PDA

View Full Version : God has elected ...



alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 12:37 AM
God has elected to save believers.

Prove me wrong!

Amos_with_goats
Dec 31st 2008, 12:52 AM
No offense intended, but are there not like 32 active threads debating the relative merits of the Calvinism / Armianian issue right now?

Do we REALLY need another one? (The same issue applies to threads #2 - #31 on this same subject, so I am not picking on you). :D

Partaker of Christ
Dec 31st 2008, 01:03 AM
God has elected to save believers.

Prove me wrong!

Oh dear.

Truth is about edifying and building one another up. It is not about edifying and building up one's ego, by proving someone right or wrong. The truth you know shall set you free.

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 01:12 AM
God has elected to save believers.

Prove me wrong!

The cart pulls the horse.

Prove me wrong!

:cool:

TrustingFollower
Dec 31st 2008, 02:14 AM
OK everyone remember that we are dealing with fellow brothers and sisters in this forum, treat each other in a loving manor.

John 13

34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

Athanasius
Dec 31st 2008, 02:26 AM
God has elected to save believers.

Prove me wrong!

That's not how it works; substantiate your position first.

Romber
Dec 31st 2008, 03:33 AM
Can someone give me a link to a site that can give a brief, good run down of Calvinism? I keep hearing about it, but I don't really understand the controversy involved with it.

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 03:47 AM
Can someone give me a link to a site that can give a brief, good run down of Calvinism? I keep hearing about it, but I don't really understand the controversy involved with it.

You can go here (http://www.lgmarshall.org/Boettner/reformedfaith.html#calvinism). Click on the five points of Calvinism and you can contrast it with the five points of Arminianism.

Brother Mark
Dec 31st 2008, 03:53 AM
You can go here (http://www.lgmarshall.org/Boettner/reformedfaith.html#calvinism). Click on the five points of Calvinism and you can contrast it with the five points of Arminianism.

It looks to be a decent description of calvinism but a poor description and somewhat a straw man for arminianism.

Romber
Dec 31st 2008, 03:56 AM
It looks to be a decent description of calvinism but a poor description and somewhat a straw man for arminianism.

Is there a decent site explaining arminianism?

Brother Mark
Dec 31st 2008, 03:58 AM
Is there a decent site explaining arminianism?

I have no idea really. What you'll get on both sides is generally a straw man of the other. Generally, each side likes to overlook major portions of scripture, IMO.

Romber
Dec 31st 2008, 03:59 AM
Is there an in between side?

Brother Mark
Dec 31st 2008, 04:04 AM
Is there an in between side?

I don't know if there is a name for it. But I'll tell you this, just believe the whole bible and don't try to reconcile away certain verses.

If you tell a calvinist that God changes his mind, he'll tell you no he doesn't. Show him a hundred verses where God said he changed his mind, repented, relented, etc. and he will still deny that God changes his mind because it doesn't fit into his framework or belief system.

On the other hand, the arminian will often ignore verses about God's elect, God hardening the heart, etc.

Just watch this forum and see how each side will twist and turn to try and explain away verses.

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 04:07 AM
I don't know if there is a name for it. But I'll tell you this, just believe the whole bible and don't try to reconcile away certain verses.

If you tell a calvinist that God changes his mind, he'll tell you no he doesn't. Show him a hundred verses where God said he changed his mind, repented, relented, etc. and he will still deny that God changes his mind because it doesn't fit into his framework or belief system.

On the other hand, the arminian will often ignore verses about God's elect, God hardening the heart, etc.

Just watch this forum and see how each side will twist and turn to try and explain away verses.

So what is the truth then? :hmm:

Brother Mark
Dec 31st 2008, 04:10 AM
So what is the truth then? :hmm:

The whole word of God, not just part of it. ;)

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 04:26 AM
The whole word of God, not just part of it. ;)

I agree, of course. So let's get into specifics, shall we? Starting with Election.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will...Ephesians 1:3-5

So it's clear from this verse that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. I think everybody agrees with this as it's so plainly stated. In love, God predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. So this ties in 'chose' i.e electing, with salvation, right? Along with the chosen being holy and blameless before God which is what Justification is, right? And all of this is done according to the purpose of God's will which we do not know, but it isn't arbitrary.

Is this right or wrong so far?

Brother Mark
Dec 31st 2008, 04:33 AM
I agree, of course. So let's get into specifics, shall we? Starting with Election.

I would rather start with God changing his mind, relenting, repenting, etc. ;)

But having said that, what would be the fruit of our discussion BB? Would you or I be more edified? Have we not discussed this before?



Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will...Ephesians 1:3-5

So it's clear from this verse that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. I think everybody agrees with this as it's so plainly stated. In love, God predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. So this ties in 'chose' i.e electing, with salvation, right? Along with the chosen being holy and blameless before God which is what Justification is, right? And all of this is done according to the purpose of God's will which we do not know, but it isn't arbitrary.

Is this right or wrong so far?

I have no argument with scripture. He chose me before the foundations of the world. He also died for the sins of the entire world as well. He also draws all men unto him. He also predestined those that believe to be conformed to the image of his Son. He desires for all to be saved. He rejected his elect Israel and elected another.

I could go on and on. But I won't get on either side of the fence because to do so, I would have to change half of the scriptures and I won't do that.;)

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 04:39 AM
I would rather start with God changing his mind, relenting, repenting, etc. ;)

I started with election cuz that's what the thread originally was about. :)


But having said that, what would be the fruit of our discussion BB? Would you or I be more edified? Have we not discussed this before?

It is true that this discussion would be the same as all the others.


I have no argument with scripture. He chose me before the foundations of the world. He also died for the sins of the entire world as well. He also draws all men unto him. He also predestined those that believe to be conformed to the image of his Son. He desires for all to be saved. He rejected his elect Israel and elected another.

I could go on and on. But I won't get on either side of the fence because to do so, I would have to change half of the scriptures and I won't do that.;)

Well, did God choose you because He saw you would believe in Him or did He choose you so that you could believe in Him?

Brother Mark
Dec 31st 2008, 04:42 AM
I started with election cuz that's what the thread originally was about. :)

I suspect that was part of the reason. ;)


It is true that this discussion would be the same as all the others.

Correct. Which would make it a vain conversation. For me, I prefer to avoid those. :saint: Although I do always do such a good job of staying out.


Well, did God choose you because He saw you would believe in Him or did He choose you so that you could believe in Him?

I will let the word answer it.

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen (http://biblebrowser.com/1_peter/1-1.htm) 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. (http://biblebrowser.com/1_peter/1-2.htm)

As for what he foreknew, why not ask Him?

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 04:59 AM
I suspect that was part of the reason. ;)

The other part is that I don't really know too much about God 'changing His mind'. ;)


Correct. Which would make it a vain conversation. For me, I prefer to avoid those. :saint: Although I do always do such a good job of staying out.I only pop in every now and then. And only if the thread just started, I can't read several pages and jump into a convo, especially if the replies are long. :)


I will let the word answer it.

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen (http://biblebrowser.com/1_peter/1-1.htm) 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. (http://biblebrowser.com/1_peter/1-2.htm)

As for what he foreknew, why not ask Him?Ah, but it's not what God foreknew (though He obviously knows everything in advance), it's who He foreknew. It's my understanding that everytime the word 'foreknowledge' is used it's in reference to people, not their actions. Also, it's my understanding that 'foreknowledge' as it's used in the Bible does not simply mean 'knowing beforehand' it means something much more deeper. Specifically, loving beforehand.

If you'll recall, Adam knew his wife. God knew Israel among all the other nations. So, to me, it seems it's not that God knew beforehand that people would choose Him (as if they were neutral and could choose Him) so in turn He elected them (which if true and it's also true that God can change His mind, then what security do we have that God will go through with this election?), it's God electing people according to His foreloving them so that they could believe in Him.

This is why my first post was about the cart pulling the horse. It's obviously the horse that pulls the cart, just like it's God who chooses man, not man choosing God. Just my opinion. :cool:

Brother Mark
Dec 31st 2008, 05:02 AM
The other part is that I don't really know too much about God 'changing His mind'. ;)

Fair enough. It just goes to the heart of sovereignty in the minds of some calvinist.


I only pop in every now and then. And only if the thread just started, I can't read several pages and jump into a convo, especially if the replies are long. :)

Most people do that.


Just my opinion. :cool:

That's what most of us post!

Be blessed my brother.

alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 11:43 AM
The cart pulls the horse.

Prove me wrong!

:cool:

The cart indeed does pull the horse. But only on steep up-hill inclines where the cart-load is too much for the horse. But under normal conditions that is not the case.

alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 11:46 AM
Is there a decent site explaining arminianism?

Try this link for a primer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 11:47 AM
Is there an in between side?

