The Knowledge of God

[convicted1]

This is very correct, great point:thumbs:

Well, Brother, I have read on here that someone can be regenerated(new birth, new life consecrated unto God) for years, and still not be saved. I have yet to find any verses to back this claim.

 

[convicted1]

Greek word for "consecrated": ἐγκαινίζω G1457 egkainizō


1) to renew

2) to do anew, again

3) to initiate, consecrate, dedication


You can not have a consecrated life unto God without being born again/born from above.

 

[convicted1]

1 Cor. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

I think this verse shows that you get this in"one lump sum"....or at least that is how I see it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There are two sides of ORBs Bro. EW&F. I am in the side that holds to FW. The Sovereign Grace Assoc., Bethel Assoc. and Original Mountain Liberty Assoc. are three that are on the other side. There could be a few more, but these are the only ones I know that are on the other side of this debate.

Are these new or break away churches? Im trying to invite PB's to start a church plant in New Jersey but their initiatives are to reestablish themselves in NYC. It is my contention that people are more transient (more apt to be here today& gone tomorrow in Manhattan) & that they should concentrate in suburbs like NJ, LI & Upstate NY where people live & commute. I believe their not focusing properly

 

[Luke2427]

The word regeneration only occurs oncein the Bible,

The word occurs twice- again in Matthew 19:28.

The concept is throughout the New Testament- so how often the word occurs is irrelevant.
No reputable theologian of any stripe argues otherwise.

in Titus 3:5. The verse says:

“But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:4-5, ESV)

Yes. I preached on this passage Sunday. This regeneration here precedes faith as I have already proven above.

As this is the only Biblical usage of the word, any theory which puts regeneration before salvation, and thus, before faith (which is the condition of salvation), is operating from an un-Biblical definition.

That's non-sequitur. Try that flawed logic as you reason out the Trinity.

Titus makes it perfectly clear, and Spurgeon got it right: salvation and regeneration cannot be separated, and a man, being regenerated, is saved already.

They cannot be separated any more than Salvation and the hearing of the Gospel can be separated. But the latter precedes the former.

Whether or not they can be separated is irrelevant and straw man. No one is trying to separate them. The word "separate" cannot be separated if it is to remain the word "separate". But that doesn't change the fact that the "s" precedes the "t" in this word "separate" which cannot be separated.

Spurgeon is often misunderstood here. Spurgeon believed and stated in no uncertain terms that regeneration must precede faith.

He said:

To believe in Jesus is a better indicator of regeneration than anything else, and in no case did it ever mislead. Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate.

As salvation and regeneration cannot be separated, the Calvinist will have to show from the Scriptures where anyone is said to have been regenerated/born again before they exercised repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. What saith the Scriptures? Does regeneration precede faith, or does faith precede regeneration?

The Calvinist does not have to do this any more than one has to show from the Scripture God saving a China-man in order to prove that God can save the Chinese. The Bible TELLS US HE CAN AND WILL. It doesn't have to give us "demonstrations" of this.

Neither does the Bible have to provide some detailed EXAMPLE of regeneration preceding faith. It TELLS US THAT REGENERATION PRECEDES FAITH. That is enough.

There are some demonstrations of this in the NT, btw. But there is no need to show you. The BIBLE TELLS US THIS IS HOW GOD SAVES SINNERS. That is all we need. We don't need some kind of demonstration.

“And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.’” (Mark 16:15-16, ESV)

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” (John 1:12, ESV)

“[T]hat whoever believes in him may have eternal life. ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.’” (John 3:15-16, ESV)

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36, ESV)

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” (John 5:24, ESV)

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40, ESV)

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 6:51, ESV)

“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day … As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.’” (John 6:53-54, 57, ESV)

“Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.’” (John 11:25, ESV)

“ut these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31, ESV)

“Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13:38-39, ESV)

“And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’” (Acts 16:31, ESV)

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16, ESV)

“ecause, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” (Romans 10:9-10, ESV)

“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” (1 Cor. 1:21, ESV)

“And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Heb. 11:6, ESV)

In each of these cases, faith clearly precedes salvation/regeneration/the new life in Christ. But as being regenerated or born again involves the reception of the Holy Spirit, the question must be asked: Does the Holy Spirit quicken the spiritually dead before or after they believe? Again, the Scriptures are clear:

“Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:38-39, ESV)

“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38, ESV)

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us–for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’– so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.” (Gal. 3:13-14, ESV)

“And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Gal. 4:6, ESV)

“In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” (Eph. 1:13-14, ESV)

As these Scriptures make perfectly clear, receiving the Holy Spirit comes after belief.

I can copy and paste Scriptures too. Unless you are going to do some exposition or at least some highlighting of certain phraseology I cannot see the point in just putting verses up at random.

