When did regeneration occur?

[kyredneck]

I am bewildered

...that the Spirit where He willeth doth blow?

7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.` Jn 3 YLT

 

[Jerome]

I am bewildered by the statements that a person could be born from above or regenerated without the Gospel.

Remember most of those baptized by Reformed are infants oblivious to to the Gospel. That Baptists would adopt their contrivance on this is troubling.

monergism.com/holy-spirits-work-calling-and-regeneration-herman-bavinck

"having gradually stopped being a missionary church, the church gained its members more from its own children....Reformed theologians arrived at the unanimous confession that the children of believers were as much included in the covenant of grace as their believing parents....they agreed that the Holy Spirit could also work in the hearts of children aside from the calling through the Word.... the children of believers are regenerated in infancy, before they are able to hear the word of the gospel"

 

[tyndale1946]

I believe the Bible tells us to do that. Believers are to be separated from unbelievers. We are also to try the spirits to be able to tell the difference between the Spirit of God and the spirit of this world. (II Cor 6:14-17 and I John 4:1-5)

It is of utmost importance that we have and use spiritual discernment in our affairs with believers and unbelievers. We should know who we are spending our time with and if we should be witnessing to that person as an unsaved person or exhorting, encouraging, or admonishing a brother or sister in the Lord. Should we be sitting in our local congregation with blinders on having no idea if those around us are truly our brothers and sisters or not? Should we go through life not watching for opportunities to witness to unbelievers when we are among them?

My motivation then would be to do my part in reaching the lost and challenging and encouraging the brethren.



I believe you are leaving out some critical information in your example. The malefactors knew more than you are letting on. In Luke 23:39 we can see that they knew of Jesus' claim to be the Christ and that the Christ had power that they did not have. Why one of them was convicted of the Holy Spirit to realize his condition and acknowledge Jesus as Lord and ask to be remembered in the Kingdom of God I cannot tell you. I can see from the Scriptures that in Luke 23:40-42 there is evidence of it though. Why is it always asked what one man did and the other did not or what one man possessed and the other did not? Why do some people hear the Gospel many times before they are "effectually called" why would the call ever be ineffectual if they are the elect? Why would God not regenerate His elect right after the very first time they sinned if He is going to regenerate them anyway? Why wait?



Thank you for sharing about your son. Interestingly enough we had a deaf missionary in our service yesterday evening. Through his interpreter he made an interesting statement. Deaf people can't hear with their ears but they can with their eyes. Regardless of the fact that your son cannot physically hear what is being preached or said it is still communicated to him in a way that he is able to acknowledge and understand. You may not have taught him but someone that is fluent in sign language did. He "heard" the Gospel of his salvation with his eyes, and acknowledgement, acceptance, and belief with his brain and heart happened the same as a person hearing with their ears.

These are my thoughts, one was regenerated at the cross and one was not, why didn't God regenerate both men?... Don't know, he is God and I am not!... I'm sure we will find it out someday, if God see fit to tell us... Maybe he will then again maybe he won't... What about Jesus encounter with Nicodemus?

God changes the heart of man by the work of the Holy Spirit, man doesn't change his own... There are scriptures than can be sited among others, and what I posted I let stand... Brother Glen


Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Romans 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

I know some brethren on here will say, hey wait a minute!... I NEVER CAME OUT OF EGYPT!... Oh yes we did!

 

[InTheLight]

Reformed theologians arrived at the unanimous confession that the children of believers were as much included in the covenant of grace as their believing parents....they agreed that the Holy Spirit could also work in the hearts of children aside from the calling through the Word.... the children of believers are regenerated in infancy, before they are able to hear the word of the gospel"

So this Reformed writer is claiming faith is inherited from your parents.

Boggles the mind....