Only among rational people.

alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 11:49 AM
So what is the truth then? :hmm:

The truth lies outside of both Calvinism and Arminianism in a book called the Bible.

That's the truth.

alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 11:57 AM
The other part is that I don't really know too much about God 'changing His mind'. ;)

I only pop in every now and then. And only if the thread just started, I can't read several pages and jump into a convo, especially if the replies are long. :)

Ah, but it's not what God foreknew (though He obviously knows everything in advance), it's who He foreknew. It's my understanding that everytime the word 'foreknowledge' is used it's in reference to people, not their actions. Also, it's my understanding that 'foreknowledge' as it's used in the Bible does not simply mean 'knowing beforehand' it means something much more deeper. Specifically, loving beforehand.

If you'll recall, Adam knew his wife. God knew Israel among all the other nations. So, to me, it seems it's not that God knew beforehand that people would choose Him (as if they were neutral and could choose Him) so in turn He elected them (which if true and it's also true that God can change His mind, then what security do we have that God will go through with this election?), it's God electing people according to His foreloving them so that they could believe in Him.

This is why my first post was about the cart pulling the horse. It's obviously the horse that pulls the cart, just like it's God who chooses man, not man choosing God. Just my opinion. :cool:

If God is absolute in His omniscience, then wouldn't it follow that He knows beforehand whether or not I would come to a state of belief?

mikebr
Dec 31st 2008, 01:39 PM
Calvinism says that God can but doesn't want to and Arminianism says that God wants to but can't.

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 03:57 PM
If God is absolute in His omniscience, then wouldn't it follow that He knows beforehand whether or not I would come to a state of belief?

Of course, that's what I said. But that's not he basis from which He elects.

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 04:01 PM
The truth lies outside of both Calvinism and Arminianism in a book called the Bible.

That's the truth.

So, how many points of Arminianism and Calvinism are right?

drew
Dec 31st 2008, 04:05 PM
I agree, of course. So let's get into specifics, shall we? Starting with Election.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will...Ephesians 1:3-5

So it's clear from this verse that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. I think everybody agrees with this as it's so plainly stated. In love, God predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. So this ties in 'chose' i.e electing, with salvation, right? Along with the chosen being holy and blameless before God which is what Justification is, right? And all of this is done according to the purpose of God's will which we do not know, but it isn't arbitrary.

Is this right or wrong so far?
I believe that things are not as clear as they seem. I actually believe that a case can be made that Paul is talking about a "pre-destination" of a select group of New Testament saints, and is not making a statement that we can take as being general to all believers.

To make this case properly would require a number of posts. If people are interested, I will try to give it.

By the way, I think that what you say about justification, while true, does not fully disclose what Paul means when he writes about people being justified.

alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 04:39 PM
Of course, that's what I said. But that's not he basis from which He elects.

elect ..... according to the foreknowledge of God 1 Pet 1:1-2

alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 04:42 PM
So, how many points of Arminianism and Calvinism are right?

In Calvinism 1

In Arminianism - several

But both theological systems have faults.

The truth lies outside of all isms

Nikodimos
Dec 31st 2008, 05:17 PM
I believe that things are not as clear as they seem. I actually believe that a case can be made that Paul is talking about a "pre-destination" of a select group of New Testament saints, and is not making a statement that we can take as being general to all believers.


Hi Drew,
I have never heard anyone say that Paul applies predestination only to a "select group of New Testament saints." I would be interested to see what your scriptural proof is for that statement.
I kind of like this Scripture as a clear indication that ALL believers in Christ are justified: Romans 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 05:51 PM
elect ..... according to the foreknowledge of God 1 Pet 1:1-2

First, it never says what God foreknew. If we were elected based on God knowledge beforehand that we would choose Him (which begs the question; why would He need to 'elect' us if we are already saved?), then why doesn't Paul say that rather than just 'foreknowledge'? Second, as I said before, 'foreknowledge' has a more deeper meaning than just 'knowing beforehand' and it's connected with persons not their actions.

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 05:52 PM
In Calvinism 1

In Arminianism - several

But both theological systems have faults.

The truth lies outside of all isms

What is it that Calvinism has right?

alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 06:24 PM
First, it never says what God foreknew.

Once again God in His absolute and omniscient foreknowledge knows all things. Even who will believe.

alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 06:26 PM
What is it that Calvinism has right?

I believe their point on Total Inability is correct.

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 07:55 PM
Once again God in His absolute and omniscient foreknowledge knows all things. Even who will believe.

And that's what I said. But that doesn't mean that God elects people on the basis of their belief. He elects us so that we can believe. Since you believe in Total Depravity you should know a dead man can't raise himself.

alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 08:19 PM
And that's what I said. But that doesn't mean that God elects people on the basis of their belief. He elects us so that we can believe. Since you believe in Total Depravity you should know a dead man can't raise himself.

It's true that a dead man can't raise himself. But once raised he is commanded to believe. Being raised and believing are separate acts. The first act is God's. The act of believing is ours once we are convicted by the Holy Spirit.

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 09:32 PM
It's true that a dead man can't raise himself. But once raised he is commanded to believe. Being raised and believing are separate acts. The first act is God's. The act of believing is ours once we are convicted by the Holy Spirit.

No reason to separate the analogy. God raises us up to life, not to neutral zone so we can choose life or death.

Butch5
Dec 31st 2008, 09:42 PM
I agree, of course. So let's get into specifics, shall we? Starting with Election.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will...Ephesians 1:3-5

So it's clear from this verse that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. I think everybody agrees with this as it's so plainly stated. In love, God predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. So this ties in 'chose' i.e electing, with salvation, right? Along with the chosen being holy and blameless before God which is what Justification is, right? And all of this is done according to the purpose of God's will which we do not know, but it isn't arbitrary.

Is this right or wrong so far?


This is speaking of the Jews though.

alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 09:45 PM
No reason to separate the analogy. God raises us up to life, not to neutral zone so we can choose life or death.

Unless you say that regeneration is belief, then they need to be separated to distinguish and understand the difference. We can't just lump regeneration and belief together and say they are one and the same. Such a statement wouldn't be Biblically accurate. There is a Biblical and theological difference between the two. There also is a difference in definition between regeneration and belief. Regeneration is solely a monergistic act of God, whereas, belief is a synergistic act whereby man responds to what God did in regeneration. Regeneration is not belief. Belief is not regeneration. Regeneration does however precede and lead to up to belief. No one can belief who has not first been regenerated (raised from the dead).

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 09:48 PM
This is speaking of the Jews thought.

Talk about people trying to get around verses. :rolleyes:

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 09:54 PM
Unless you say that regeneration is belief, then they need to be separated to distinguish and understand the difference. We can't just lump regeneration and belief together and say they are one and the same. Such a statement wouldn't be Biblically accurate. There is a Biblical and theological difference between the two. There also is a difference in definition between regeneration and belief. Regeneration is solely a monergistic act of God, whereas, belief is a synergistic act whereby man responds to what God did in regeneration. Regeneration is not belief. Belief is not regeneration. Regeneration does however precede and lead to up to belief. No one can belief who has not first been regenerated (raised from the dead).

Read Ephesians 2:1-10. We are regenerated to life in Christ, not regenerated to life to choose life or death. Not everybody will be regenerated, and the ones that do are saved and the ones that aren't are left in their death.

Butch5
Dec 31st 2008, 09:54 PM
Of course, that's what I said. But that's not he basis from which He elects.


What would be the basis for His electing?

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 09:56 PM
What would be the basis for His electing?

In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will

It doesn't seem like you want to accept that though since you can't know it.

Butch5
Dec 31st 2008, 09:57 PM
Talk about people trying to get around verses. :rolleyes:

How am I tryiing to get around verses?

Butch5
Dec 31st 2008, 09:58 PM
In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will

It doesn't seem like you want to accept that though since you can't know it.

That says He predestined us, where does it say we were elected? Whether we were chosen or chose God, we could still be predestined for adoption.

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 10:03 PM
That says He predestined us, where does it say we were elected? Whether we were chosen or chose God, we could still be predestined for adoption.

Just track back a few verses. It says we were chosen (elected) so that we would be holy and blameless before Him. That's salvation. God chooses to salvation. All of this (election and predestination) is done according to his foreloving us (not our actions) and the good pleasure of His will.

Butch5
Dec 31st 2008, 11:05 PM
Just track back a few verses. It says we were chosen (elected) so that we would be holy and blameless before Him. That's salvation. God chooses to salvation. All of this (election and predestination) is done according to his foreloving us (not our actions) and the good pleasure of His will.

