What Side Of The Fence Are You?

[Dr. Walter]

I thought that I was dealing with the passage in Isaiah 6? It is quoted several times in the New Testament.

I thought I explained Person A becoming B through rejection of the light given them? I called Person B "lower wisdom." Lower wisdom has the NATURAL faculties of hearing, seeing and perceiving. Lower wisdom is totally depraved = without supernatural Higher wisdom in all of these human faculties AND naturally self-centered in opposition/enmity toward God.

As light of conscience, light of nature and light of the gospel shine upon Lower wisdom, Lower wisdom reacts as described by Jesus:

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.


The immediate reaction of Lower wisdom is to hate the light because they love darkness and therefore they refuse to come to the light. If you increase the exposure of the light their rejection and resistance increase and it is this increase that is described as hardening.
Jesus describes the natural reaction of lower wisdom (natural man) to even the greatest light - Jesus Christ.

The more Lower wisdom was exposed to Jesus in the gospel accounts the more they hardened in their initial rejection and resistance of Christ. The Jews are no different than any other ethnic Lower wisdom natural man. Initial exposure produces resistance and rejection because they love darkness and hate light and the more they are exposed to the light the more they harden in that rejection and resistance.

Hence, nothing prevents them from loving and coming to the light but their own natural hatred expressed in their choice to resist and reject.

Now, God can save the most hardened lower wisdom. Take the case of Saul of Tarsus. He stood and held the coats of those who killed stephen and must have heard the gospel from Stephen. It produced a more hardened resistance in Saul as manifested in greater hatred in seeking out Christians, persecuting and jailing and even killing them.

However, on the road to Damascus lower wisdom Saul had an INTERNAL revelation where HIGHER WISDOM was imparted to Saul. Saul, later called Paul explained this difference in the terms of revelation and birth:

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me,

Note that neither the births or the revelation was due to Sauls' will or choice but to God's will or choice "WHEN IT PLEASED GOD."

Note that Saul was completely passive in both births and revelation or "ME" was the object not the subject in all of these actions - "WHO SEPARATED ME....CALLED ME....TO REVEAL HIS SON IN ME"

This revelation of Christ INSIDE Paul is further explained by Paul in 2 Cor. 4:6 to be a creative act of God producing LIGHT inside of Paul. This is not the light of conscience he already had. This is not the light of nature which he already saw. This is not the light of the gospel which he had already heard countless times when making Christians repudiate their testimonies.

This LIGHT was created IN Paul by God without Paul's aide, cooperation or consent. God spoke it into existence just as he spoke light into existence in Genesis 1:2-3.

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.

This new created INTERNAL light is called "knowledge" or UPPER WISDOM that does not come naturally by first birth but supernaturally in second birth. It is this created LIGHT that overrules resistance, rejection by providing a new willing heart:

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

This new heart and new spirit given by God will CAUSE YOU to walk in my statuates or MAKE YOU WILLING to walk in my statues. Just as the old nature freely chose to resist and reject all light it was exposed to the new nature freely chooses to receive and submit the light God creates within the person CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS. God gives him a NEW WANT TO.

Now, I have explained how person B who is not yet hardened to light becomes hardened to light and that is simply by more exposure to light just as clay becomes harder with more exposure to sun light. I have explained how the hardened sinner undergoes a CREATIVE ACT by God that transforms his nature (a new heart and a new spirit) thus changing his nature from clay to butter and the same sunlight that hardened the clay melts the butter.

When does this transformation occur? "WHEN IT PLEASED GOD." How did it occur - "WHO CALLED ME......REVEAL HIS SON IN ME" as a CREATIVE ACT OF GOD.

Now all the elect have been chosen by God from the beginning to this kind of salvation BY separation (sanctification) of the Spirit an belief of the truth (2 Thes. 2:13).

The non-elect have simply been left to their own LOWER WISDOM and FREE CHOICE to continue to manifest their hatred of the light and justly occur judgement for resisting, rejecting and hating the light.

You can know if you are God's elect when the gospel comes in this creative power of the Holy Spirit separating you to repentance and faith in the gospel rather the gospel coming in "word only" (1 Thes. 1:4-5).

Dr. Walter, I couldn't help but notice that once again you failed to deal with the biblical support I presented. While I appreciate you introducing another text it really doesn't address the text already presented.