 

[Reformed]

I believe the Bible tells us to do that. Believers are to be separated from unbelievers. We are also to try the spirits to be able to tell the difference between the Spirit of God and the spirit of this world. (II Cor 6:14-17 and I John 4:1-5)

It is of utmost importance that we have and use spiritual discernment in our affairs with believers and unbelievers. We should know who we are spending our time with and if we should be witnessing to that person as an unsaved person or exhorting, encouraging, or admonishing a brother or sister in the Lord. Should we be sitting in our local congregation with blinders on having no idea if those around us are truly our brothers and sisters or not? Should we go through life not watching for opportunities to witness to unbelievers when we are among them?

My motivation then would be to do my part in reaching the lost and challenging and encouraging the brethren.



I believe you are leaving out some critical information in your example. The malefactors knew more than you are letting on. In Luke 23:39 we can see that they knew of Jesus' claim to be the Christ and that the Christ had power that they did not have. Why one of them was convicted of the Holy Spirit to realize his condition and acknowledge Jesus as Lord and ask to be remembered in the Kingdom of God I cannot tell you. I can see from the Scriptures that in Luke 23:40-42 there is evidence of it though. Why is it always asked what one man did and the other did not or what one man possessed and the other did not? Why do some people hear the Gospel many times before they are "effectually called" why would the call ever be ineffectual if they are the elect? Why would God not regenerate His elect right after the very first time they sinned if He is going to regenerate them anyway? Why wait?



Thank you for sharing about your son. Interestingly enough we had a deaf missionary in our service yesterday evening. Through his interpreter he made an interesting statement. Deaf people can't hear with their ears but they can with their eyes. Regardless of the fact that your son cannot physically hear what is being preached or said it is still communicated to him in a way that he is able to acknowledge and understand. You may not have taught him but someone that is fluent in sign language did. He "heard" the Gospel of his salvation with his eyes, and acknowledgement, acceptance, and belief with his brain and heart happened the same as a person hearing with their ears.

As much of a Lordship proponent that I am, there is no ironclad method of determining whether a professor is actually a possessor when it comes to being a believer. I can offer you no words that will allow you to employ perfect knowledge. The only thing you can do is observe. Does a person walk in a manner worthy of the Lord (Col. 1:10)? Besides the words they speak, this is the only thing you have to go on. Can we be fooled? Yes. Absolutely.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[revmwc]

I have a question for our Calvinist brothers and sisters about regeneration. If my understanding of the Doctrines of Grace is incorrect then please feel free to correct me.

Because of the total inability of man to come to God in any way man must first be regenerated and then can be granted the gifts of faith and repentance. In lieu of this, would that mean that the Ethiopian Eunuch and the Roman Cornelius were regenerated before they ever met Philip or Peter and heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ? The Ethiopian had and read the Scriptures and sought to worship God traveling to Jerusalem to do so and Cornelius was a devout man that feared God, he gave alms and prayed, and even had a vision from God. Both if these accounts can be found in Acts 8 and 10 respectively.

I would say that both of these men were sincere in what they were doing not putting on a show for men as the Pharisees did. So my question is were they regenerated before they met Philip and Peter which gave them the ability to want to do these things such as read the Scriptures and pray and then they were granted faith and repentance upon hearing the Gospel? If that is the case when were they regenerated? If that is not the case when were they regenerated and how did they seek God in an unregenerate state?

Define Regeneration first then let's see what we get!

 

[revmwc]

Regeneration = As to the nature of the change, it consists in the implanting of a new principle or disposition in the soul; the impartation of spiritual life to those who are by nature "dead in trespasses and sins." So if the two you ask about were by disposition of soul imparted Spiritual life then what need did they have to, 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. for the Eunuch if he was spiritually alive what need did he have for one to explain how to be regenerated? Philip would not have had to, 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. Preach Jesus to Him he would have known it. 1 Corinthians 2:But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. he had no Spiritual discernment until He believed and called. If the band with Corneilus was regenerated that is already had Spiritual Life thus The Holy Spirit living in them why do we see Peter saying this:
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. The moment they believed the Holy Spirit fell upon them they were Baptized in and by the Holy Spirit to Spiritual life that is they were regenerated. Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Only when the Holy Spirit baptizes them.

