Wrong Take On Romans 12:3c

While you are at it, please show contextually that Born-agian means regeneration.
That view HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN, and would like to see how you have managed to pull off what 500 years of other Calvinists have not.

 

Rippon,
If my previous post sounds a bit harsh, I appologize.
I have a lot going on and I am a bit perturbed, but that is still no excuse.
The statement still stands but please invision it just a little lighter than writen. raying:

 

True only to a point. The Calvinistic view or Born-Again/reneration IS NOT the same as others.

To say that non-calvinists are in agreement with you on this is a misnomer at the least. The only thing they hold in common is the word and finality of action.

**Being born-again in the Calvinistic view point is not about salvation, BUT simply to be made spiritually alive though still not saved or believing, and must still one day be saved and believe.

**Being born-again in the non-calvinist view point is, yes regeneration BUT it is specifically referring to it in the salvic sense. One is regenerated once one has beleived and thus is saved.

On Eph 2:8 - I whole heartedly disagree with you and maintian God is the Grand dispencer of Grace (the call/offer of salvation) NOT faith!

On Act 18:27 - This is dealing with the fact they have believed due to Gods grace (refering to His call/offer of salvation) and does not give credence to your view.

On 2 Cor 4:6 - This one is a parallel of John 1:9
Jhn 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Christ is the light that illuminates our darkness that we may see the truth, IF we will accept it or we can reject it.

On Phil 1:29 - First of all, let us keep this in context. Who is the "you" Paul is speaking of - Gentile believers IN Philpi NOT beleivers in gerneral. This was the most personal letter Paul wrote to any church and he obvious intent was to uplift them just as they had twice previously uplifted him. The sentence structure shows us that Paul was showing them the blessing that God has not only granted them to BE beleivers (God wants any who will to come) and not CHOSE them to be believers, but ALSO that they may be partakers in Christs sufferings. You wrench the verse from context to apply a view. Of course God must grant or allow us to be allowed to come unto Him and therefore we see God calls the Jews and Jesus calls everyone to Himself.

On 2 Peter 1:1

We see this is to those who have already attained this faith we all share through God who is without blame and Christ. It simply and only is a statement that their savlation (faith - thus it uses the title of Savior for Jesus) is from God (not of themselves). God is the only one who can allow anyone to attain this faith/salvation (and He has opened the door that any who will may choose Christ which He offers freely) but it does not state their faith was something given to them.

You see it through your view, and I see it from mine. I really don't see what you see in these verses, Just as you don't see what I understand from what I hold. However both are compatable as long as the formation of truth aligns. God is the initiator, the regenerator, the completer, the justifier, and the finisher of salvation much of the middle we see differently is symantics -so to speak. :thumbsup:

 

Hello Allan,

Sorry, I got busy.

That is to bad, for the Calvin view is what is found in the Bible.

Being that I am a Calvinist, and you claim not to be, may I share my view as to what some Calvinist believe? It is much like human life. Life comes before the birth. right?

hummm..maybe you overlooked these passages

Ezek 36:26-27
A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

Acts 16:14
14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message

Acts 26...
I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 16'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.



In Christ...James

 

Jarthor,
Glad to see you again.
I just got back from an 11 hour drive for my wifes brothers wedding, so I was out for a bit too.

No, Truth is found in the scriptures, and your take of that truth is of a Calvinistic bent, just as I share the same truths but have a non-Calvinistic bent. For if they are not the same immutable truths then we can not truely both be beleivers in Christ but one is a fraud. But since we both believe the immutable truths and ARE brothers it is the logical conclusion what we hold are views of these truths.

You know I welcome discussion. The analogy however is not synomous with your veiw of regeneration and salvation as a Calvinist.
Why not, you may ask?
Because at conception (or life beginning) I will maintain and continue to be as I was (as one consistant and continuous thing, ie, person). Regeration does not save in the Calvinist mindset (it leads to that change) and therefor being alive to God is not the same as being saved. So you are not continuing as you are from were you were as one constistant and continuous thing.
Thus the analogy is not adaquate for your point. I may be wrong and if so please continue.

Actually, you just proved my point. This verse speaks of salvation AND shows that from the regeneration to the new spirit that wants to serve God (salvation) is ALL done at one time, thus the term 'AND' throughout it. And = in addition to.
Also NOTE that He will give you a NEW spirit AT this time which is a direct reference to salvation.

I agree hear as well, as we see always it is the Lord who initiates the call, revealing, enlightening, and or lighting (scripture has different terms for the same thing), But PLEASE NOTE one important thing you have overlooked.
The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. It was up to her to respond once the truth was revealed. I maintain this same view.

You seem to have neglected and or left out the fact that Paul acknowledges whatever this was, it must be GOD for he calls him Lord (supreme ruler in the Greek) before he knows who it is speaking. How do we know he didn't know, because he asks who it is speaking with him. Look up what I said earlier concerning Paul and his salvation - in our conversation recently under "Robots in Heaven - Post #103."
The second half of the verse is a direct parellel of the first chapter of John.
Jhn 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
and
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
and
Jhn 1:29 ¶ The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

 

Allan,

You have some of this right. Let me just add...I do not hold to the doctrines of grace, only because I have nothing else to do. I happen to believe they are truth. As a friend you like to quote has said..."Calvinism is the gospel for it is only a nickname for the truth". I'm sure you heard this before. Now no need to say you have the truth on your side...for I know better. Just kidding..