Show us HOW these verses support your viewpoint.

 

[convicted1]

Are these new or break away churches? Im trying to invite PB's to start a church plant in New Jersey but their initiatives are to reestablish themselves in NYC. It is my contention that people are more transient (more apt to be here today& gone tomorrow in Manhattan) & that they should concentrate in suburbs like NJ, LI & Upstate NY where people live & commute. I believe their not focusing properly

Well, the SGA came about from a split in the Northern New Salem ORB split back in the 1990's. The Bethel came about from a Split in the Union Assoc of ORBs in 1961(?). The Original Mt. Liberty, I don't know how they were formed. The SGA has two churches in central Ky., and two in Ohio. The Bethel and OML are located in Va. The SGA has had a "working arrangement" with the Northwestern Asso. of PBs, and I think they still preach/worship together.

 

[Luke2427]

Greek word for "consecrated": ἐγκαινίζω G1457 egkainizō


1) to renew

2) to do anew, again

3) to initiate, consecrate, dedication


You can not have a consecrated life unto God without being born again/born from above.

Agreed. That is my point.

You keep getting "born again" and "born from above" wrong because you think it is a synonym of salvation.

It is a part of the process of salvation.

I gave you some verses earlier that prove that you must be born again before you can be saved.

You have not addressed them.

 

[Luke2427]

1 Cor. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

I think this verse shows that you get this in"one lump sum"....or at least that is how I see it.

No it does not. It says no such thing.

No more than if I said, "You are fed, you are washed, you are clothed in your pajamas and you are resting" means that it all happened at once. No these things happened in a sequence.

It is a little silly to say that that verse even slightly ADDRESS the idea that all of these things had to happen at once, isn't it?

 

[quantumfaith]

The word occurs twice- again in Matthew 19:28.

The concept is throughout the New Testament- so how often the word occurs is irrelevant.
No reputable theologian of any stripe argues otherwise.




Yes. I preached on this passage Sunday. This regeneration here precedes faith as I have already proven above.



That's non-sequitur. Try that flawed logic as you reason out the Trinity.



They cannot be separated any more than Salvation and the hearing of the Gospel can be separated. But the latter precedes the former.

Whether or not they can be separated is irrelevant and straw man. No one is trying to separate them. The word "separate" cannot be separated if it is to remain the word "separate". But that doesn't change the fact that the "s" precedes the "t" in this word "separate" which cannot be separated.

Spurgeon is often misunderstood here. Spurgeon believed and stated in no uncertain terms that regeneration must precede faith.

He said:







The Calvinist does not have to do this any more than one has to show from the Scripture God saving a China-man in order to prove that God can save the Chinese. The Bible TELLS US HE CAN AND WILL. It doesn't have to give us "demonstrations" of this.

Neither does the Bible have to provide some detailed EXAMPLE of regeneration preceding faith. It TELLS US THAT REGENERATION PRECEDES FAITH. That is enough.

There are some demonstrations of this in the NT, btw. But there is no need to show you. The BIBLE TELLS US THIS IS HOW GOD SAVES SINNERS. That is all we need. We don't need some kind of demonstration.



I can copy and paste Scriptures too. Unless you are going to do some exposition or at least some highlighting of certain phraseology I cannot see the point in just putting verses up at random.

Show us HOW these verses support your viewpoint.

I accept your correction on the "number" of instances of palengenesia. However, the usage in Matthew in "salvation" in nature but rather the "renewal" of all things. Titus is specifically related to the salvation of men.

 

[Skandelon]

it CANNOT know God because God is spiritually discerned.

The problem is that Paul clearly states in Romans 1 that those who "traded the truth in for a lie" did "know God." The problem is that many attempt to redefine the terms.

Some say man can "understand" but not really "understand." Or that man can "know" but not really "know," but the bible really never makes this distinction. The point Paul seems to be making is that people understand and know enough to be accountable and thus capable to respond. This is why he says they are "without excuse." To go back and say they can't really understand and know to the point of responding positively to that truth undercuts that message and gives those who "trade in the truth for a lie" a perfect excuse.

Either they know and understand and clearly see the eternal nature and divine attributes or they don't. To say they can in one since, but really they can't is an unfounded claim and a conclusion that only undermines the clear intent of the original message, which is that men are RESPONSE-ABLE and thus "without excuse."

 

[preacher4truth]

Abram was chosen by God in Genesis 12. He was safe, God would do all His Promises through him, and would not fail. I believe Abram saved right here.

Not until 15 does God declare him righteous. This is justification.

We see the same process of prevenient Grace, regeneration, and justification in Abram/Abraham.

He was saved the entire time.

As a matter of fact, he was so before having ever been born.