As I said Paul was speaking of himself and the other apostles (Jews)

Let's look at what Paul himself has to say,

Ephesians 1:3-14 ( KJV ) 3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Notice Paul's use of first and second person personal plural pronouns. Paul is speaking of two different groups here, notice one group he says we, our, and us. The other group he says you and your. Paul includes himself in the first group, the we, our, us, group. Then he says to the Ephesians, and you after you heard the gospel, the Ephesians are the second group. So who is the first group? The group Paul includes himself in? They were chosen before the foundation of the world, they were predestined to adoption, they were to be to the praise of His glory, they had received an inheritance. These are references to the Jews.

Romans 9:1-5 ( KJV ) 1I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

These references to the Jews pertain to the Jewish believers, look what else Paul says,

Ephesians 1:12 ( KJV ) 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Who first trusted in Christ? The Jews. Now, what does Paul say about these believing Jews?

Ephesians 1:8-10 ( KJV )8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

He has abounded to us in "all" wisdom, who did God abound to in "all" wisdom?the apostles, and they were Jews.

Who did God make the mystery known to? The apostles, and they were Jews.

Ephesians 3:2-6 ( KJV ) 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Paul also says in verse 11 that thy had obtained and inheritance,
Ephesians 1:11 ( KJV ) 11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

The group that Paul include himself in has already obtained the inheritance, Notice what Paul says to the other group, the Ephesians,


Ephesians 1:13-14 ( KJV ) 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Paul says that the Ephesians received the Spirit which is the earnest or down payment of our inheritance, after they believed. So, Paul says that the group that he is in had already received the promise of the inheritance, yet the Ephesians did not receive the promise of the inheritance until after they believed.

The Jews had the promise of their inheritance from Genesis, the land that God promised to Abraham as possession forever. However the Ephesians did not have this promise until after they believed. I think from all of these evidences that it is clear that Paul is not speaking of the Ephesians or the gentiles in Ephesians 1:3-12.

drew
Dec 31st 2008, 11:26 PM
As I said Paul was speaking of himself and the other apostles (Jews)
I agree. If time permits, I will analyze the details of your argument and see if it is essentially the same as an argument I wrote up a year or so ago. I may post my argument if it is not essentially a repeat of yours.

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 11:27 PM
Fine, whenever somebody posts a 'problem' verse for Calvinism, I'll just say it doesn't apply to us. :rolleyes:

Brother Mark
Dec 31st 2008, 11:32 PM
Fine, whenever somebody posts a 'problem' verse for Calvinism, I'll just say it doesn't apply to us. :rolleyes:

I hear ya! It's easier to defend a doctrine that to change our belief. You'll find plenty of problem verses for both sides.

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 11:34 PM
I hear ya! It's easier to defend a doctrine that to change our belief. You'll find plenty of problem verses for both sides.

So, tell me, do you believe Ephesians applies to us?

Brother Mark
Dec 31st 2008, 11:37 PM
So, tell me, do you believe Ephesians applies to us?

:saint: I believe all of scripture can be applicable to us. ;)

Butch5
Dec 31st 2008, 11:43 PM
Fine, whenever somebody posts a 'problem' verse for Calvinism, I'll just say it doesn't apply to us. :rolleyes:

It's not about posting problem verses, it's about understanding the word of God. I used to understand it the same way you do. However when I looked at the evidence it became clear to me that this was indeed a correct interpretation. It is not mine I learned it form others. As a matter of fact, if you or anyone else would like to read the article in depth, I will provide a link to the site where I learned it.

http://www.pfrs.org/commentary/Eph_1_3.pdf

BrckBrln
Dec 31st 2008, 11:46 PM
It's not about posting problem verses, it's about understanding the word of God. I used to understand it the same way you do. However when I looked at the evidence it became clear to me that this was indeed a correct interpretation. It is not mine I learned it form others. As a matter of fact, if you or anyone else would like to read the article in depth, I will provide a link to hte site where I learned it.

http://www.pfrs.org/commentary/Eph_1_3.pdf

I will look into it a little later but I do have a few questions. If that part of Ephesians doesn't apply to us then what about all the rest of the book? What about other books like Romans? Is it too only applicable to Jews?

Butch5
Jan 1st 2009, 12:04 AM
I will look into it a little later but I do have a few questions. If that part of Ephesians doesn't apply to us then what about all the rest of the book? What about other books like Romans? Is it too only applicable to Jews?

No, there are parts of all of the books that apply to us and parts that don't. It is the context that is so important, this gets overlooked a lot, and is one reason why there is so much confusion in the church today. There is so much that I have had to relearn after I began to study the Scriptures in context. Paying very close attention to who, what, where, and when, because the writers change focus and if we're not paying very close attention, they may change and we don't notice. For example in Romans Paul is writing, then all of a sudden he begins to address the Jews, I never noticed this until I learned to look for it. Notice,

Romans 7:1 ( KJV ) 1Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

He differentiates between the brethren, I didn't notice this in the past. He says for I speak to them who know the law. As you continue to read, you notice that a lot of the next few chapters refers to the Israelites. He continues through to chapter 11:13, where He says,

Romans 11:13 ( KJV ) 13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:


Here he switches his attention to the gentiles and begins addressing them.

Now, I'm not saying everything between Chapter 7:1 and 11:13, does not apply to us, I am only saying that what He says here, he is saying to the Jewish believers. The application has to be determined by the context and other Scriptures.

Nikodimos
Jan 1st 2009, 12:17 AM
Hi Butch 5,

You seem to be interested, according to your Reply, in dividing people into groups in that section of Ephesians 1.
We might start with a few simple facts. Paul is an apostle to the Gentiles.
Ephesians 3:1-12 bears this out clearly. Verse 8 will be sufficient to establish that, "To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,"


Let me ask you a question. At the top of your Reply it says that you are a Christian.
Which group do you place yourself in that you might make such a claim?
I prefer to keep a short post and see where that takes us.

Butch5
Jan 1st 2009, 02:28 AM
Hi Butch 5,

You seem to be interested, according to your Reply, in dividing people into groups in that section of Ephesians 1.
We might start with a few simple facts. Paul is an apostle to the Gentiles.
Ephesians 3:1-12 bears this out clearly. Verse 8 will be sufficient to establish that, "To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,"


Let me ask you a question. At the top of your Reply it says that you are a Christian.
Which group do you place yourself in that you might make such a claim?
I prefer to keep a short post and see where that takes us.

Well, let me say, I never said Paul was not the apostle to the gentiles, however Paul was a Jew.

I place myself in the second group, the you and your group, as I am not Jewish, I am a gentile.

alethos
Jan 1st 2009, 01:17 PM
Read Ephesians 2:1-10. We are regenerated to life in Christ, not regenerated to life to choose life or death. Not everybody will be regenerated, and the ones that do are saved and the ones that aren't are left in their death.

It seems as though you are either unwilling or unable to distinguish the difference between regeneration and belief. But since you won't accept my word for it, I have posted below a couple of comments for you to consider.

In regeneration the soul of man is utterly passive until it has been made alive. It offers no help in reviving itself, though once revived it is empowered to act and respond. (R.C. Sproul)

To be sure, after a person is regenerated, that person cooperates by exercising faith and trust. But the first step, the step of regeneration by which a person is quickened to spiritual life, is the work of God and of God alone. (R.C. Sproul)

(The Westminster Confession of Faith states:)
"This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it."

alethos
Jan 1st 2009, 01:25 PM
This is mainly for BrckBrn or anyone else who is interested.

Earlier in this thread, I posted a bit of Scripture from 1 Pet. 1:1-2 which says that individuals are elected according to the foreknowledge of God. Then you said "election isn't based on God's foreknowledge." That raises the following question which I direct towards you.

Q: according to Scripture what is election based on, since you ruled out God's foreknowledge?

BrckBrln
Jan 1st 2009, 04:11 PM
It seems as though you are either unwilling or unable to distinguish the difference between regeneration and belief. But since you won't accept my word for it, I have posted below a couple of comments for you to consider.

In regeneration the soul of man is utterly passive until it has been made alive. It offers no help in reviving itself, though once revived it is empowered to act and respond. (R.C. Sproul)

To be sure, after a person is regenerated, that person cooperates by exercising faith and trust. But the first step, the step of regeneration by which a person is quickened to spiritual life, is the work of God and of God alone. (R.C. Sproul)

(The Westminster Confession of Faith states:)
"This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it."

I'm not more separating regeneration from belief anymore than I am with Justification and Sanctification. One follows the other. You can't believe without first being regenerated. And you can't be regenerated but not believe.

BrckBrln
Jan 1st 2009, 04:13 PM
This is mainly for BrckBrn or anyone else who is interested.

Earlier in this thread, I posted a bit of Scripture from 1 Pet. 1:1-2 which says that individuals are elected according to the foreknowledge of God. Then you said "election isn't based on God's foreknowledge." That raises the following question which I direct towards you.

Q: according to Scripture what is election based on, since you ruled out God's foreknowledge?

I already said.

