Sotierological Unity?

[skypair]

have a great day

If I hear from the buyer's real estate agent regarding our closing, I will. Pls pray if you are still online.

sky

 

[skypair]

Maybe it would help to define some terms.

Regeneration: That change by which holy affectations and purposes are substituted for the opposite motives in the heart

Exactly! The Spirit of God is already IN you. Do you think this happens before you even believe? Accept and receive Christ???

Fatalism: A submissive mental attitude resulting from acceptance of the doctrine that everything that happens is predetermined and inevitable

That's Calvinism, isn't it? What in your life isn't predetermined and inevitable, npetrely? I would be interested in hearing your response.

Futilism: The attempt to have an intelligent conversation with skypair

Thankfully, this is not the case. Have you read the rest of this thread where I admit that I understand that it is not in man's natural will to choose Christ? I actually can learn and "see" some of your arguments even through your sarcasm and borishness.

skypair

 

[webdog]

No, it's part of how. See that word "by"?

Makes no difference. It's salvation.

 

[David Lamb]

That certainly seems to be the Calvinist error alright --- to make regeneration equal to election. To say that the "elect" have been given the indwelling Spirit sometime prior to hearing the gospel. Some say it is upon their baptism as infants --- some say since conception.

skypair

I am glad you said "seems to be", because no Calvinist I know would equate regeneration or the new birth with election. And nobody who is a baptist, whether Calvinistic or not, would agree that the elect are indwelt by the Holy Spirit upon infant baptism or at conception. Talking of conception, your conception of calvinism seems to be a mistaken one, at least on this point.

 

[skypair]

I am glad you said "seems to be", because no Calvinist I know would equate regeneration or the new birth with election. And nobody who is a baptist, whether Calvinistic or not, would agree that the elect are indwelt by the Holy Spirit upon infant baptism or at conception. Talking of conception, your conception of calvinism seems to be a mistaken one, at least on this point.

Well, since our definitions seem to be contradictory, can you explain exactly how the Spirit is involved in or with an "elect" person prior to even hearing the word or the gospel so that they can hear it?

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

Well, since our definitions seem to be contradictory, can you explain exactly how the Spirit is involved in or with an "elect" person prior to even hearing the word or the gospel so that they can hear it?

skypair

Sorry Skypair, I am not trying to be awkward, but I don't really understand your question. Are you asking how the Holy Spirit brings people under the sound of the gospel? Perhaps (if you have the time to do so) you could explain what you meant. Sorry to be such a nuisance.

 

[skypair]

Sorry Skypair, I am not trying to be awkward, but I don't really understand your question. Are you asking how the Holy Spirit brings people under the sound of the gospel? Perhaps (if you have the time to do so) you could explain what you meant. Sorry to be such a nuisance.

It's no trouble when we are drawing one another into the unity of the knowledge and faith of Christ, bro.

OK, Calvinism has man born with sin guilt and totally depraved. That's everyone, right? Now to my understanding of Calvinism, the Holy Spirit enters into the elect at some point when the elect person is unaware of Him. Is that true? Because this elect person is not just influenced by Him. He is "effecaciously called" or "forcibly drawn" by Him to both hear and to do something he is totally incapable of under his/her own will.

I mean, from my perspective, such a view correlates well with demon possession by which a person is made to do things totally adverse to his present will and even to his survival. Only in the case of the Holy Spirit, it is in the opposite direction -- unto salvation -- of course. This appears to be the picture or model of "regenerated" in which you have a man who has no will nor ability to do what he then does. Is it?

skypair

 

[Amy.G]

It's no trouble when we are drawing one another into the unity of the knowledge and faith of Christ, bro.

OK, Calvinism has man born with sin guilt and totally depraved. That's everyone, right? Now to my understanding of Calvinism, the Holy Spirit enters into the elect at some point when the elect person is unaware of Him. Is that true? Because this elect person is not just influenced by Him. He is "effecaciously called" or "forcibly drawn" by Him to both hear and to do something he is totally incapable of under his/her own will.

I mean, from my perspective, such a view correlates well with demon possession by which a person is made to do things totally adverse to his present will and even to his survival. Only in the case of the Holy Spirit, it is in the opposite direction -- unto salvation -- of course. This appears to be the picture or model of "regenerated" in which you have a man who has no will nor ability to do what he then does. Is it?

skypair

Sky, your posts just get more and more bizzare. Comparing the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to demon possesion in reverse?????

I didn't even know about the Holy Spirit when I was saved. I had to learn about Him through God's word. Does that mean I was possesed against my will?

Your post is beyond ridiculous.:BangHead:

 

[skypair]

Sky, your posts just get more and more bizzare. Comparing the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to demon possesion in reverse?????

I didn't even know about the Holy Spirit when I was saved. I had to learn about Him through God's word. Does that mean I was possesed against my will?

Your post is beyond ridiculous.:BangHead:

First off, Amy, I was trying to compare what I see David as saying even though I know it doesn't work.

Do you know why it doesn't work? Because just like a demon possessing you, you must invite the Holy Spirit in! It works the same whether the spirit is good or evil! With a demon, you have to accept his inticements and then, knowing its evil, desire what he is offering more than life itself!!