- Peace

 

[quantumfaith]

Abram was chosen by God in Genesis 12. He was safe, God would do all His Promises through him, and would not fail. I believe Abram saved right here.

Not until 15 does God declare him righteous. This is justification.

We see the same process of prevenient Grace, regeneration, and justification in Abram/Abraham.

He was saved the entire time.

As a matter of fact, he was so before having ever been born.


- Peace

PFT, was Abram (Abraham) not justified when he was "saved', what makes you say that he was "saved" in 12 but was not justified until 15. This is not clear to me. I am with you on the prevenient grace thing, but confused as to the "lag" between salvation and justification.

 

[preacher4truth]

PFT, was Abram (Abraham) not justified when he was "saved', what makes you say that he was "saved" in 12 but was not justified until 15. This is not clear to me. I am with you on the prevenient grace thing, but confused as to the "lag" between salvation and justification.

I understand what you're saying. When did God promise all would be given to Abraham, (Actually "Abram") that he would be the Father of many nations? In Genesis 12 (his calling) or in 15 (his justification/delared righteous)? I say justification because NT theology teeaches we are justified by faith, but, we are saved by Grace. Thus I say Abram was saved by Grace. God chose him. Those saved by Grace will live by faith, it's the product of His Redeemed.

Rom 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Although we do not recognize it until salvation, we are already safe in these things, because God has ordained it thus. This one reason we stand in awe of God, as like "why me, I am a sinner?" But since He has promised, all of those things in Romans 8:30 are already considered finalized by the Godhead. Nothing can stop this nor thwart this.

Abram was saved and safe by prevenient Grace, and justified by God in all actuality, because only God can do this, thus He declared him righteous, Genesis 15:6. I don't personally believe he just became righteous at that moment, but that God had already done so, and this is then making him aware of his standing with God, a work that God had done in the past, the gift of grace growing into the gift of faith. He was chosen in 12, so he was under grace at that point.

Note also the example of Paul, in Galatians 1:17. He was safe, even from his mothers womb, to be elect, and to preach the Gospel, as God had also chose him.

- Peace

 

[quantumfaith]

I understand what you're saying. When did God promise all would be given to Abraham, (Actually "Abram") that he would be the Father of many nations? In Genesis 12 (his calling) or in 15 (his justification/delared righteous)? I say justification because NT theology teeaches we are justified by faith, but, we are saved by Grace. Thus I say Abram was saved by Grace. God chose him. Those saved by Grace will live by faith, it's the product of His Redeemed.

Rom 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Although we do not recognize it until salvation, we are already safe in these things, because God has ordained it thus. This one reason we stand in awe of God, as like "why me, I am a sinner?" But since He has promised, all of those things in Romans 8:30 are already considered finalized by the Godhead. Nothing can stop this nor thwart this.

Abram was saved and safe by prevenient Grace, and justified by God in all actuality, because only God can do this, thus He declared him righteous, Genesis 15:6. I don't personally believe he just became righteous at that moment, but that God had already done so, and this is then making him aware of his standing with God, a work that God had done in the past, the gift of grace growing into the gift of faith. He was chosen in 12, so he was under grace at that point.

Note also the example of Paul, in Galatians 1:17. He was safe, even from his mothers womb, to be elect, and to preach the Gospel, as God had also chose him.

- Peace

Believe it or not we actually agree, I was just curious if there was (in your eyes) a distinction between salvation and justification. I have always 'held" that these are the same thing (approximately) being that salvation is a bigger and broader term, but that when one is saved, a direct implication is that they are right then "justified" in God's eyes.

 

[JesusFan]

Who is "God"?
What is the object of your faith?
The object of my faith is the Lord Jesus Christ and his atoning work on the cross and therefore I am saved.

The object of much of my family's belief is Christ as presented by the RCC and their baptism. Therefore they are not saved.

What is the object of your faith?

Actually its BOTh WHO is the object of your faith, Jesus Christ, and what "kind" of Faith in Him?

Spiritually dead man has head faith mentally assenting to "facts" of Gospel, but cannot commit spirtually, as has no spirit alive in him

Spirtually alive man can and does place "geart" faith in jesus and gets saved!

 

[Luke2427]

The problem is that Paul clearly states in Romans 1 that those who "traded the truth in for a lie" did "know God." The problem is that many attempt to redefine the terms.

Some say man can "understand" but not really "understand." Or that man can "know" but not really "know," but the bible really never makes this distinction. The point Paul seems to be making is that people understand and know enough to be accountable and thus capable to respond. This is why he says they are "without excuse." To go back and say they can't really understand and know to the point of responding positively to that truth undercuts that message and gives those who "trade in the truth for a lie" a perfect excuse.