 

[Reformed]

So this Reformed writer is claiming faith is inherited from your parents.

Boggles the mind....

Reformed Presbyterians believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. We as Baptists believe in the discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. We believe the New Covenant is actually new, not a refreshed or renewed Abrahamic Covenant. Reformed Presbyterians believe that infant children are members of the New Covenant community; that they are sanctified and made holy by being born, and then baptized, into a covenant family. While they do not believe in baptismal regeneration, they also do not typically seek a profession of faith by their children. They believe their children still have to come to faith in Christ like anyone else, but instead of a profession, they consider children to be believers unless they repudiate their faith when they reach adulthood. As a Baptist, I disagree vehemently with that view.

 

[Jerome]

Reformed writer is claiming faith is inherited from your parents. Boggles the mind....

Reformed have created this elaborate "ordo", separating and pushing back regeneration, as they want to say those they are baptizing are regenerated.

 

[utilyan]

Adam, welcome to the BB.

Regeneration can occur at any moment the Holy Spirit chooses. Regeneration is never apart from the means of salvation, which is the gospel message. God calls His elect in time through the preaching of the gospel. The Holy Spirit illumines and regenerates the sinner. The sinner then believes through faith. Justification and sanctification follow. All of this happens nearly instantaneously. There was no need for the Ethiopian Eunuch or Cornelius to be regenerated far in advance of their hearing the gospel.

For a more thorough explanation, take a look at this resource: The Ordo Salutis

This is the statement that needs focus:

"Regeneration is never apart from the means of salvation, which is the gospel message."

That means if someone refuses to hear the gospel he will not regenerate an inch.

He must synergisticly accept to listen to the gospel.

 

[thatbrian]

Reformed Presbyterians believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. We as Baptists believe in the discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. We believe the New Covenant is actually new, not a refreshed or renewed Abrahamic Covenant. Reformed Presbyterians believe that infant children are members of the New Covenant community; that they are sanctified and made holy by being born, and then baptized, into a covenant family. While they do not believe in baptismal regeneration, they also do not typically seek a profession of faith by their children. They believe their children still have to come to faith in Christ like anyone else, but instead of a profession, they consider children to be believers unless they repudiate their faith when they reach adulthood. As a Baptist, I disagree vehemently with that view.

Who was the new covenant given to? Who was it made with?

 

[thatbrian]

As much of a Lordship proponent that I am, there is no ironclad method of determining whether a professor is actually a possessor when it comes to being a believer. I can offer you no words that will allow you to employ perfect knowledge. The only thing you can do is observe. Does a person walk in a manner worthy of the Lord (Col. 1:10)? Besides the words they speak, this is the only thing you have to go on. Can we be fooled? Yes. Absolutely.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Which also causes difficulty for the credo view. No man can tell, so adult unbelievers often.

 

[Reformed]

Which also causes difficulty for the credo view. No man can tell, so adult unbelievers often.

I do not see how the lack of perfect knowledge is a problem for the credobaptist. We baptize on a credible profession of faith, not a perfect profession. If an impostor gets baptized, it is a sin on the head of the one being baptized.

 

[Reformed]

Who was the new covenant given to? Who was it made with?

I do not know if "given" is the correct word. The New Covenant (which is the Covenant of Grace) was revealed in the Old Covenant through types and shadows but not revealed until the time of Christ. It was made with all believers throughout all human history. Whereas a person could be "in covenant" under the Abrahamic Covenant (and the larger encompassing Old Covenant), it did not mean that person was of the faith of Abraham. A person cannot be a member of the New Covenant without being of the faith of Abraham, i.e. a genuine believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Question for you. You claim to be a credobaptist. Do you believe in the discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant? If not, how can you believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and still be a credobaptist*?