"according to the purpose of his will"

Besides, did you even read what I posted on God's foreknowledge?

alethos
Jan 1st 2009, 04:43 PM
I already said.

"according to the purpose of his will"

Besides, did you even read what I posted on God's foreknowledge?

I don't disagree. I just think there are more mysteries about election that we can't fanthom.

What I disagree with, is individuals who say the foreknowledge of God plays no role in election, even though Scripture says otherwise.

1. I previously stated that God is absolute in His omniscience. (There is nothing past, present, or future that He doesn't know)

2. 1 Pet 1:1-2 speaks of individuals being elect according to the foreknowledge of God.


Since both 1 & 2 above are true statements then either .....

A. God elects individuals whom He foreknows will believe.

or

B. God elects only some of those He foreknows will believe, while at the same time not electing other's whom He knows would believe, given the opportunity.

I cannot fanthom B, therefore I have to say A is more likely, and more in line with a God who is merciful and loving.

BrckBrln
Jan 1st 2009, 05:00 PM
I don't disagree. I just think there are more mysteries about election that we can't fanthom.

What I disagree with, is individuals who say the foreknowledge of God plays no role in election, even though Scripture says otherwise.

I too would agree that election is according to God's foreknowledge as that Peter verse clearly states but we have to understand what is meant by foreknowledge.


1. I previously stated that God is absolute in His omniscience. (There is nothing past, present, or future that He doesn't know)

I fully agree


2. 1 Pet 1:1-2 speaks of individuals being elect according to the foreknowledge of God.

I fully agree



Since both 1 & 2 above are true statements then either .....

A. God elects individuals whom He foreknows will believe.

Now, why did you leap from 'foreknowledge' to 'foreknows will believe'? Does Peter say that is what foreknowledge is? Notice that 'foreknowledge' is in connection with people not their actions. And it's more than just 'knowing beforehand' it's more like loving beforehand. God elects us because He loved us before the foundation of the world. Why did He love us? According to the good pleasure of His will.

alethos
Jan 1st 2009, 05:13 PM
I too would agree that election is according to God's foreknowledge as that Peter verse clearly states but we have to understand what is meant by foreknowledge.

[b]

I fully agree

[b]

I fully agree




Now, why did you leap from 'foreknowledge' to 'foreknows will believe'? Does Peter say that is what foreknowledge is? Notice that 'foreknowledge' is in connection with people not their actions. And it's more than just 'knowing beforehand' it's more like loving beforehand. God elects us because He loved us before the foundation of the world. Why did He love us? According to the good pleasure of His will.

The point your're missing is this.

Since God is absolute in His omniscience, it then follows that He has to know beforehand that they will believe.

BrckBrln
Jan 1st 2009, 05:14 PM
The point your're missing is this.

Since God is absolute in His omniscience, it then follows that He has to know beforehand that they will believe.

And I affirm this. God knows everything, including who will believe and who won't. This doesn't mean that that's the basis for God's election.

alethos
Jan 1st 2009, 05:22 PM
And I affirm this. God knows everything, including who will believe and who won't. This doesn't mean that that's the basis for God's election.

If I were God, which I'm not, then being absolutely omniscient would benefit me when it comes time to elect individuals. Therefore I believe God's foreknowledge indeed does play a role in election, as does His mercy, will, love, and purpose. I personally don't think we can rule out any of these. Too many mysteries surround election and remain unsolved for any of us to say we have all the answers.

BrckBrln
Jan 1st 2009, 05:26 PM
If I were God, which I'm not, then being absolutely omniscient would benefit me when it comes time to elect individuals. Therefore I believe God's foreknowledge indeed does play a role in election, as does His mercy, love, and purpose. I personally don't think we can rule out any of these. Too many mysteries surround election and remain unsolved for any of us to say we have all the answers.

A greater benefit for God when it comes to election is His sovereign power. You can't make the leap from God having full knowledge of everything to election is based on foreseen belief. There is no basis for that assumption.

alethos
Jan 1st 2009, 05:31 PM
A greater benefit for God when it comes to election is His sovereign power. You can't make the leap from God having full knowledge of everything to election is based on foreseen belief. There is no basis for that assumption.

I never said election hinges solely on His foreknowledge. I merely said it palys some part in it, as does His mercy, his love, his will, his purpose, his power etc. I merely state what 1 Pet 1:1-2 says. 1 Pet 1:1:1-2 ties God's foreknowledge with election. If Scripture ties foreknowledge with election, why shouldn't I?

BrckBrln
Jan 1st 2009, 05:35 PM
I never said election hinges solely on His foreknowledge. I merely said it palys some part in it, as does His mercy, his love, his will, his purpose, his power etc. I merely state what 1 Pet 1:1-2 says. 1 Pet 1:1:1-2 ties God's foreknowledge with election. If Scripture ties foreknowledge with election, why shouldn't I?

Again, what is this 'foreknowledge'? Why couldn't it be foreknowledge that a person would sneeze? Why can't that be the basis for election? There is nothing to connect it with belief, so why not?

alethos
Jan 1st 2009, 05:44 PM
Again, what is this 'foreknowledge'? Why couldn't it be foreknowledge that a person would sneeze? Why can't that be the basis for election? There is nothing to connect it with belief, so why not?

You previously agreed that God's foreknowledge includes His knowing beforehand who will believe. And once again 1 Pet 1:1-2 ties election in with His foreknowledge. To say otherwise is to ignore Scripture.

Brother Mark
Jan 1st 2009, 06:03 PM
Again, what is this 'foreknowledge'? Why couldn't it be foreknowledge that a person would sneeze? Why can't that be the basis for election? There is nothing to connect it with belief, so why not?

Doesn't Romans 9 tie it back to belief? However, the calvinist can still suggest that even the belief is a gift from God. But Romans 9 says he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Then the latter part of the chapter shows he has mercy on those whom believe and rejects those who don't believe.

I think both Arminians and Calvinist get into trouble when they try to read more into scripture than what is there. For instance, the Calvinist will not agree that God loves the whole world, or that Jesus paid for all sin. Scripture says both are true. The Arminian will not agree that God chooses to save his elect.

alethos
Jan 1st 2009, 11:25 PM
The Arminian will not agree that God chooses to save his elect.

Can you provide some support fron an Arminian source that would lend credence to that comment?

Brother Mark
Jan 1st 2009, 11:27 PM
Can you provide some support fron an Arminian source that would lend credence to that comment?

This entire board. Most will say that they chose God in faith, and therefor, God in his foreknowledge, chose them. So, take the statement in context. Very few arminians will agree with the calvinist statement that God chose the elect and only the elect before the foundations of the world.

reformedct
Jan 1st 2009, 11:31 PM
I think we will all be much happier if we focused on having faith in God at this very moment instead of focusing on something God may have done beore we were born. The important thing is, do we have faith right now? I have seen that this is one of those debates that will never die until we are in heaven

i am heavily influenced by the writings of John Calvin and Sproul but i will be the first to admit i dont fully know how election works, but i do know that salvation belongs to the Lord and that it is a work of God from beginning to end. Most people will agree that they did not save themselves but they were saved by God.

just my 2 pennies:P

alethos
Jan 1st 2009, 11:35 PM
salvation belongs to the Lord and that it is a work of God from beginning to end. Most people will agree that they did not save themselves but they were saved by God.

just my 2 pennies:P

God indeed does save. But does He save you before you believe, or after you believe?

alethos
Jan 1st 2009, 11:42 PM
This entire board. Most will say that they chose God in faith, and therefor, God in his foreknowledge, chose them. So, take the statement in context. Very few arminians will agree with the calvinist statement that God chose the elect and only the elect before the foundations of the world.

The reason I asked was because Arminians also believe in election. The difference between the Calvinist view of election and the Arminian view of election is that in Calvinism the election is unconditional, whereas in Arminianism the election is conditional. Both Calvinist as well as Arminians believe God saves His elect, they just disagree on how a person becomes one of God's elect.

"Arminius proposed that the election of God was of believers, thereby making it conditional on faith." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

reformedct
Jan 1st 2009, 11:47 PM
God indeed does save. But does He save you before you believe, or after you believe?


it has been my personal experience and the same with others that God saved me before i "believed". I knew alot about the Bible and sometimes prayed to Jesus to forgive me but i never really felt a change until a few months ago. I was just sitting in church and then i felt a warmth over me and a love for God and i just changed.

As i said i will admit i dont know exactly how it all works when we talk about election.

But let me ask you this: when you got saved, did God touch your heart, and then you believed? or did you believe and then God touched your heart? Did the change of heart come before or after believing?

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 12:08 AM
let me ask you this: when you got saved, did God touch your heart, and then you believed? or did you believe and then God touched your heart? Did the change of heart come before or after believing?

God first touched my heart. This is what I refer to as regeneration.

