The nature of Quickening

[Winman]

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." -George Bernard Shaw

Well, from my perspective (not that you care about my perspective), a ten page thread where you beg your opponent to concede a single point that it is obvious he is never going to concede is BORING.

Jesus said not to cast your pearls before swine, not because you get dirty, but because the pig will tear you to pieces.



Actually, rolling around in the mud would be far more entertaining than trying to get one of these guys to agree with you.

 

[Skandelon]

They will know us by our love for each other.

 

[Winman]

They will know us by our love for each other.

Oh, I see, you equate disagreement to hatred. They are not the same. I strongly disagree with every Calvinist here at BB over doctrine, but I do not hate any of them. I like them and care for them as we should care for all men.

That said, we are in a real fight for truth, and that means you have to get tough and mix it up.

Acts 9:29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.

Paul didn't hate his enemies, he loved them. But he spoke BOLDLY. This is not a game. That doesn't mean you hate your opponent. If I hated my opponent I would let him continue in what I believe is serious error.

 

[Skandelon]

Oh, I see, you equate disagreement to hatred.

I never said hatred. They will know us by our love, care, kindness, charity for each other. We can disagree without being hateful, mean, unkind, uncharitable.

Be angry but do not sin. Seek unity, but speak truth in love.

 

[Winman]

I never said hatred. They will know us by our love, care, kindness, charity for each other. We can disagree without being hateful, mean, unkind, uncharitable.

Be angry but do not sin. Seek unity, but speak truth in love.

I do not seek unity with false doctrine.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yeah, that's the problem, I'm the confused one.

I said you accused me falsely and the record shows that you have. However, do you apology for out right lying???? No!

 

[The Biblicist]

So it is your view that God has never had any control over the inability of man's fallen nature to respond willingly to his revelation?

You can't respond so you deflect and change the subject. Where do you get this stuff? Not from what I have said! Sure God has ability to take "control over the inability of man's fallen nature to respond willing to his revelation" and it is called regeneration! "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" (Psa. 110:3) "For it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of HIS GOOD PLEASURE" (Philip. 2:13). "Our gospel came NOT to you in WORD ONLY but IN POWER and IN THE SPIRIT and IN MUCH ASSURANCE" (1 Thes. 1:5) and this latter verse is given to know how you can know you are the elect of God (1 Thes. 1:4) and it is not given in ETHNIC TERMS but in SALVATION TERMS = "IN MUCH ASSURANCE."

Is that what you are telling us? God is able to irresistibly change man's nature and thus make them decide otherwise,

You just give ONE SIDE of our position. God's change provides an UNFETTERED WILLINGNESS to repent and believe.

but He is simply not able to enable them to make a decision of their own, right? God is a victim of the nature of sin, just as much as we are, right? He had no control over that? Is that your view?

For one who claims to have been a Calvinist you certainly are completely ignorant of our views. You know very well you are perverting our view by the wording you intentionally use above - you know it or you are ignorant of our views. Which is it?

First, God enables them to make their own decision by freeing them from the bondage of sin (regeneration) as a simeltaneneous action. God is not a victim of the nature of sin but the OVERCOMER/SAVIOR from the nature of sin. He not only can control it but does control it in regard to His elect.

 

[BobRyan]

Hell is a PLACE designed by God for sinners. In hell there are designed degrees of punishment designed for sinners.

God IS light and God IS life and God IS righteous and thus to rebell against God IS darkness and IS death and IS unrighteousness. Hence, no design is necessary for darkness, death and unrighteousness. Death IS separation from God who is LIFE and who is RIGHTEOUSNESS and who is LIGHT and thus such separation results in TOTAL depravity as such a nature is not merely totally void of life, righteousness and light but that very deprivity is in opposition to life, righteousness and light as that is the very nature of sin (rebellion). Therefore, as such, total inability is the natural consequence because that nature is not only totally void of life, righteousness and light but in opposition to life, righteousness and light.

Reread what I have said above carefully several times before responding.