That's how salvation works, Amy. You have to submit to the Spirit's drawing. He doesn't do anything more for the so-called "elect" than He would do for the next "Joe Blow" if Joe would listen! if Joe would think!

What I want to impress on you, Amy, is that until you believe and repent (desire Christ more than life itself), you will not be possessed by the Holy Spirit and made to do things you wouldn't "naturally" will to do. Just like the man who is possessed by a demon, you are not a passive, "it's all of God," participant in what is happening to you. You have to "come" to the Spirit/Christ/God like John says.

Does that make it clear where I was going with my line of reasoning (or lack thereof as you first thought :BangHead: )??

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

It's no trouble when we are drawing one another into the unity of the knowledge and faith of Christ, bro.

OK, Calvinism has man born with sin guilt and totally depraved. That's everyone, right? Now to my understanding of Calvinism, the Holy Spirit enters into the elect at some point when the elect person is unaware of Him. Is that true? Because this elect person is not just influenced by Him. He is "effecaciously called" or "forcibly drawn" by Him to both hear and to do something he is totally incapable of under his/her own will.

I mean, from my perspective, such a view correlates well with demon possession by which a person is made to do things totally adverse to his present will and even to his survival. Only in the case of the Holy Spirit, it is in the opposite direction -- unto salvation -- of course. This appears to be the picture or model of "regenerated" in which you have a man who has no will nor ability to do what he then does. Is it?

skypair

Thanks, Skypair. I think I understand what you mean now. I don't think many (if any) Calvinists believe that they were "forcibly drawn", at least not in the sense of being dragged, kicking and screaming, to the Saviour. Rather, we believe that our hearts, including our wills, are changed by God. Rather than "re-invent the wheel", here is how The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, reritten in modern English, puts it, in its chapter on Effectual Calling:

1 AT a time appointed by and acceptable to God, those whom God has predestinated to life are effectually called by His Word and Spirit out of the state of death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. Their minds are given spiritual enlightenment and, as those who are being saved, they begin to understand the things of God. God takes away their heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh. He renews their will, and by His almighty power He sets them to seek and follow that which is good, at the same time effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ. And to all these changes they come most freely, for they are made willing by divine grace.
Deut. 30:6; Ps. 110:3; Song 1:4; Ezek. 36:26,27; Acts 26:18; Rom. 8:30; 11:7; Eph. 1:10,11,17,19; 2:1-6; 2 Thess. 2: 13,14.

2 God's effectual call is the outcome of His free and special grace alone. Until a man is given life, and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is dead in sins and trespasses, so is entirely passive in this work of salvation, a work that does not proceed from anything good foreseen in him, nor from any power or agency resident in him. The power that enables him to answer God's call and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, is no less than that which effected the resurrection of Christ from the dead.
John 5:25; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 1:19,20; 2:5,8; 2 Tim. 1:9.


​

So there doesn't seem to be too much similarity with demon possession. Certainly, when I was saved, I didn't feel that I was beeing forced to do something against my will. My experience was that described in a verse of Charles Wesley's great hymn, "And can it be?":

Long my imprisoned sprit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature's night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.


​

Wesley was not a calvinist, yet he seems to have realised (judging by those words) that it was necessary for God to act before he was free to follow Christ.

I hope that is helpful.

 

[skypair]

Thanks, Skypair. I think I understand what you mean now. I don't think many (if any) Calvinists believe that they were "forcibly drawn", at least not in the sense of being dragged, kicking and screaming, to the Saviour.

I have had many say that "draw" means "drag." But I won't lay that to your blame.

[/quote]Rather, we believe that our hearts, including our wills, are changed by God.[/quote] Yes. Maybe you're not the Calvinist I am after. :laugh:

1 AT a time appointed by and acceptable to God, those whom God has predestinated to life are effectually called by His Word and Spirit out of the state of death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. Their minds are given spiritual enlightenment and, as those who are being saved, they begin to understand the things of God. God takes away their heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh. He renews their will, and by His almighty power He sets them to seek and follow that which is good, at the same time effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ. And to all these changes they come most freely, for they are made willing by divine grace.
Deut. 30:6; Ps. 110:3; Song 1:4; Ezek. 36:26,27; Acts 26:18; Rom. 8:30; 11:7; Eph. 1:10,11,17,19; 2:1-6; 2 Thess. 2: 13,14.​

This part is very confusing to me. I read all the verses so bear with me. "At a time" would seem to be a "moment in time."

"Effectually called" is jargon, I think, for "quickened out of death to life" so that one is able to hear and respond to the gospel. Now the "quickened" part to me means "born again."

"Being saved" to me denotes, not a "moment in time"/"at a time," but over a long period of time. Which is this confession saying? Is being saved a lifetime process or instantaneous?

See, I have heard a Reform preacher speak of salvation as progressive movement toward Christ, but I believe that believers are saved in the instant of repentance, of turning from self to God. Then I would agree, we change and most freely by the Spirit we receive at that "moment in time."