So, explain what that means practically. You have person A who is born Totally Depraved but who is just now for the first time hearing the gospel message. Then you have person B who has "become hardened" over a period of rebellion against God's revelations.

What is the difference in the ability or nature of person A and person B? In other words, what CAN person A do that person B now cannot do because of his hardened state? You have not addressed that point as far as I can tell.



You presume that those "it is given unto" are the elect ones and those it is not given to are the non-elect reprobates who never have hope of salvation, but consider the alternative. Could it be that Christ had only selected a remnant from Israel to reveal himself to while here on earth; all the while hardening the rest of Israel in their rebellion? Could he be doing this to accomplish redemption for them all? They wouldn't crucify a man they believe in, so doesn't it make sense that God might blind them or keep them in the dark about the truth so as to accomplish the crucifixion through their rebellion? Isn't that what scripture actually teaches?




Why would you need to hide the truth in parables if they are born Total Depraved? If they are unable to spiritually discern the gospel truth apart from the effectual work of the Holy Spirit then why would He need to speak in parables in order to keep them from believing?

The truth is that Christ is temporarily hardening Israel in their rebellion to accomplish redemption through them and once he is lifted up he will send the gospel into all the world and draw all men to himself. Until the veil is ripped the eyes of Israel remain in darkness...with the exception of the remnant first fruits of Israel who were selected out of Israel to take the message to the world.

 

[Humblesmith]

Webdog, that is very clearly synergistic. My point here is that the options laid out in the OP are clear, concise, and easily applicable to both camps, i.e., free willers and sovereign gracers. That's all.

My argueing days on this topic are about over. As far as I'm concerned it is an excercise in futility. The fact is we have a lot more in common in our Lord than not.

You are correct in that your original intent was clear enough. And you are also correct that we have a lot more in common than not. Thank the Lord for that, and I think this is a greater point than all the disagreements.

My reason for making the distinction was due to the amount of hair-splitting that always goes on about these topics we have to be precise in our language. The original statement was whether we "cooperate with regeneration" (or similar). Technically, we don't cooperate with a miracle of God, as if we could help Him regenerate us. We cannot, and He needs no help in His work of regeneration.

A separate issue altogether is who gets regenerated. I believe scripture teaches our will plays a role. While there are some cases in the Bible of apparent unilateral action by God apart from the will (Paul in Acts 9) the more common approach that God takes is one of not regenerating the ones who refuse to be regenerated (as in Matt. 23:37, plus all the commands to repent). If that makes me synergistic, then I'm synergistic.

My hope is that those of us who disagree on these issues can cooperate in the larger, more important task of introducing the word of God to those who need it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are correct in that your original intent was clear enough. And you are also correct that we have a lot more in common than not. Thank the Lord for that, and I think this is a greater point than all the disagreements.

My reason for making the distinction was due to the amount of hair-splitting that always goes on about these topics we have to be precise in our language. The original statement was whether we "cooperate with regeneration" (or similar). Technically, we don't cooperate with a miracle of God, as if we could help Him regenerate us. We cannot, and He needs no help in His work of regeneration.

A separate issue altogether is who gets regenerated. I believe scripture teaches our will plays a role. While there are some cases in the Bible of apparent unilateral action by God apart from the will (Paul in Acts 9) the more common approach that God takes is one of not regenerating the ones who refuse to be regenerated (as in Matt. 23:37, plus all the commands to repent). If that makes me synergistic, then I'm synergistic.

My hope is that those of us who disagree on these issues can cooperate in the larger, more important task of introducing the word of God to those who need it.

The human will plays no part whatsoever in regeneration. Indeed the human will never entertains the thought of willing to be regenerated. The New Testament denies that the human will plays any role in regeneration whatosever (Jn. 1:13).

The human will does play a role in adoption or legal sonship (Jn. 1:12). When we receive Christ by faith we are justified and adopted as "sons" or legal heirs to eternal life.

John 1:12 uses the legal term "exousia" or "authority" translated "power" in reference to being made adopted children as in 1 John 3:1. This is talking about our POSITION not our NATURE. Verse 12 explains how we became children of God by NATURE and that was wholly apart from our will:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power [exousia] to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Notice the inclusion of the human will in verse 12 but the exclusion of it in verse 13. The former deals with our POSITION after new birth while the latter deals with our NATURE in new birth.