As an Arminian (not just non-cal) I observe that you describe depravity in the total absence of the supernatural "Drawing of ALL mankind unto Me" John 12:32 and in total absence of the supernatural "Convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 12 and in the total absence of the "enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman" Genesis 3 supernaturally placed there by God.

Thus you describe a context that "does not exist" - in the same way that one could claim that if you push an object it keeps going in the direction you push it -- described apart from the context of earth's gravity and air resistance that is everywhere.

Because you describe one universal rule to the exclusion of the other universal factors, you get a result that is never seen in real life.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[prophet]

Quickened = made alive

Jn 5:21-24
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Eph 2:1-7
Chapter 2
1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Passed from death unto life = quickened.

Rev 20:12-15
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened:and another book was opened, which is the book of life:and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them:and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Here we have our "positional" quickening. Our names are passed from the books of the dead, unto the book of life.

Bump. Anyone care to comment?

 

[Winman]

Bump. Anyone care to comment?

I have already commented, I believe before you did. Quickening is actually defined by scripture itself as being forgiven all our trespasses;

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

The wages of sin is DEATH. The reason men are spiritually dead is because they have sinned. Sin causes us to be separated from God (Isa 59:2). To be quickened means to be made spiritually alive again. This can only happen when our sins and trespasses are forgiven, which can only occur AFTER we trust Jesus and are justified. We are justified or forgiven by faith.

I believe your view and mine are basically the same, it means to pass from spiritual death to spiritual life, which only happens when we first believe.

Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

 

[prophet]

Although I agree that our quickening takes place in conjunction with the forgiveness of our sins, the definition of 'quicken' doesnt include 'forgive'.
Quicken, to the Anglish, at one time, meant to take away death. It was the name for the process of becoming immortal. Being made a god. Being made unable to die.

Quickening stands on its own, as the dead receiving life. It fits many scenarios, but always with the same role, it is the transformation process

 

[Skandelon]

You can't respond so you deflect and change the subject. Where do you get this stuff? Not from what I have said! Sure God has ability to take "control over the inability of man's fallen nature to respond willing to his revelation" and it is called regeneration!

READ WHAT I WROTE! I acknowledged that you affirm regeneration in the very next sentence. I asked if you believe that God wasn't ABLE to enable a free response, but that His only option was to MAKE them believe through effectual regeneration. Apparently that is what you believe because you continue to argue that God doesn't have sovereign control over the effects of the fall on the nature of mankind. You seem to argue that God is a victim of the fall and that man's condition of inability to willingly respond to His revelation is beyond His control. The ONLY control God has, according to what you seem to be saying, is to irresistibly regenerated the fallen nature to make them certainly desire to believe and repent. How is that NOT accurate?

You deny that God had control over the nature of man's condition after the fall, which strongly seems to suggest that God couldn't have (even if he wanted to) merely enabled men to freely respond. His only option was to effectually change the nature, correct?

You just give ONE SIDE of our position. God's change provides an UNFETTERED WILLINGNESS to repent and believe.

I never once denied that. I said 'irresistible' didn't I?

For one who claims to have been a Calvinist you certainly are completely ignorant of our views.

Or you don't like them explained in a way that reveals their weaknesses...

I challenge you to quote something that I have written that isn't consistent with some aspect of mainstream Calvinism teaching. BTW, some Calvinists wouldn't take the approach you do by denying God's sovereignty over the condition of man resulting from the fall.

He not only can control it but does control it in regard to His elect.

So, by that admission why couldn't you affirm with me that God COULD, if he so designed, to control the nature of man following the fall and make them enabled to freely respond to his revelation? You have continually argued that the nature of sin (total inability) was not by His design and not within his control, as if He couldn't, even if he wanted to, do anything about the consequences of the fall...except irresistibly regenerate.

 

[The Biblicist]

READ WHAT I WROTE!

You were supposed to be responding to WHAT I WROTE! But instead you deflected and changed the subject.

I acknowledged that you affirm regeneration in the very next sentence.