2 God's effectual call is the outcome of His free and special grace alone. Until a man is given life, and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is dead in sins and trespasses, so is entirely passive in this work of salvation, a work that does not proceed from anything good foreseen in him, nor from any power or agency resident in him. The power that enables him to answer God's call and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, is no less than that which effected the resurrection of Christ from the dead.
John 5:25; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 1:19,20; 2:5,8; 2 Tim. 1:9.

Now I do see here the "moment in time." But what I don't see is any perceptible "cause and effect" -- why the "moment in time" occurs when it does. I guess since it is "calling," it happens coicidental with the presentation of the gospel, right? But the heart is already changed beforehand, right?

Wouldn't it just seem that one had to believe before one would be renewed, changed from death to life? Wouldn't being renewed before believing indicate that one is saved before believing?

I love that hymn. I believe God saves us and deserves the glory.

skypair​

 

[npetreley]

I have had many say that "draw" means "drag." But I won't lay that to your blame.

The word is as strong as "drag" but that's not the same thing as "drag kicking and screaming".

 

[skypair]

David,

Here's a post by a "cohort" Calvinist on another thread showing that at least some equate regeneration with rebirth, born again, etc.:

When it comes right down to it, those who are born again simply become the sons of God, Jn 1:13. It just happens. That's it. We have just as much a say in it as we did in our first birth. Repentance and prayer are the fruit of regeneration, not the other way around.

What would you tell this person (Aaron) regarding his post?

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

I have had many say that "draw" means "drag." But I won't lay that to your blame.

I don't disagree with draw=drag, but draw is not the same as "drag kicking and screaming" (by which I meant "drag against the dragged person's will).

Yes. Maybe you're not the Calvinist I am after. :laugh:

This part is very confusing to me. I read all the verses so bear with me. "At a time" would seem to be a "moment in time."

"Effectually called" is jargon, I think, for "quickened out of death to life" so that one is able to hear and respond to the gospel. Now the "quickened" part to me means "born again."

"Being saved" to me denotes, not a "moment in time"/"at a time," but over a long period of time. Which is this confession saying? Is being saved a lifetime process or instantaneous?

See, I have heard a Reform preacher speak of salvation as progressive movement toward Christ, but I believe that believers are saved in the instant of repentance, of turning from self to God. Then I would agree, we change and most freely by the Spirit we receive at that "moment in time."

Now I do see here the "moment in time." But what I don't see is any perceptible "cause and effect" -- why the "moment in time" occurs when it does. I guess since it is "calling," it happens coicidental with the presentation of the gospel, right? But the heart is already changed beforehand, right?

Wouldn't it just seem that one had to believe before one would be renewed, changed from death to life? Wouldn't being renewed before believing indicate that one is saved before believing?

I do see being saved as instantaneous. I cannot find any biblical warrant for believing that there could be a "partial Christian" - the nearest I could think of was Agrippa saying to Paul, "You almost persuade me to become a Christian." (Acts 26.28), but the bible foes not tell us that Agrippa did later become a Christian.

However, sanctification, becoming more and more in actual practice as God would have us be, is indeed a gradual process. (I am ashamed to say that it is all too gradual in my case!)

I love that hymn. I believe God saves us and deserves the glory.
skypair

Praise His wonderful Name!

 

[skypair]

David, npetrely,

OK, if it is not against the person's will, why do you insist it is "drag" and not "draw" (as in "attract")??

Is it perhaps like dragging a dead body? the person has no will?

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

David, npetrely,

OK, if it is not against the person's will, why do you insist it is "drag" and not "draw" (as in "attract")??

Is it perhaps like dragging a dead body? the person has no will?

skypair

I am sure I sent a reply to this, but it has not appeared, so I will try again:


I cannot answer for npetrely, of course, but for myself, I did not 'insist it is "drag" and not "draw"'. I was simply replying to your earlier statement:

I have had many say that "draw" means "drag." But I won't lay that to your blame.

​

I replied:

I don't disagree with draw=drag

​

and added the "condition" that "draw" is not the same as "drag kicking and screaming." I certainly didn't intend that to be insistent, and I apologise if it came over that way.

 

[skypair]

I am sure I sent a reply to this, but it has not appeared, so I will try again:


I cannot answer for npetrely, of course, but for myself, I did not 'insist it is "drag" and not "draw"'. I was simply replying to your earlier statement:

I have had many say that "draw" means "drag." But I won't lay that to your blame.

​

I replied:

I don't disagree with draw=drag

​

and added the "condition" that "draw" is not the same as "drag kicking and screaming." I certainly didn't intend that to be insistent, and I apologise if it came over that way.

I guess I took the "cup is half empty" side of your response, David. :laugh: My bad.

skypair

 

[npetreley]

David, npetrely,

OK, if it is not against the person's will, why do you insist it is "drag" and not "draw" (as in "attract")??

For one thing, it's the same word used in another verse that means "drag into court". When you sue someone, you don't woo them into court with pretty flowers and candy. You drag them there. In this case, it may be against the person's will, but the will of the person being dragged is not described by the word "drag/draw". That's why it's not necessarily "drag kicking and screaming". It's just "drag".