I type the above before I read this. I type so slow i'm not deleteing it.

I have a good line...but I'll pass and be nice tonight.

But..........

Call it what you want to make yourself happy. It will always come down to this. Salvation is by GOD. Tis God that saves. Tis God that elects. Tis God that keeps. Tis God that draws. Tis God that sent His Son. Tis Gods own Son that redeems us from the slave market. Tis God that must be paid ransom. Tis the blood of Gods Son that pleases God. Tis God that then Justifies the sinner. Salvation is all about GOD saving man.

Now maybe you do not like how I word things, but do not deny God the glory of salvation. To much of salvation is centered on MAN.

Allan...just trust me...your wrong.

Proved your point? Sorry to hear that. but Actually I disagree.

chadash leb nathan chadash ruwach nathan....

no "and"

INDEED...

1st the heart must have been CLOSED and not able to respend....for this was the meaning of the opening of the heart. so...

1)...Lord opens heart
2)...she can now respond
3)...she believes and has faith and is saved


I'll address John 1 latter. Mean time...why not reread the 1st 6 chapters of John and see if the world takes hold of the good news. Your verses say men CAN...and also tell what will happen if they DO. Now...how many do...other then does that Jesus hand picks?


In Christ...James

 

Jarthur,

Ok, but what are you saying here: That we do believe two different things and you have the truth (which necessitates I do not) or That you were incorrect in your first statement and just did not want to take the time to delete it.

I will always call it what the bible calls it even if you don't agree. And I agree with EVERY single "tis" and God in that without question. That is why scripture states man is to believe. Beleive what - That God has, and is able to do and maintain everything He has established concering our salvation. It is all about God and if we will beleive He is able. It is always about the Gods glory for man has no part to play in getting (works) or keeping his salvation, but must needs beleive that GOD has, is and does all for that salvation.

I love how much you assume in these discussions. (I might not like how you word it ) I have NEVER denied my God any but unto Him is ALL glory. Your statement of man centered salvation I have yet to find except in those who beleive they can somehow loose what they never earned.

Sorry, but as I stated before my motto - Let God be true but every man a liar.
So I need more proof than your wrong, which is why I stated "if I'm wrong please continue."

This is a good place to understand Hebrew and luckily I do somewhat. There is also no vowels in the originalHebrew either and therefore what you wrote is not correct except in enunciation. Here is a concise Hebrew to english translation from http://www.mechon-mamre.org (from the masoretic texts)

I do not know where you recieved the "chadash leb nathan chadash ruwach nathan" which looks like it came from a concordance style break down of word (blueletterbible.com has something like this that I know of - and like to use) but if so they leave out any english word three letters or shorter (a, the, and, was, ect...) because it would basically be rewritting the bible a hundred times for one book and therefore focus on the main words there. :BangHead:

Indeed...

She chose to beleive once God opened her heart (calling), but was not made to.

I have read it, preached on it, and gone through it in bible study verse by verse and have never come to the conclusions you espouse.

The world is not being dealt with in John (until the commisioning) but Israel, so the world is a moot a point as yet.
Let us not forget that their not believing is a designed judgement of God prophetically (due to their unbelief before and then) and purposed plan that the Jewish people would not see (including Christs OWN hand chosen men) until after His resurrection. Even Jesus stated that the Jews who beleived on Him would not understand UNTIL His crusifiction.

Which low and behold there were many Jews afterward who came to a knowledge of Jesus being the Christ.

 

Jarthur:

I do not remember quoting Spurgeon on any of this web board. I went looking back through some of it but I couldn't find anything. When did I quote Spurgeon on here.

And if I have not, how would you know that I like to quote him at times?

But just so you know, Spurgeon is also one who is quoted as saying:

 

That's a really interesting quote, Allan, thanks. I always equated Baptists with Protestants. That doesn't seem at all accurate according to Spurgeon. But I wonder, if asked, how many Baptists would call themselves protestants?

 

Could you please provide the reference for the Spurgeon quote?

 

I have read the quote by Spurgeon before. I'm not sure where I read it. It may have been a Baptist history web site. I know it was not from a history book that I read it...this i'm sure of. I hope this is not your proof for Baptist successionism.

To those that are staring to wonder if Baptisuccessionism is true...stick around.

Lets see the proof Allan has 1st. This idea started on another thread, for those that did not know. But maybe we should keep this to one thread. I would like to finish a few things here 1st.
********

As to how I knew you quoted Spurgeon...lets just say I was ordained to know.


The post before this..I will address tonight...Lord willing

In Christ...James

 

Hello Andrew...Nice to meet ya.

The quote as Allan stated at the bottom of the quote, comes from...The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881, p. 286. You can find the quote at the link below.

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/list.htm

 

Maybe you should start a new thread on it. I'm interested in seeing some views on this. I was trained in "The Trail of Blood" successionism/landmarkism, but I can clearly see that those who called themselves "Baptists" did not want to be associated with the "anabaptists". I think the 1644 confession, or maybe it's the Goatyard confession, that makes this clear.

 

Concerning the OP:
Is faith from God or
Is faith par of man--that is the question. From there we have branched to many different subjects many of which deserve their own threads. This thread has reached 30 pages and needs to be closed. Feel free to start a new thread on any one of the topics that have been discussed herein.
DHK