Then the Holy Spirit convicted me of my lost condition and need of a Savior

Then I repented and believed

Once I believed I then became saved.

Rom 10:9 because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved:

Sirus
Jan 2nd 2009, 12:55 AM
God first touched my heart. This is what I refer to as regeneration.A lot of people, even most do, but it is not in Scripture.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 01:14 AM
A lot of people, even most do, but it is not in Scripture.

What isn't?

If you are referring to regeneration then look at ......

Titus 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared,
Titus 3:5 not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

Sirus
Jan 2nd 2009, 01:21 AM
Right, now what scripture causes you to place it as the first on your list? Don't post John 6.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 01:42 AM
What isn't?

If you are referring to regeneration then look at ......

Titus 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared,
Titus 3:5 not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

Hi Alethos,

What is the washing (bath) of regeneration?

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 12:53 PM
Right, now what scripture causes you to place it as the first on your list? Don't post John 6.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 01:01 PM
Hi Alethos,

What is the washing (bath) of regeneration?

Some believe it's water baptism. I don't agree with them. I believe it refers to the new birth. See Thayers below ....

regeneration - paliggenesia in the Greek
Thayer Definition:
1) new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration

and from Strongs
regeneration - paliggenesia
From G3825 and G1078; (spiritual) rebirth (the state or the act), that is, (figuratively) spiritual renovation; specifically Messianic restoration: - regeneration.

Isn't it interesting that baptism is not given as a possible definition for regeneration?

John146
Jan 2nd 2009, 03:51 PM
What isn't?

If you are referring to regeneration then look at ......

Titus 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared,
Titus 3:5 not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,What doesn't make sense to me regarding your view is that you have regeneration happening first and then salvation occurring sometime after that. This passage you quoted says that God saves us by means of the washing of regeneration (and renewing of the Holy Spirit). This tells me that salvation and regeneration occur simultaneously. We are saved and born again/regenerated at the same time. In other words, being born again is what makes us saved.

I believe Ephesians 2 touches on this as well.

4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved )
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

I believe to be "quickened" is to be made spiritually alive and refers to being born again/regenerated. This passage equates being quickened/regenerated to being saved.

I believe repentance and faith come before regeneration if regeneration is understood to be the time when we are born again.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 04:24 PM
I believe repentance and faith come before regeneration if regeneration is understood to be the time when we are born again.

The majority of people believe as you do.

The difference between your view and mine is this. You believe the spiritually dead have the ability to repent and believe before they are made alive spiritually contrary to 1 Cor 2:14.

In my view the spiritually dead need to be made alive before they are aware of their need to repent and believe.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

1 Cor 2:14 Now the natural (unregenerate) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

The above verse says the unregenerate man is absolutely unable to understand things of a spiritual nature. He must be regenerated before he becomes aware of his lost condition.

"born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God." (John 1:13 NIV)

From the above verse it becomes clear that being born again comes not through a humans decision. If we posit that faith or our belief is required to be born again, then how would we explain the verse above, which says our decision does not play a part in our being born again?

theBelovedDisciple
Jan 2nd 2009, 06:23 PM
The majority of people believe as you do.

The difference between your view and mine is this. You believe the spiritually dead have the ability to repent and believe before they are made alive spiritually contrary to 1 Cor 2:14.

In my view the spiritually dead need to be made alive before they are aware of their need to repent and believe.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

1 Cor 2:14 Now the natural (unregenerate) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

The above verse says the unregenerate man is absolutely unable to understand things of a spiritual nature. He must be regenerated before he becomes aware of his lost condition.

"born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God." (John 1:13 NIV)

From the above verse it becomes clear that being born again comes not through a humans decision. If we posit that faith or our belief is required to be born again, then how would we explain the verse above, which says our decision does not play a part in our being born again?


Excellent post... Salvation belongs to God Himself.. Its His Will...

God starts the Process and He finishes it.. He Draws, He Reveals Himself to the Lost Sinner, He Converts, and He Empowers!

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 06:54 PM
Some believe it's water baptism. I don't agree with them. I believe it refers to the new birth. See Thayers below ....

regeneration - paliggenesia in the Greek
Thayer Definition:
1) new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration

and from Strongs
regeneration - paliggenesia
From G3825 and G1078; (spiritual) rebirth (the state or the act), that is, (figuratively) spiritual renovation; specifically Messianic restoration: - regeneration.

Isn't it interesting that baptism is not given as a possible definition for regeneration?

You are missing my point. Paul says, God saved us by the washing of regeneration. No doubt that regeneration is rebirth, the question is, what is the washing, or the literal translation, what is the bath? Whatever it is, it is this that brings about the regeneration. According to Paul God rebirthed (made us born again) us in this washing or bath, so the question is what it. Paul continues, and renewing of the holy Spirit. God saved us with a two part method, the bathing of regeneration, and the renewing of the holy Spirit. From what Paul says it seems clear that this renewing of the holy Spirit, takes place during during the bath of regeneration. So again we are back to the question what is the bath of regeneration?

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 06:59 PM
The majority of people believe as you do.

The difference between your view and mine is this. You believe the spiritually dead have the ability to repent and believe before they are made alive spiritually contrary to 1 Cor 2:14.

In my view the spiritually dead need to be made alive before they are aware of their need to repent and believe.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

1 Cor 2:14 Now the natural (unregenerate) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

The above verse says the unregenerate man is absolutely unable to understand things of a spiritual nature. He must be regenerated before he becomes aware of his lost condition.

"born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God." (John 1:13 NIV)

From the above verse it becomes clear that being born again comes not through a humans decision. If we posit that faith or our belief is required to be born again, then how would we explain the verse above, which says our decision does not play a part in our being born again?

Where in the Scriptures are we told that the gospel falls under the things of the Spirit of God?

John 6:44 applied only during Jesus earthly ministry.

How does John 3:3 says that regeneration must come before faith?

John 1:13 may be a corruption. In reality it should refer to Christ, not those who received Him.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 07:01 PM
Where in the Scriptures are we told that the gospel falls under the things of the Spirit of God?

Lets see, off the top of my head ...............

All Scripture is inspired by God 2 Tim 3:16

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 07:04 PM
what is the bath of regeneration?

In my opinion.

The internal washing performed by the Holy Spirit in giving us new birth.

Scripture says a new heart will I give you.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 07:12 PM
John 6:44 applied only during Jesus earthly ministry.

I disagree.


How does John 3:3 says that regeneration must come before faith?

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

A person doesn't have spiritual sight before being born anew.

I found the following description of the new birth by Tom Ascol quite interesting.
"In an analogous way, spiritual birth is that initiatory experience that brings an individual into a state of salvation. It is that which enables him, for the first time, to see Christ with faith, to repent of sin and to begin trusting and following the Lord."
Then Tom Ascol continues by stating:
"Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). Paul wrote that no one by nature can please God or keep His law (Rom. 8:7-8). There is no spiritual ability in people because of sin. Consequently, if a spiritually depraved, spiritually disabled individual is to become a believer and a repenter (a follower of Jesus Christ), something must happen to him. That something is regeneration. There must be new birth, quickening, a work of God's Spirit which grants life and spiritual power, spiritual ability to see, to hear, to respond. This is the work of regeneration."


John 1:13 may be a corruption. In reality it should refer to Christ, not those who received Him.

You seem to being jumping through a lot of hoops here

Question for you .... What and how do you believe regeneration takes place?


.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 07:49 PM
Hi Alethos,


John 1:12-13 ( KJV ) 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

First, lets notice that the right, to become children, was only given to those who received him. So, there was action on their part before they were given the right to become children. Let's look at what the word received is,

Title : Thayer’s Greek Definitions

λαμβάνω lambanō Thayer Definition: 1) to take 1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it 1a1) to take up a thing to be carried 1a2) to take upon one’s self 1b) to take in order to carry away 1b1) without the notion of violence, i,e to remove, take away 1c) to take what is one’s own, to take to one’s self, to make one’s own 1c1) to claim, procure, for one’s self 1c1a) to associate with one’s self as companion, attendant 1c2) of that which when taken is not let go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend 1c3) to take by craft (our catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud 1c4) to take to one’s self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e. to appropriate to one’s self 1c5) catch at, reach after, strive to obtain 1c6) to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute) 1d) to take 1d1) to admit, receive 1d2) to receive what is offered 1d3) not to refuse or reject 1d4) to receive a person, give him access to one’s self 1d4a) to regard any one’s power, rank, external circumstances, and on that account to do some injustice or neglect something 1e) to take, to choose, select 1f) to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a trial of, to experience 2) to receive (what is given), to gain, get, obtain, to get back

Clearly every definition given indicates that the receiving is of one's own power. So those in verse 12 willingly received Christ and were given the right to become children of God.