Regeneration precedes adoption, spiritual life precedes legal life, birth as children of God precedes sonship as legal heirs of eternal life. We are first born into the family of God before we can be legal heirs of God. The first has to do with birth while the latter has to do with legal position. Birth logically precedes adoption just as it does in real life. You cannot be an heir to an estate unless you are first born into that family.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm monergism before regeneration. After it I'm synergistic? Whats that called?

 

[kyredneck]

I'm monergism before regeneration. After it I'm synergistic? Whats that called?

Old School

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm monergism before regeneration. After it I'm synergistic? Whats that called?

That is called "Biblical."

 

[webdog]

That is called "Biblical."

...if you hold to regeneration preceding faith, that is not biblical.

 

[Dr. Walter]

...if you hold to regeneration preceding faith, that is not biblical.

I John 5:1 has the Greek Aorist tense term translated "born" while having the Greek present tense participle translated "believeth." That my friend is grammatical evidence that birth precedes faith at least logically.

Birth produces faith just as birth produces love (I Jn. 4:7) and birth produces good works (1 Jn 2:29). In each of these cases the same identical grammatical structure is found - the aorist verb with the present tense participle.

 

[webdog]

I John 5:1 has the Greek Aorist tense term translated "born" while having the Greek present tense participle translated "believeth." That my friend is grammatical evidence that birth precedes faith at least logically.

Birth produces faith just as birth produces love (I Jn. 4:7) and birth produces good works (1 Jn 2:29). In each of these cases the same identical grammatical structure is found - the aorist verb with the present tense participle.

We discussed that text here recently and our resident Baptist Board greek scholar John of Japan shot that notion down quite aptly and concisely. Fact is there is no evidence, only "logical conclusions" gleaned from multiple texts. I do agree birth produces love and works, but that is post faith. Passing from death to life prior to faith in Christ is not biblical.

 

[kyredneck]

.... Passing from death to life prior to faith in Christ is not biblical.

So dead men can hear and believe. Sorry WD, I just can't buy that.

 

[Dr. Walter]

We discussed that text here recently and our resident Baptist Board greek scholar John of Japan shot that notion down quite aptly and concisely. Fact is there is no evidence, only "logical conclusions" gleaned from multiple texts. I do agree birth produces love and works, but that is post faith. Passing from death to life prior to faith in Christ is not biblical.

John of Japan is incorrect. The perfect tense verb with the present tense participle is used previously to I Jn. 5:1. Therefore, any proper exegesis of I Jn. 5:1 must be consistent with the previous uses of this grammatical structure by John in 1 Jn. 2:29 and 4:7. In the previous cases new birth must precede doing righteousness and producing love. Hence, 1 john 5:1 structure would indicate clearly the intent of the author is that the action of new birth precedes the action of believing. Believing is presented grammatically as the consequence not the cause of the new birth. At the very least, this structure demands a logical order where new birth precedes believing. See James White and John Piper's defense at the following addresses:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=63552&page=22

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3782

 

[MB]

We discussed that text here recently and our resident Baptist Board greek scholar John of Japan shot that notion down quite aptly and concisely. Fact is there is no evidence, only "logical conclusions" gleaned from multiple texts. I do agree birth produces love and works, but that is post faith. Passing from death to life prior to faith in Christ is not biblical.

A men Webdog; It isn't possible either because Grace comes through faith.
MB

 

[Dr. Walter]

A men Webdog; It isn't possible either because Grace comes through faith.
MB

No, grace does not come through faith but produces faith (Rom. 4:16). Ephesians 2:8 does not say that grace comes through faith but that having been saved is a product of grace and one is saved "through faith."

I John 5:1 must be interpreted with previous uses of the same construction found in 1 Jn. 2:29 and I Jn. 4:7. The completed Perfect tense action of new birth precedes the present tense action of believing just as the completed Perfect tense action of new birth in I Jn. 2:29 precedes the present tense actions of good works and just as the perfect tense action of new birth precedes the present tense action of loving in I Jn. 4:7.

In all of these passages the new birth is the cause and doing good works, loving and believing are consequential actions and no amount of scholarly nonsense can change those grammatical facts.