You word my position in terms you know I don't agree with and then are surprised why I respond negatively! Go figure! You take my position and word it in terms I have repeatedly denied and you think this promotes a discussion????? Or you present your view of my position in an anti-God expression and then claim I must be against God's view. This is nothing but sophistry.

You are a professional debater and that is about the sum of your presence on this forum. Truth is not even in your spectrum. You now argue on the same level as Van and that is sad. I am through with discussing with you because there is clearly no objectivity in your responses but rather trying to paint my position and words in the worst possible way.

 

[Skandelon]

I am through with discussing with you because there is clearly no objectivity in your responses but rather trying to paint my position and words in the worst possible way.

In debate one is called to VET or PRESS their opponents position. Sometimes we do this by asking pressing questions, and those questions are meant to highlight the weakness of the argument being presented. That is the nature of a debate.

If one argues, as you have, that the nature of sin resulting in the condition of total inability is NOT under the control of God, in that He had no say in it, because it was merely an innate, natural 'essence' of sin, he should expect such difficult questions...possibly even from those in his own camp (I can present a few reformed scholar's articles if you'd like to read them who do just that).

If you can't handle the difficult question because you feel they put your view in a negative light, fine, but don't pretend that doesn't go both ways as is evidenced by many of your replies to me and my views. I mean, for goodness sake man, in the other thread you and P4T are ruthlessly painting me as some fool who actually gloats knowing and understanding God all by myself, without his help at all....which is just plain silly.

Why don't you attempt to show some charity and meet me half way instead of attempting to create a monster?

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

Nevertheless, it is still a competition of ideas similar to a sport. And if you are going to persuade folks, you need to use winning technique.

This is why truth eludes you winman....you are trying fleshly"winning"technique...rather than obeying the word from the Spirit as He reveals truth.
:thumbsup:

And I know for a fact that folks listen to me.

:laugh:

Look at Biblicist, or P4T, do they try to be a gentleman and get you to agree with them? NO, they run over you like a steam-roller.

well yes because they stay in the bible he is fighting against it...so it seems like a steam-roller is at work:thumbsup:

I would suggest if you want to survive, you debate in like form. Try it for awhile, you might like it.

:laugh: then again ...maybe not!

 

[Yeshua1]

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

Paul uses an Aorist tense (quickened) and a Perfect tense (saved) verbs to describe regeneration. Both are found in the passive voices which demands that man is the object of the action rather than participating in the action.

The completed action verbs demand it is a PAST tense completed punctillar action that stands complete and is not progressive or incompleted action. We are not "being quickened."

Third, this is an action that counters a past condition "were dead in sins" and this past condition is further explained by Paul in this very same epistle in these words:

Eph. 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

They are "dead IN RESPECT TO sins". The Greek text does not use any preposition ("in") in Ephesians 2:1,5. Instead, it only uses a definite noun that is found in the dative case (within the five case system) and because of the overall context of scripture must be interpreted as a Dative of Reference/Respect. God says in Isaiah 59:1 that sin separates people from God and this separation is precisely what Paul continues to describe the unregenerated state in Ephesians 4:18 "alienated from the life of God" which means they are "dead" due to "darkened" and "blindness" and "ignorance" which are all descriptives of the condition of sin (Jn. 3:19-20).

Quickening is the REVERSAL of this "dead" or being "alienated from the life of God" due to sin. Sin is not described as deeds or actions in Ephesians 4:18 but as a CONDITION or STATE of heart. The heart is the unseen internal man and the SEAT of desire, thoughts and volition. In regard to the mind, the condition is "darkened" and in "ignorance." In regard to the heart or seat of desires, the heart is in "blindness" (lit. hardened, caloused).

Hence, the condition that quickening reverses is a "darkened....ignorance....blinded" state of the heart. Hence, Quickening must be inclusive of LIGHT, KNOWLEGE and SENSIBILITY as the very inherent characteristis of quickening, regeneration or new birth.

This is why Jesus said that eternal life "IS" REVELATION of the true God and HIs Son Jesus Christ - Jn. 17:3. This is why Jesus told Peter that the substance of his confession of faith was not obtained from "flesh and blood" but was REVEALED to Him by the Father. This is why Paul told the Corinthians that salvation is by direct revelation as a creative act of God (2 Cor. 4:6). This is why Paul told the Thessalonians the gospel must not come merely in word only but "in power and in the Spirit and in much assurance."

Human instruments can only bring the gospel TO sinners but God alone can REVEAL it WITHIN sinners. It is this REVELATION within that is regeneration/quickening/new birth. This act of God is limited to only "as many as the Father has given me" - Jn. 17:2-3 and that is precisely why "all that the Father giveth me shall come to me" as the very substance of faith is the content of this direct revelation in the heart by a creative act of God:

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Thus the darkened, ignorant, blinded condition of the depraved heart is transformed by the "command" of God using the gospel that has been brought TO the sinner but within whom only God uses it to speak into existence a new heart and new spirit creating light where darkness, ignorance and hardness had been.

This creative work of God is according to particular redemption as:

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Arminians cannot say this because they beleive ALL who are under the sound of the gospel are EQUALLY called. Here "called' means "quickened" or born again by the creative word of God as it does in Romans 8:29.

the work of the Holy Spirit i to take the truth of the message of the Cross and resurrection of jesus to sinners, and those whom have been prdained to be saved by those described acts, will indeed have the truth of their sins and their need for Him be revealted unto them, and they will be enabled to turn to him and call upon the name of the Lord and get saved!

Nessage preached to all, ONLY those to get saved by it though are enabled by him to do such!

 

[The Biblicist]

In debate one is called to VET or PRESS their opponents position. Sometimes we do this by asking pressing questions, and those questions are meant to highlight the weakness of the argument being presented. That is the nature of a debate.

Pointing out the weakness of an argument or position is one thing, but claiming that a position is restricted to one of two alternative options completely manufactured is quite another.

If one argues, as you have, that the nature of sin resulting in the condition of total inability is NOT under the control of God, in that He had no say in it, because it was merely an innate, natural 'essence' of sin, he should expect such difficult questions...possibly even from those in his own camp (I can present a few reformed scholar's articles if you'd like to read them who do just that).

The Sovereignty of God over all things I have never denied. I have qualified it by permissive will in regard to evil and will of delight in regard to righteous means and goals.

However, we are talking about DESIGN but there are CONSEQUENCES that operate not due to DESIGN but due to the NATURE of God's very UNDESIGNED BEING.

For example, God IS righteous and God IS life and God IS light and there are consequences that operate naturally without design in relationship to the Being of God and dependent beings created by God.

For example, created beings by NATURE are dependent upon God as the only source of life, light and righteousness. Death IS separation from the dependency upon God as LIFE, LIGHT and RIGHTEOUSNESS. Death is not DESIGNED by God but is merely the ABSENCE of God.

Rebellion against the revealed will of God is the necessary permitted alternative in the creation of free will. Rebellion is rejection of dependency upon God and thus separation from dependency upon God which has NATURAL consequences none of which need to be designed but are NATURAL consequences that follow dependency from God and violation of His righteousness.


\

 

[Skandelon]

Pointing out the weakness of an argument or position is one thing, but claiming that a position is restricted to one of two alternative options completely manufactured is quite another.

You can just call it a false dichotomy and present the correct alternative. Sometimes it appears that one perspective as just two alternatives and that often becomes evident when that so-called 3rd alternative is proven to say virtually the exact same thing as one of the alternatives presented. Listen, almost any perspective has a 'nice way' and a 'negative way' to be expressed. Calvinism, even by the admission of many Calvinists, is a hard pill to swallow...ESPECIALLY when the raw hard truth of it is laid right out there without any decorative language and long vague theological jargon.

i.e. "Particular redemption is God gracious atoning work for those He eternally loves."

vs.

"Limited atonement is the dogma that teaches God only savingly loves a preselected few and atones for their sins alone leaving the rest of humanity without hope of salvation."

Both statements virtually communicate the same truth, but one does so in a 'nice' manner and other in a 'realistic' raw manner, which reveals the negative side of the doctrine. It doesn't make it untrue.

 

[The Biblicist]

i.e. "Particular redemption is God gracious atoning work for those He eternally loves."

vs.

"Limited atonement is the dogma that teaches God only savingly loves a preselected few and atones for their sins alone leaving the rest of humanity without hope of salvation."

Both statements virtually communicate the same truth, but one does so in a 'nice' manner and other in a 'realistic' raw manner, which reveals the negative side of the doctrine. It doesn't make it untrue.

The latter definition excludes Biblical teaching that is necessary to understand in order to treat it correctly and therefore the latter defintion is factually in error.

The Love of God covers more terrority in a Biblical sense then redemption. It may be correct to say that God's redemptive love actually delivers all objects of that love from sin and its consequences and therefore is true redemptive love. There are those whom God loves and which that love is made manifest in diverse ways but excludes personal redemption from sin. Thus it is inaccurate to claim that God only loves the elect and hates the non-elect unless we are speaking specifically of redemptive love alone.

From a negative perspective it is perfectly just for God to judicially hate/condemn all human beings and thus none can demand the love of God or mercy. Thus God's hatred of the non-elect is perfectly JUST.

The real question is; "Can God love human beings that he will not redeem?" Arminianism says no while scriptures claim he does love men that he does not redeem.

 

[Benjamin]

You can just call it a false dichotomy and present the correct alternative. Sometimes it appears that one perspective as just two alternatives and that often becomes evident when that so-called 3rd alternative is proven to say virtually the exact same thing as one of the alternatives presented. Listen, almost any perspective has a 'nice way' and a 'negative way' to be expressed. Calvinism, even by the admission of many Calvinists, is a hard pill to swallow...ESPECIALLY when the raw hard truth of it is laid right out there without any decorative language and long vague theological jargon.

i.e. (A) "Particular redemption is God gracious atoning work for those He eternally loves."

vs.

(B) "Limited atonement is the dogma that teaches God only savingly loves a preselected few and atones for their sins alone leaving the rest of humanity without hope of salvation."

Both statements virtually communicate the same truth, but one does so in a 'nice' manner and other in a 'realistic' raw manner, which reveals the negative side of the doctrine. It doesn't make it untrue.

Good points. To put it another way, I’d add conclusions are often communicated either euphemistically or dysphemistically which amount to little more than rhetoric regarding the logical truth toward reaching the conclusion.

What stands out to me in Skan’s examples are that:

(A) amounts to a purposefully vague euphemistic “half-truth” which is presenting a claim.

(B) dysphemistically defines the method of the claim (“dogmatic teaching”) and addresses the consequences of that premise while drawing a conclusion upon it which presents a moral dilemma (“negative side”) concerning it or adds some transparency to the vague euphemistic dogma which was presented.

What I see being objected to and avoided by Skan’s opponents is simply his being more complete in defining their positions and exposing the half-truths which are being dogmatically presenting.

Since the purpose of debate should be drawing out the truth in an argument and this begins by examining and defining the terms (claims and issues) it seems to me Skan is on the right path which is to draw conclusions. It is obvious as I watch him time and again have to defend himself from those trying to turn the argument into a personal slugfest rather than allowing him to establish the premises in an argument/debate which can then be shown to come to logically true conclusions who it is that has the proper and ethical objectives in this debate. His opponents constantly squawk about his efforts to “restrict” their claims to their logically true conclusions while he is merely trying to prevent them from question begging on these same issues later- holding them to their logically true (and detrimental) conclusions.

The Determinists typically resort to euphemisms, ambiguity, double speak and phrases like “redemptive love” to smokescreen such issues of either/or Love divinely brought through in creation for all of God’s creatures as per His Omnibenevolent nature.

The problem with Determinists trying to argue while avoiding being pinned down on where their doctrines logically lead is summed up quite nicely by the words of Adrian Rogers:

“If you take part of the truth, and try to make that part of the truth, all of the truth, then that part of the truth becomes an untruth.” ~ Adrian Rogers