Now, verser 13, There may be a corruption in this verse, I think the evidence is rther strong in support of this theory. First look at the text itself,

John 1:13 ( KJV ) 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

What believer, or Christian, has not been born of blood? Of the will of the flesh? Or of the will of man? There are none, ever y Christian "is" born of the will of man and of the flesh and is born of blood. However, what about Christ? Was He born ofthe will of the flesh? No. Was He born of the will of man? No. Was He born of blood? No. The description of this verse fits Christ perfectly, yet is the exact opposite of man.

Let's consider histoy, shortly after the time of Christ, there was a group called the Gnostics. They beleived that certain people were destined to salvation and others were not. They also believed that Jesus and the Christ were not the same, they believed that the Christ was a Spirit that came and dwelt upon the man Jesus, and left Him just before the cross. Therefore there would be no resurrection of the flesh. They beleived that the flesh was inherantly evil and that salvation was to escape the flesh. They argued that since the Christ had left the man Jesus, there could be no ressurection of the flesh. This is the argument that John is addressing in his gospel, and why He tells us, that the word took on flesh and dwelt among us. This group would claim the truth of the gospel, yet would change the Scriptures to suit their theology (not much cahnges). So if you take John 1:13,

John 1:13 ( KJV ) 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

and change one word, the word "were" form the word "was", you can change the whole meaning of the verse. If the verse originally contained the word was, 'who was born' it would refer back to Christ, He was born not of the will of man or the flesh or of blood, He was born of the will of God. So, it fits quite nicely without having to force the language. However, if the Gnostics did change it to 'were' then it refers back to "those who received Him". This however does not fit the language very well, since all Christians "are" born of the will of the flesh, the will of man, and of blood.

Tertullian addresses this group, the Gnostics in his writings.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3

Chap. XIX.—Christ, as to His Divine Nature, as the Word of God, Became Flesh, Not by Carnal Conception, nor by the Will of the Flesh and of Man, but by the Will of God. Christ’s Divine Nature, of Its Own Accord, Descended into the Virgin’s Womb.

What, then, is the meaning of this passage, “Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God?” (John 1:13) I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it. They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural) “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves. But how can this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.” And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh. To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men, because it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh? For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being “born of blood” but only the matter of the seed,’ which, as all know, is the warm blood as convected by ebullition into the coagulum of the woman’s blood. In the cheese, it is from the coagulation that the milky substance acquires that consistency, which is condensed by infusing the rennet. We thus understand that what is denied is the Lord’s birth after sexual intercourse (as is suggested by the phrase, “the will of man and of the flesh”), not His nativity from a woman’s womb. Why, too, is it insisted on with such an accumulation of emphasis that He was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor (of the will) of man, if it were not that His flesh was such that no man could have any doubt on the point of its being born from sexual intercourse? Again, although denying His birth from such cohabitation, the passage did not deny that He was born of real flesh; it rather affirmed this, by the very fact that it did not deny His birth in the flesh in the same way that it denied His birth from sexual intercourse. Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of God descended into a woman’s womb at all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the womb. For He could have become spiritual flesh without such a process,—much more simply, indeed, without the womb than in it. He had no reason for enclosing Himself within one, if He was to bear forth nothing from it. Not without reason, however, did He descend into a womb. Therefore He received (flesh) therefrom; else, if He received nothing therefrom, His descent into it would have been without a reason, especially if He meant to become flesh of that sort which was not derived from a womb, that is to say, a spiritual one.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 07:50 PM
Lets see, off the top of my head ...............

All Scripture is inspired by God 2 Tim 3:16

Does that mean that everything that God ever said, man cannot understand?

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 07:52 PM
In my opinion.

The internal washing performed by the Holy Spirit in giving us new birth.

Scripture says a new heart will I give you.

I'm not being disrespectful, but our pinions don't really mean anything, we have to abide by the Scriptures.

Where do Scriptures speak of this internal washinig of the holy Spirit?

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:01 PM
Hi
What believer, or Christian, has not been born of blood? Of the will of the flesh? Or of the will of man? There are none, ever y Christian "is" born of the will of man and of the flesh and is born of blood.

Wonderful

The thing is ....... John 1:13 is not in reference to physical birth but rather spiritual birth. It is speaking of the new birth.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:10 PM
Alethos---I disagree.

Fair enough, can you however show me how this pertains to Christians after the cross?

I can show you how it does not.



Alethos---John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

A person doesn't have spiritual sight before being born anew.


OK, but we have not established that the gospel can only be understood by those who are regenerated.


Alethos---I found the following description of the new birth by Tom Ascol quite interesting.
"In an analogous way, spiritual birth is that initiatory experience that brings an individual into a state of salvation. It is that which enables him, for the first time, to see Christ with faith, to repent of sin and to begin trusting and following the Lord."
Then Tom Ascol continues by stating:
"Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). Paul wrote that no one by nature can please God or keep His law (Rom. 8:7-8). There is no spiritual ability in people because of sin. Consequently, if a spiritually depraved, spiritually disabled individual is to become a believer and a repenter (a follower of Jesus Christ), something must happen to him. That something is regeneration. There must be new birth, quickening, a work of God's Spirit which grants life and spiritual power, spiritual ability to see, to hear, to respond. This is the work of regeneration."

It may be interesting, however I disagree with it. I really don't want to spend the time to pick apart a commentary. Let's just say before I would accept what He says, he would have to show the basis for his assumptions, which is not included in what you posted.


Alethos---John 1:13 may be a corruption. In reality it should refer to Christ, not those who received Him.

Alethos---You seem to being jumping through a lot of hoops here

Not at all, why do think I am jumping through hoops.


Alethos---Question for you .... What and how do you believe regeneration takes place?

I believe we hear the gospel, place faith in Christ, are baptized, and born again at that point(placed in relationship with Christ), we must continue in faith and endure to the end. I believe that our ultimate salvation comes at the resurrection.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:10 PM
I'm not being disrespectful, but our pinions don't really mean anything, we have to abide by the Scriptures.

Where do Scriptures speak of this internal washinig of the holy Spirit?

Ezek 36:26 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 a heart of flesh.

Question for you

In your view, what is regeneration and how does regeneration take place?

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:13 PM
Wonderful

The thing is ....... John 1:13 is not in reference to physical birth but rather spiritual birth. It is speaking of the new birth.

Yes, but it is saying that thosee who receive the new birth were not born of the flesh, of blood or of the will of man, and they all were.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:15 PM
OK, but we have not established that the gospel can only be understood by those who are regenerated.

Scripture establishes it. Look closely.

1 Cor 2:14 Now the natural (unregenerate) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.


I believe we hear the gospel, place faith in Christ, are baptized, and born again at that point(placed in relationship with Christ), we must continue in faith and endure to the end. I believe that our ultimate salvation comes at the resurrection.

So you believe a person isn't born again until he is water baptized. Is that correct?

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:16 PM
Yes, but it is saying that thosee who receive the new birth were not born of the flesh, of blood or of the will of man, and they all were.

Once again the physical birth of humans is not what is being referred to in John 1:13. It's only referring to the new birth.

Sirus
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:21 PM
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.That doesn’t place Messianic restoration before repentance from dead works and faith towards God –the doctrine of Christ.



Some believe it's water baptism. I don't agree with them. I believe it refers to the new birth. See Thayers below ....

regeneration - paliggenesia in the Greek
Thayer Definition:
1) new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration

and from Strongs
regeneration - paliggenesia
From G3825 and G1078; (spiritual) rebirth (the state or the act), that is, (figuratively) spiritual renovation; specifically Messianic restoration: - regeneration.

Isn't it interesting that baptism is not given as a possible definition for regeneration?Well, water baptism is not the One Baptism of Eph 4:5. The doctrine of Christ (Heb 6) is the doctrine of baptisms (plural). There are seven baptisms in scripture but only one saves. The others point to the one that saves, which is the One Baptism of Eph 4:5. You are the one that rightly brought up John 3:3. Exactly how do you think you are born again? According to scripture it is by a baptism into Christ’s body that crucified your flesh also called the circumcision of Christ (Col 2:11; Rom 6) that cut away your useless flesh and discarded it and the operation of God in putting the Spirit in you (Col 2:12; Rom 6) being buried in baptism so that when Christ was raised you were raised.

I understand a lot of people jump on the water baptism boat but they simply do not understand the doctrine of baptisms.

This same Greek word for regeneration is found in only one other verse in scripture.
Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Now read
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Now understand 'regeneration'
Eph 4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.



The majority of people believe as you do.

The difference between your view and mine is this. You believe the spiritually dead have the ability to repent and believe before they are made alive spiritually contrary to 1 Cor 2:14.


1 Cor 2:14 Now the natural (unregenerate) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

The above verse says the unregenerate man is absolutely unable to understand things of a spiritual nature. He must be regenerated before he becomes aware of his lost condition.
Well, all scripture follows the doctrine of Christ which states
-repentance from dead works
-faith towards God
-doctrine of baptisms

Does the doctrine of Christ contradict 1Cor 2:14? Of course not, you’re just pulling 1Cor 2:14 completely out of context as people always do. The spiritual things not received by the natural man in the context are “(v9) the things which God hath prepared for them that love him……(v10) the deep things of God…..(v12) we might know the things that are freely given to us of God”
not salvation.



In my view the spiritually dead need to be made alive before they are aware of their need to repent and believe.First of all, why do you just separate the spirit and not the soul and flesh? Why is the spirit is dead and not the soul and body? It is interesting that I can post soul and body death scripture but there is not one that says the spirit is dead. No not even one. So you will have to explain what you mean by spiritual death. Did Cain and Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham need to be made alive to know they needed to repent and believe? This spiritual death concept of yours simply doesn’t play out in scripture at all. Now there is a veiled relationship as a result of Adams sin, but a severed relationship is not found in scripture.



John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him:

"born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God." (John 1:13 NIV)

From the above verse it becomes clear that being born again comes not through a humans decision. If we posit that faith or our belief is required to be born again, then how would we explain the verse above, which says our decision does not play a part in our being born again?Read all of John 6 in context and tell me how the Father draws! Tell me it is not by the Son! Tell me Jesus does not draw all men to Him by the Cross!

John 1:13 doesn’t say human decision. You are reading a paraphrase translation, which requires the injection of the theology of the translators and the translation board in order to complete and make easier to read. It is not intended to be accurate or used for serious study or theological discussion. It says “the will of the flesh” or “will of man”. That’s what serious translations say.

The proceeding verse says
Joh 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:

A gift must be received. A gift forced is no gift at all. The gift is received by faith.

Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The will of God you are referring to that is not of man but only of God is the mystery of Christ coming in the flesh to be the Savior of man that was hid from past ages from the foundation of the world that is now revealed. It was conceived of God before man was even created and it was accomplish by God only and not man. It was His will and purpose that no man could resist –that is, stop from happening. It is God’s plan of redemption that is of God and not of man.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:51 PM
Ezek 36:26 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 a heart of flesh.

Question for you

In your view, what is regeneration and how does regeneration take place?

OK, how are you tying this verse in Ezekiel to Titus 3:5? How is this the bath of regeneration?


Regeneration is being born again, it take place when a person is baptized. When a person goes into the water of baptism, God baptizes them with the holy Spirit. I believe this is what Jesus was showing us when He was baptized.

Matthew 3:13-17 ( KJV ) 13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

If believe this is what Petr is telling us,


Acts 2:38 ( KJV ) 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


1 Peter 3:18-21 ( KJV ) 18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.



21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:



Here Peter directly connects salvation with baptism, then he says, it's not the water, it the answer of a good conscience toward God. In other words, we go into the water asking God to saved us and He does so in the water. Again, it is not the water, but what God does while we are in the water.



I also think that this is what Paul is saying,


Romans 6:4 ( KJV ) 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.



Here is the definition of the Greek word for newness,



Thayer’s Greek Definitions

G2538 καινότης kainotēs Thayer Definition: 1) newness 1a) in the new state of life in which the Holy Spirit places us so as to produce a new state which is eternal life



The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament

G2538. καινότης kainotēs; gen. kainotētos, fem. noun from kainos (G2537), new. Renewal, not simply an experience similar to the past, but a qualitatively different one. In the NT used in a moral sense, “in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4), meaning in a qualitatively new life with the indwelling of Christ. See Rom. 7:6. Contrast neos (G3501), temporally new, and also the verb ananeoō (G365), to renew, to have a new or another experience the same as in the past.



And the passage under discussion,


Titus 3:5 ( KJV ) 5Not 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;



Washing is not an acurate translation, the Greek word is better rendered bath. It is a noun and not a verb, therefore it is a thing and not an action as it has been translated. So the bath is a thing.



You said that you bellieve is it the washing done by the holy Spirit, however, the grammar does not allow for that interpretation, because the bath is not an action, it is a thing. The bath of regeneration is a thing that God used to save us. I believe, given the evidence that I have presented, it is clear that the bath is baptism. There are more passages of Scriputre I could cite to support this position, however I believe this is sufficient.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 09:08 PM
Once again the physical birth of humans is not what is being referred to in John 1:13. It's only referring to the new birth.

Hi Alethos,

Let's look at it very closely.

John 1:12-13 ( KJV ) 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

What is the subject of these verses? It is "as many as received him" The description are describing the subject. Who who was given the 'power to become the sons of God? It was 'as many as received him'. who are 'them that believed on his name'? They are 'as many as received him'. This is the group that verse 13 is describing. Notice at this point the are not spoken of as being sons of God, John says they have been given the right, to become sons of God. Verse 13 then continues to describe this group, they were born of blood, the will of man, and the will of the flesh.

John146
Jan 2nd 2009, 09:18 PM
The majority of people believe as you do.

The difference between your view and mine is this. You believe the spiritually dead have the ability to repent and believe before they are made alive spiritually contrary to 1 Cor 2:14. I don't believe it's contrary to 1 Cor 2:14 because I don't believe 1 Cor 2:14 has to do with one being able to discern that they are a lost sinner in need of salvation through Jesus Christ. I believe the publican in Luke 18:9-14 and the prison keeper in Acts 16:27-34 each were able to see their spiritual condition without first being regenerated.


In my view the spiritually dead need to be made alive before they are aware of their need to repent and believe.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him:I don't see how you equate being drawn with being regenerated.


John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. In my view, you also can't "see" the kingdom of God without being saved. Again, being born again and saved is the same thing.


1 Cor 2:14 Now the natural (unregenerate) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

The above verse says the unregenerate man is absolutely unable to understand things of a spiritual nature. He must be regenerated before he becomes aware of his lost condition.Continue reading into 1 Cor 3. I believe that the verse is speaking of the deeper things of God that we learn after being saved and not speaking about one's need to repent and believe in order to be saved.

1 Cor 3
1And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Here, Paul is saying that even young Christians (babes in Christ) were not able to discern what he was teaching because they were still thinking carnally. I don't see that what he speaks about there has anything to do with unregenerate people not being able to realize their lost condition.


"born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God." (John 1:13 NIV)

From the above verse it becomes clear that being born again comes not through a humans decision. If we posit that faith or our belief is required to be born again, then how would we explain the verse above, which says our decision does not play a part in our being born again?I believe you are misinterpreting that verse. Let's look at the context.

10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The previous verses speak of people either receiving (accepting and believing in) Him or not receiving (rejecting) Him. It implies that by receiving and accepting Him one would be born of God and become one of the sons (children) of God. You're trying to say that one does not need to have faith in Christ in order to be born of God. Would you also try to say that one does not need faith in Christ in order to become a son/child of God? I'm sure you wouldn't since John 1:12 clearly would contradict that idea. To receive Him is to accept Him and believe in Him. If one doesn't have a choice in the matter then accepting or rejecting Him would not even be part of the equation. A requirement for being a son/child of God and born of God is to receive Christ. That doesn't just happen automatically but is a decision that every person must make: to either receive Him or not.

So, all verse 13 is saying is that when we are born again we are not born of anything physical or of ourselves but we are born of God. I don't believe it is saying that we are born of God through no willful decision of our own but is instead contrasting being born of man with being born of God just like we see in John 3:5-6.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 09:21 PM
Verse 13 then continues to describe this group, they were born of blood, the will of man, and the will of the flesh.

You left out the "not"

who were born, not of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God.

It makes a huge difference.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 09:47 PM
Alethos---Scripture establishes it. Look closely.

1 Cor 2:14 Now the natural (unregenerate) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.


To understand why the natural man cannot receive the things of God, we need to know what Paul means by the natural man. Why are the things of God foolishness to him? Does Paul mean all men in general? First let's consider this. Paul mad the statement above about the natural man, you consider this to include the gospel that the natural man cannot receive, correct?

Consider what else Paul said a few verse later,


1 Corinthians 3:1-4 ( KJV ) 1And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Paul calls these verse same people carnal just a few verse later,

Here is the definition for Carnal.

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

G4559 σαρκικός sarkikos sar-kee-kos' From G4561; pertaining to flesh, that is, (by extension) bodily, temporal, or (by implication) animal, unregenerate:—carnal, fleshly.

Thayer’s Greek Definitions

G4559 σαρκικός sarkikos Thayer Definition: 1) fleshly, carnal 1a) having the nature of flesh, i.e. under the control of the animal appetites 1a1) governed by mere human nature not by the Spirit of God 1a2) having its seat in the animal nature or aroused by the animal nature 1a3) human: with the included idea of depravity 1b) pertaining to the flesh 1b1) to the body: related to birth, linage, etc

If this is a description of the Corinthians, how did they understand the gospel?