Either they know and understand and clearly see the eternal nature and divine attributes or they don't. To say they can in one since, but really they can't is an unfounded claim and a conclusion that only undermines the clear intent of the original message, which is that men are RESPONSE-ABLE and thus "without excuse."

They did not know him salvifically unless you want to argue that they lost their salvation. You being an Arminian, you may. If you do, I have a retort.

The Bible doesn't have to make a distintion, though it does, for us to know that there is one. We know this because the word KNOW means so many different things in every language and in every culture. All we need is a reference where the word means something salvifically and another where it does not.

We have an abundance of such references.

The natural mind can know that God exists just as I know you exist.
The natural mind can know God just like I know you.
But there is a real sense in which I don't REALLY know you, isn't there? I don't know you well enough to trust you. For example I would not let my children spend a week with you in the mountains. Not because I think you are a bad person but because I do not REALLY know you.

You cannot trust someone who you do not know.

But if somebody said, "Do you know that Skandelon guy on baptistboard?" I'd rightly say, "Yes."

There is a context in which I know you and there is a context in which I do not know you.

This is clearly the case in the Scripture.

Context is king.

Since you cannot trust someone who you do not know then the person who does not know God cannot trust him with his eternal soul.
He can know him in a way that he cannot trust him and he can know him in a way that causes him to trust him. Both are real and clear in Scripture.

OBVIOUSLY there is a distinction.

 

[Skandelon]

They did not know him salvifically unless you want to argue that they lost their salvation. You being an Arminian, you may. If you do, I have a retort.

No, I don't believe they were saved, just that they had the knowledge necessary for salvation. You can't trade the truth in for a lie unless you first have the truth.

The Bible doesn't have to make a distintion, though it does, for us to know that there is one. We know this because the word KNOW means so many different things in every language and in every culture. All we need is a reference where the word means something salvifically and another where it does not.

Did you know you wife before you got married? Sure you did. Did you know her in the same manner you know her now? Of course not.

There is a difference obviously but they are both still "knowledge." You knew her before and you knew her after you made the commitment. Same seems to be true with God. Paul's point seems to be to show that the people KNEW what needed to be known in order for them to acknowledge and commit to following God.

So, I'm not taking an issue that there is a distinction. I'm taking issue with the concept that lost people can't know God, because they can. They just grow to know him better after they are saved.

 

[DHK]

Actually its BOTh WHO is the object of your faith, Jesus Christ, and what "kind" of Faith in Him?

Spiritually dead man has head faith mentally assenting to "facts" of Gospel, but cannot commit spirtually, as has no spirit alive in him

Spirtually alive man can and does place "geart" faith in jesus and gets saved!

I don't equate mental assent with faith.

 

[convicted1]

I John 5:1 says, "Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God..."

Correct. Whoever believes, "believe" being the qualifier, has been born of God. Belief here is prior to being born of God. Sure sounds like a "new birth" here, Brother Luke. Belief is "faith" put into action. So, faith does precede the "new birth". I knew you was coming around. Good job, Brother. Just playing with you...please don't take this as me being a smart aleck.

Now, go on a little further and see what it says:

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

Our faith is what overcomes the world. Our faith in Him, rather, but it shows that faith precedes regeneration and/or salvation. So, it is faith and then salvation/regeneration.

 

[Luke2427]

No, I don't believe they were saved, just that they had the knowledge necessary for salvation. You can't trade the truth in for a lie unless you first have the truth.

I have the truth about you but I don't have enough truth to TRUST you.

That those in Romans 1 had the truth about God is NOT up for debate. That they knew God is not up for debate.

That they did not know God in a way that caused them to trust God is inarguable.

This kind of knowledge does not come to the natural man. The Bible could not be clearer.

Did you know you wife before you got married? Sure you did. Did you know her in the same manner you know her now? Of course not.

And???

There was a point at which I knew her- but only a little. Not enough to MARRY her. But there came a point at which I knew her enough to trust her. When I did I committed my life to her.

Two different types of knowledge. One which is a vague familiarity and one that engenders total trust.

It is time for you to yield. Be a big man. You KNOW you are wrong here.

There is a difference obviously but they are both still "knowledge." You knew her before and you knew her after you made the commitment. Same seems to be true with God. Paul's point seems to be to show that the people KNEW what needed to be known in order for them to acknowledge and commit to following God.

I've answered this above.

So, I'm not taking an issue that there is a distinction. I'm taking issue with the concept that lost people can't know God, because they can.

Only in a sense which is not sufficient for salvation.

There are things about God that the unregenerate can know.

But the things about God which are required knowledge in order to be able to trust him (faith) are obviously not available.

These spiritual things the natural man cannot receive. Period.

They just grow to know him better after they are saved.

Sure. But only AFTER that period when they were regenerated BEFORE they were saved so that they could receive the knowledge necessary to be ABLE to trust him.