*I define a credobaptist as someone who believes the only lawful form of baptism is a trinitarian baptism administered upon a credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[thatbrian]

I do not know if "given" is the correct word. The New Covenant (which is the Covenant of Grace) was revealed in the Old Covenant through types and shadows but not revealed until the time of Christ. It was made with all believers throughout all human history. Whereas a person could be "in covenant" under the Abrahamic Covenant (and the larger encompassing Old Covenant), it did not mean that person was of the faith of Abraham. A person cannot be a member of the New Covenant without being of the faith of Abraham, i.e. a genuine believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Question for you. You claim to be a credobaptist. Do you believe in the discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant? If not, how can you believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and still be a credobaptist*?

*I define a credobaptist as someone who believes the only lawful form of baptism is a trinitarian baptism administered upon a credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

We agree that the New Covenant did not magically appear at the time of Christ.

Yes, I am credo, and I also absolutely believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant.

What causes me to hold to a credo over paedo view is the Regulative Principle of Worship. I don't find compelling scriptural evidence prescribing infant baptism; however, I see more evidence for it than I do for "Dedications", so I would not do either to my children, but I would not think the worse of anyone who does either. I certainly would not judge either "unlawful". Do you judge "dedications" "unlawful"?

As for me and my house, we are credo, but I am not convinced enough in either direction to pick up a stone and hurl it toward a parent.

 

[Reformed]

I certainly would not judge either "unlawful". Do you judge "dedications" "unlawful"?

As for me and my house, we are credo, but I am not convinced enough in either direction to pick up a stone and hurl it toward a parent.

I certainly do consider baby dedications to be unlawful. They have no scriptural warrant. If they are anything they are parent dedications and there is no scriptural warrant for those either.

Why is infant baptism unlawful? Again, because it has no scriptural warrant. It is an unlawful application of the ordinance.

I am not hurling stones at paedo parents. I do they believe they are wrong. I have wonderful Presbyterian friends and both of us disagree strongly on the baptism issue. We have never been reconciled on baptism and likely never will be, but we are still friends.

As for the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant, you are in a very odd place. Credobaptists, almost to a person, believe in the discontinuity of the Abrahamic covenant. They believe the New Covenant is a new covenant and is unlike the previous covenant. As I stated previously, Presbyterians believe the New Covenant is a refreshed or renewed Abrahamic Covenant, part of the Covenant of Redemption (Grace). If you believe the Abrahamic Covenant has continuity, then you by necessity have to believe with the Presbyterians that the New Covenant is just a better version of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is, indeed, refreshed or renewed. If you believe that then I do not know how you can be a credobaptist. Using the RPW as your reason to remain a credo while still believing in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is (and I am putting it mildly) inconsistent. Keep in mind that the RPW is a construct built upon the preponderance of scripture in relation to worship. I believe in a very conservative view of the RPW. But I recognize that good and godly people are divided on the RPW, so it is not the fulcrum on which my view of baptism rests.

 

[utilyan]

I certainly do consider baby dedications to be unlawful. They have no scriptural warrant. If they are anything they are parent dedications and there is no scriptural warrant for those either.

Why is infant baptism unlawful? Again, because it has no scriptural warrant. It is an unlawful application of the ordinance.

I am not hurling stones at paedo parents. I do they believe they are wrong. I have wonderful Presbyterian friends and both of us disagree strongly on the baptism issue. We have never been reconciled on baptism and likely never will be, but we are still friends.

