Total Depravity...

Educated at a seminary, stupid, what's the difference? Just kidding...

 

THe snide shot about my not using Scripture aside (as I've used an abundance of it in EVERY other post until this last) THIS is a good direction for the discussion -- at least I hope it is.

Blessings,

JDale

 

Actually, i'm not separating regeneration and faith. I believe that saving faith is a gift from God. We can not have saving faith without being regenerated. I do not put a timeline on this, but rather an order. Do you think that regeneration is a result of an exercise of your will?
The bible says that all that the Father gives to the Son will come to Him.
No, I don't think that one who is regenerated will fail to come to Jesus. They may resist for a time, but ultimately, if they are given to the Son by the Father, they will come.
When one has saving faith they will come to Jesus. Now if you are saying that one can have saving faith without the Lord being the author of it, then I would have to disagree with you. There are none who seek God.
Of course faith is necessary to please God. No argument there.

 

To this I would say regeneration is a result of our faith. Our will is worthless, our faith is what is counted.

 

Where did your faith come from?

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

OUCH! A cheap shot -- but too often well deserved! That's the best laugh I've had today...

Blessings,

JDale

 

The same place my speech, mental capacity, reasoning, and conscience come from.

 

RB:

I actually think this is funny -- if we don't separate faith from regeneration by time, but by order -- yet we both agree that they happen at the SAME time -- is there really a difference? I mean, other than on paper? :laugh:

So the "Ordo Salutis" is where our differences lie? I believe regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit in response to the faith of an individual whom God has convicted of sin, drawn to Himself and enabled to believe through prevenient grace. I hope that explains what I mean.

So, we CAN agree that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. I also affirm that there is none who seeks God (Romans 3), but I do believe that the "drawing" process awakens within man the desire to know more -- I think this is a part of God's prevenient grace to humans.

JDale

 

Actually, the second part implies regeneration, because we cannot hear apart from the word (rhema, as in spoken word) of God.

I hear this preached repeatedly as if it reads, "Faith comes by hearing the (preached) word of God". But that's not what it says. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing [comes by] the utterance of God.

IMO, it's basically saying, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes when and if God says so." I know lots of people won't agree with that interpretation, but it certainly fits with Deut 29.

See? It didn't matter that they saw miracles. They couldn't grasp the truth because God hadn't given them a mind to understand, eyes to see, or ears to hear. Deut 29 doesn't say they failed to grasp the truth because they decided of their own free will not to do so, even though they were capable of deciding to grasp it.

 

Beat me to it!

 

There are two forms of hearing. One is in a saving way..... the other is just accoustic.

 

Ahhh..... ok now I see. You believe in prevenient grace. I understand.. ( I think) where you get that.... but to be sure, would you expound upon that idea? Where does scripture say we have prevenient grace?

 

LOL! Don't forget, let's examine the order of events with prevenient grace. Funny how it will match up perfectly with regeneration.... the only difference is that if you call it prevenient grace, it leaves salvation in the hands of man instead of God. If you call it regeneration, it's irresistable and monergistic.

Prevenient grace: A not-so-clever invention to make sure man gets the credit for making the decision.

 

Come on npe... This is both snide AND a misrepresentation of prevenient grace.

In no way does man get any credit for his salvation. That God enables man to believe is the key. God does not FORCE one to believe. It is not an "invention to make sure man gets the credit..."

Do you think so little of fellow believers who do not hold you view? That is, if you even consider me a "fellow believer." Those who hold to "prevenient grace" did not "invent" it so they could claim "credit" for their own salvation. That's a distorted and unfair characterization of those who hold this view.

JDale

 

Well JDale, I look forward to discussing this further. Tonight is our prayer meeting and bible study. I hope you will enlighten me upon the scriptures that you can exegetically get prevenient grace. I've always wondered about that. Thank you brother. See you after a bit.

 

Hello JDale.


I would like to draw your attention back to post #235 and remind you of the several questions I asked you. Thanks.
I know you responded but there was no answers in post #242.

john.

 

You're mixing the meaning of prevenient grace with my belief of why the concept was invented (I believe it is subconscious intent, but intent neverhtless).

Yes, I consider you a fellow believer. I do not think little of people who hold to the view. I think little of the view itself.

Is it? You didn't invent the doctrine, and I don't know the hearts and minds of those who did. But in my opinion, it is, in fact, rooted in a man-centered attempt at claiming at least SOME of the credit for one's salvation.

How could man NOT assign some credit to himself? If God only enabled man to believe, but man believed of his own free will, then the difference between the saved and the unsaved boils down to man's free-will decision. God may have provided the means, but man is still the hinge and turning point of his own salvation. If that isn't grabbing some of the glory, I don't know what is.

 

I, too, look forward to further discussion RB. I appreciate it -- and I will get back to "prevenient grace" soon. I also have plans and duties for the evening.

Blessings,

JDale