 

[Humblesmith]

Boy, howdy. A whole lotta causation going on by those little old perfect tenses. I think I'll stick to trusting my Wallace greek grammar book, that puts much more emphasis in perfect tenses having present implications than what I'm seeing here. And apparently there are other greek experts here that feel the same way.

Methinks theology is shading our grammar, me does.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Boy, howdy. A whole lotta causation going on by those little old perfect tenses. I think I'll stick to trusting my Wallace greek grammar book, that puts much more emphasis in perfect tenses having present implications than what I'm seeing here. And apparently there are other greek experts here that feel the same way.

Methinks theology is shading our grammar, me does.

The Perfect tense normally refers to a completed action in the past that continues as a perfected state or completed state up to the present. However, the present tense normally conveys in the indicative an incompleted action in present time. When used together in this grammatical structure there is no possible way the incompleted action of believing can be regarded as causation for the completed action of new birth. Indeed, in regard to a cause and consequence relationship the perfect tense completed action even regarded in its continuing state of completed action up to the present is still the cause whereas the incompleted action of the present participle would be consequential.

This is especially true because John is consistent in this structure of cause and consequence previous to 1 Jn. 5:1 as I Jn. 2:29 and I Jn. 4:7 clearly and unmistakenly show. Sorry but that is the facts and any Greek scholar who says any different is stretching things to fit his theology.

 

[The Archangel]

We discussed that text here recently and our resident Baptist Board greek scholar John of Japan shot that notion down quite aptly and concisely. Fact is there is no evidence, only "logical conclusions" gleaned from multiple texts. I do agree birth produces love and works, but that is post faith. Passing from death to life prior to faith in Christ is not biblical.

Ummm....I think not.

While I respect John of Japan, his argument was certainly not convincing. I dare say you are only calling those whom you agree with "scholars," not knowing Greek yourself (by your own admission).

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Humblesmith]

Dude: post hoc ergo propter hoc. Logic 101.

 

[webdog]

Ummm....I think not.

While I respect John of Japan, his argument was certainly not convincing. I dare say you are only calling those whom you agree with "scholars," not knowing Greek yourself (by your own admission).

Blessings,

The Archangel

His argument was certainly most convincing, as I believe you even attested to. The text neither proves or disproves what you and Dr. Walter are trying to make it say, and if anything...your argument in that debate was the one not convincing. The irony is you do the very thing you accuse me of in your agreement with Dr. Walter and Piper.
While I respect your understanding of the greek, I believe JoJ's works in translation and experience with the language to be one of the best here...and not just because I agree with him, but based on his track record and having grown up around the language. I arrived at the same conclusion he did by simply reading the english with an open mind PRIOR to him even giving his input!

 

[webdog]

No, grace does not come through faith but produces faith (Rom. 4:16). Ephesians 2:8 does not say that grace comes through faith but that having been saved is a product of grace and one is saved "through faith."

Talk about allowing doctrine to interpret Scripture! Ephesians 2:8-9 most certainly does state we are saved by grace THROUGH faith and that (salvation) is not from ourselves, but a gift of God.

 

[webdog]

John of Japan is incorrect. The perfect tense verb with the present tense participle is used previously to I Jn. 5:1. Therefore, any proper exegesis of I Jn. 5:1 must be consistent with the previous uses of this grammatical structure by John in 1 Jn. 2:29 and 4:7. In the previous cases new birth must precede doing righteousness and producing love. Hence, 1 john 5:1 structure would indicate clearly the intent of the author is that the action of new birth precedes the action of believing. Believing is presented grammatically as the consequence not the cause of the new birth. At the very least, this structure demands a logical order where new birth precedes believing. See James White and John Piper's defense at the following addresses:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=63552&page=22

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3782

With all due respect, you have not touched on how one can pass from spiritual death to spiritual life apart from Christ who is reffered to as The Life. The text in question in layman's terms is simply stating those currently believing (present tense) have been born again (past tense)...that's it. It's doctrine a child can understand. The same is true for 1 John 2:29, those that do what is right (present tense) have been born again (past tense)...and 4:7, those that love the way God does (present tense) have been born again (past tense). There is nothing in any of those verses proving regeneration occurring before faith, that is pure eisegesis.