As for the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant, you are in a very odd place. Credobaptists, almost to a person, believe in the discontinuity of the Abrahamic covenant. They believe the New Covenant is a new covenant and is unlike the previous covenant. As I stated previously, Presbyterians believe the New Covenant is a refreshed or renewed Abrahamic Covenant, part of the Covenant of Redemption (Grace). If you believe the Abrahamic Covenant has continuity, then you by necessity have to believe with the Presbyterians that the New Covenant is just a better version of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is, indeed, refreshed or renewed. If you believe that then I do not know how you can be a credobaptist. Using the RPW as your reason to remain a credo while still believing in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is (and I am putting it mildly) inconsistent. Keep in mind that the RPW is a construct built upon the preponderance of scripture in relation to worship. I believe in a very conservative view of the RPW. But I recognize that good and godly people are divided on the RPW, so it is not the fulcrum on which my view of baptism rests.

Baptism is the Circumcision of Christ. Jesus himself was circumcised 8 days old.


Its Ironic that those who insist that its God's choice of election least express it. In other words a infant baptism is the best example of election being a matter of God's choice, rather then your own choice.

I had no choice being baptized. It wasn't up to me, IT was ALL ON GOD.


Colossians 2

; 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.


When you baptize someone you do it to someone, you don't say bob you baptize yourself in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. As an outsider i could not baptize myself.


Luke 18

15And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. 16But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”


Not only the children but even the babies and infants are brought to Christ.
The Kingdom of God belongs to Children and foremost have greater right to baptism then then any thick headed dumb adult.


Typical pharisees,

13“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

Try to shut off everyone they can from heaven, think themselves the only chosen. Looks for every excuse to throw folks in hell.

You know that mentally handicapped folks who can't make choices or think well. Do you just figure they get thrown in hell right? We baptize them they are family. It takes some real cold blooded evil to single them out.

I can picture you doing baptism with Jesus, A crowd of folks being baptized, but that one guy in wheel chair he can't. You take one good look at him then you look at Jesus and say.....naaaahhhhh....we're gonna skip him.

That is pathetic. Nothing christian about it.

Give us your broken we'll take them into God's family.

 

[thatbrian]

I certainly do consider baby dedications to be unlawful. They have no scriptural warrant. If they are anything they are parent dedications and there is no scriptural warrant for those either.

Why is infant baptism unlawful? Again, because it has no scriptural warrant. It is an unlawful application of the ordinance.

I am not hurling stones at paedo parents. I do they believe they are wrong. I have wonderful Presbyterian friends and both of us disagree strongly on the baptism issue. We have never been reconciled on baptism and likely never will be, but we are still friends.

As for the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant, you are in a very odd place. Credobaptists, almost to a person, believe in the discontinuity of the Abrahamic covenant. They believe the New Covenant is a new covenant and is unlike the previous covenant. As I stated previously, Presbyterians believe the New Covenant is a refreshed or renewed Abrahamic Covenant, part of the Covenant of Redemption (Grace). If you believe the Abrahamic Covenant has continuity, then you by necessity have to believe with the Presbyterians that the New Covenant is just a better version of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is, indeed, refreshed or renewed. If you believe that then I do not know how you can be a credobaptist. Using the RPW as your reason to remain a credo while still believing in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is (and I am putting it mildly) inconsistent. Keep in mind that the RPW is a construct built upon the preponderance of scripture in relation to worship. I believe in a very conservative view of the RPW. But I recognize that good and godly people are divided on the RPW, so it is not the fulcrum on which my view of baptism rests.

Yes. I understand both positions very well. Better than most, I would say. If you recall, I attend a PCA church because of the lack of Reformed, confessional churches near me.

Regarding the charge of inconsistency, you might as well say that if I hold to continuity I should also hold to circumcision. . .

 

[Reformed]

Regarding the charge of inconsistency, you might as well say that if I hold to continuity I should also hold to circumcision. . .

You said it!


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed]

Yes. I understand both positions very well. Better than most, I would say. If you recall, I attend a PCA church because of the lack of Reformed, confessional churches near me.

Regarding the charge of inconsistency, you might as well say that if I hold to continuity I should also hold to circumcision. . .

Theologically it just does not make sense to claim to be a credobaptist and hold the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. I cannot find a recognized credobaptist from history who holds to this position.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk