresses in other places.

Moses spoke to those who had the truth before them .Paul has just presented Christ as the end of the law...for righteousness...he placed that truth before them...that is all he intended to do.

 

[MB]

MB, the term Arminian commonly is used to describe the theological position of those who hold to the free will view of salvation. Calvinist is used to describe those who believe in divine election (not the foreknowledge view) in salvation. Most "Arminians" on the BB disagree with Arminius on no original sin and that salvation can be lost. Most Baptist Calvinists disagree with Calvin on infant baptism and Presbyterian ecclesiology. The terms, as commonly used here, relate to salvation.

I'm aware of this. My point is that freewill has nothing to do with Arminians. They to believe in total depravity. If you accept total depravity then you must also accept that only God can change your situtation. I've been referred to as an Arminian many times here. Not so much because of freewill but because I do not believe a man can be regenerated with out faith. The scriptures tell us all men have a measure of faith. It also tells us that with out faith there can be no grace with which to be saved. Eph 2:8 Clearly states that Grace comes to us through faith. If this is true and I believe it is then no one can have any grace with out faith.

So the idea men are regenerated so they can believe simply is not true. Faith is a gift there fore it cannot be a work.
MB

 

[Herald]

I'm aware of this. My point is that freewill has nothing to do with Arminians. They to believe in total depravity.

MB, Arminianism does not believe in total depravity. Even if one eschews the Arminian label they de facto disregard total depravity by believing that man possesses faith even while unsaved. At the end of your post you state:

Faith is a gift there fore it cannot be a work.

Quite true. However you believe the gift is given to every man and he is in possession of it even while unsaved. I see just the opposite in scripture. The oft cited verses (Gen. 6:5; Rom. 3:10; 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14) reveal that man is evil, does not desire God, and is incapable of desiring God. It takes God to change the status quo of total inability (Eph. 2:4-5). That is when the gift of faith is given, when God breaks the status quo.

 

[MB]

MB, Arminianism does not believe in total depravity. Even if one eschews the Arminian label they de facto disregard total depravity by believing that man possesses faith even while unsaved. At the end of your post you state:



Quite true. However you believe the gift is given to every man and he is in possession of it even while unsaved. I see just the opposite in scripture. The oft cited verses (Gen. 6:5; Rom. 3:10; 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14) reveal that man is evil, does not desire God, and is incapable of desiring God. It takes God to change the status quo of total inability (Eph. 2:4-5). That is when the gift of faith is given, when God breaks the status quo.

Yet none of what you just said is ever said in scripture.

Rom 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, "according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith".

Are you just denying what this scripture clearly states?
MB

 

[mandym]

MB, the term Arminian commonly is used to describe the theological position of those who hold to the free will view of salvation.

It may be commonly used by cals who do not mind being rude for the sake of their labeling system. But otherwise it is not "common".

 

[Herald]

MB,

In context:

Romans 12:1-5 Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. 3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. 4 For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

In verse 1, Paul is addressing "brethren" - believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. In verse 3 the antecedent* of "each" is the "brethren" of verse 1. So, it is the brethren (Christians) who were granted a measure of faith.

*The antecedent of "each" in verse 3 is linked back to "brethren" in verse 1 through the words "your" (v. 1), "your" and "you" (v. 2), and "you" (v. 3).

 

[agedman]

It may be commonly used by cals who do not mind being rude for the sake of their labeling system. But otherwise it is not "common".

Free will is certainly common to Arminian thinking. The typical Arminian view is that it is limited free will. But they boast freedom of choice and will all the same.

Grace is resistible: God takes initiative in the salvation process and His grace comes to all people.

Man has free will to respond or resist: Free will is limited by God's sovereignty, but God's sovereignty allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist.​

This quote is taken from Arminianism.

Of course they also view faith as human generated and not a provision by God. Therefore, in that scheme cannot really be considered the author and finisher of the faith.

 

[mandym]

Free will is certainly common to Arminian thinking. The typical Arminian view is that it is limited free will. But they boast freedom of choice and will all the same.

Only to cals who cannot live without these ungodly labels.

 

[agedman]

Only to cals who cannot live without these ungodly labels.

apparently you did not look at the link that states point by point the major Arminian view.

I didn't assign the label.

But, if the shoe fits...

 

[Yeshua1]

Only to cals who cannot live without these ungodly labels.

IF the labels are just used for the purpose of having convenient ways to allow us to know where others stand in regards to their viewpoints, why is that Ungodly?

 

[Tom Butler]

I have come to the conclusion that I don't mind being labeled at all. Most of them I will wear happily, and will happily clarify if anybody mis-reads them.

When I say that I am a Christian that automatically provides you with some information about me. So that you'll know that I'm not just a cultural Christian (or Christian as opposed to Atheist), I am also a Believer and a Repenter. By the way, that's what Romanian Baptists call themselves--Repenters. If that's not sufficient, I'll be glad to fill in some blanks.

I am a Baptist. I am a Southern Baptist. I am a Calvinist Baptist. I am considering the label BACONIST Baptist invented by Dr. Bob. I am a five-point Calvinist. I am an evangelical Calvinist. Need more info? Just ask.

I am a Historical Pre-millenianalist.

I have Landmark tendencies. That will explain why I hold that the Universal Church is a fantasy.

I am a Creationist and a Young Earther.

I am a Theological Conservative.

I am an Inerrantist.

I don't resent any of those labels. It saves me a lot of time having to explain stuff.