Alethos---So you believe a person isn't born again until he is water baptized. Is that correct?

That is correct.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 09:51 PM
You are the one that rightly brought up John 3:3. Exactly how do you think you are born again?

I believe I was born again by a supernatural act of God. I was passive. In fact I was dead, and dead men can't raise them selves to life. Have you ever seen a corpse able to raise itself from the dead?


explain what you mean by spiritual death.

Let me merely post what Jesus said ......

"let the dead bury their own dead." Mat 8:22

Once you are able to understand what Jesus said here, then you will understand spiritual death


This spiritual death concept of yours simply doesn’t play out in scripture at all.

Oh really then why is it written in Scripture .....

Eph 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,


Read all of John 6 in context and tell me how the Father draws!

The point is that unless the Father first draws a person, that person absolutely cannot come to Jesus. A person who says he can come without the Father drawing him, has to ignore both John 6:44 and 6:65.
No one seeks after God, except those whom God has first sought out.



John 1:13 doesn’t say human decision. You are reading a paraphrase translation, which requires the injection of the theology of the translators and the translation board in order to complete and make easier to read. It is not intended to be accurate or used for serious study or theological discussion. It says “the will of the flesh” or “will of man”. That’s what serious translations say.

Take any translation you prefer. John 1:13 basically says the same thing. The NIV wording is just plainer. If you prefer the KJV it says the same thing using different words. Here it is from the KJV ....
John 1:13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
It says the new birth is solely of God. Man plays no role in the new birth.


A gift must be received. A gift forced is no gift at all. The gift is received by faith.

The dead are unable to receive gifts. Take a gift to a dead man and see if he receives it from you. Men first must be made alive so they are able to receieve gifts. Once made alive, we receive the gift of eternal life through faith in Christ.

In your theology dead men are able to raise themselves back to life. Scripture says it is God alone that raises us to life.

Eph 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 09:52 PM
You left out the "not"

who were born, not of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God.

It makes a huge difference.

You are correct, I did leave out the "not". Not born of the flesh, shows that verse 13 could not be referring to those who received him. The language supports the idea that it is a corruption. Because those who received him were born of the flesh, the blood, and the will of man.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:02 PM
Regeneration is being born again, it take place when a person is baptized. When a person goes into the water of baptism,

I see
You believe in baptismal regeneration. I now understand why you disagree with me.

If you want to continue to espouse that view then we will continue to disagree. You believe in a works based salvation.


There is an article about baptismal regeneration at .....
http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-salvation.html

John146
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:16 PM
Take any translation you prefer. John 1:13 basically says the same thing. The NIV wording is just plainer. If you prefer the KJV it says the same thing using different words. Here it is from the KJV ....
John 1:13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
It says the new birth is solely of God. Man plays no role in the new birth.You are not taking the verse in context as I showed in my previous post. If you read the preceding verses you will see that becoming a son/child of God is equivalent to being born of God. In order to become a child of God and be born of God one must receive Christ which is to accept and believe in Him. For you to say that man has no role is false. Man is required to receive Christ in order to become a child of God and be born of God. That is what is taught in John 1:11-13. Man is not able to make himself born of God by his own will. One becomes born of God by an act of God indwelling a believer. But this doesn't mean that a person is not required to do anything in order be born of God. One is indwelt by the Spirit after they have repented and put their faith in Christ.


The dead are unable to receive gifts. Take a gift to a dead man and see if he receives it from you. Men first must be made alive so they are able to receieve gifts. Once made alive, we receive the gift of eternal life through faith in Christ.Being spiritually dead is not equivalent to being physically dead. When you're physically dead you are unable to do anything physically. When one is spiritually dead they still have a conscience and heart and are still able to think and reason and so on. Again, it's not reasonable to compare spiritual death to physical death.


In your theology dead men are able to raise themselves back to life. Scripture says it is God alone that raises us to life.

Eph 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sinsEven after we repent and believe we still need God to raise us to life. We can't raise ourselves to life. Repenting and believing alone doesn't raise us to life. No one is claiming that. You're creating an argument that isn't even there. I believe scripture teaches that God doesn't raise us to life unless we first repent and believe.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:16 PM
You are correct, I did leave out the "not". Not born of the flesh, shows that verse 13 could not be referring to those who received him. The language supports the idea that it is a corruption. Because those who received him were born of the flesh, the blood, and the will of man.

You continue to by-pass where verse 13 mentions being born is not of the will of man, or the will of the flesh but is of God

Of course spiritual birth, not physical birth is what is being referred to in verse 13

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:25 PM
I see
You believe in baptismal regeneration. I now understand why you disagree with me.

If you want to continue to espouse that view then we will continue to disagree. You believe in a works based salvation.


There is an article about baptismal regeneration at .....
http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-salvation.html

I don't really need to read the article, I have heard most of the arguments and have dealt with their flaws. However, since you disagree with me, why not show how I have misunderstood the Scriptures?

Why do you say I believe in a works based salvation?

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:26 PM
eing spiritually dead is not equivalent to being physically dead.

Never said it was.


Bible teaches that God doesn't raise us to life unless we first repent and believe.

In your view you must first do something before God is able to raise you to life. In my view God raises us to spiritual life, to enable us to repent and believe.

Eph 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins

A desire for God is not part of the unregenerate nature.

"It is probably true that the majority of professing Christians in the world today believe that the order of our salvation is this: Faith precedes regeneration. We are exhorted to choose to be born again. But telling a man to choose rebirth is like exhorting a corpse to choose resurrection. The exhortation falls upon deaf ears."
R C Sproul - http://www.the-highway.com/genesis_Sproul.html

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:29 PM
Why do you say I believe in a works based salvation?

If you must submit yourself to baptism in order to be saved, then there is a work you must do in order to be saved. You have added a work of man as being necessary for salvation. Scripture says .......

Eph 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 not of works, that no man should glory.

I'm sure you will deny that submitting yourself to baptism is a work. They all do.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:33 PM
You continue to by-pass where verse 13 mentions being born is not of the will of man, or the will of the flesh but is of God

Of course spiritual birth, not physical birth is what is being referred to in verse 13

I'm not missing it. Even if it is speaking of spiritual life, the ones who were given the right to become children of God were born of the flesh, of the will of man, and of blood. You are saying that this refers to spiritual life, these people who are receiving this spiritual lfe, were born of the flesh, and of blood. The Scripture says they were not.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:35 PM
If you must submit yourself to baptism in order to be saved, then there is a work you must do in order to be saved. You have added a work of man as being necessary for salvation. Scripture says .......

Eph 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 not of works, that no man should glory.

I'm sure you will deny that submitting yourself to baptism is a work. They all do.

Eph. 2:8-9 is referring to the works of the law.

Can you show me where Scripture says that baptism is a work?

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:45 PM
Can you show me where Scripture says that baptism is a work?

Who submits to baptism?

You do

By saying a person has to do something to earn his salvation is adding a human work to salvation.

But baptismal regenerationists add to the Scripture that says being saved is not of works, and say it means works of the law, when all the verse says is not of works. The part you add "works of the law" is not found in the verse. Baptismal regenerationist's have to alter the text to find wiggle room.

Eph 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 not of works, that no man should glory.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:48 PM
I'm not missing it. Even if it is speaking of spiritual life, the ones who were given the right to become children of God were born of the flesh, of the will of man, and of blood. You are saying that this refers to spiritual life, these people who are receiving this spiritual lfe, were born of the flesh, and of blood. The Scripture says they were not.

Everyone who becomes born again had to first become born physically. That in no way alters the fact that it is spiritual birth which is being referred to in verse 13. And in verse 13 we read that spiritual birth is not of man, but of God.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:55 PM
Everyone who becomes born again had to first become born physically. That in no way alters the fact that it is spiritual birth which is being referred to in verse 13. And in verse 13 we read that spiritual birth is not of man, but of God.

You're not getting my point, and this is a side issue so there is no point is pressing the point.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:58 PM
You're not getting my point, and this is a side issue so there is no point is pressing the point.

I get your point ..... You want to push baptismal regeneration, which is a works based salvation. That's fine with me but having studied that view I must reject it on Biblical grounds.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 11:18 PM
Who submits to baptism?

You do

By saying a person has to do something to earn his salvation is adding a human work to salvation.

But baptismal regenerationists add to the Scripture that says being saved is not of works, and say it means works of the law, when all the verse says is not of works. The part you add "works of the law" is not found in the verse. Baptismal regenerationist's have to alter the text to find wiggle room.

Eph 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 not of works, that no man should glory.

No, my friend, I am not adding to the text. The definition of some words must be determined from the context. The word work is one. Work can mean different things depending on how it is used. Suppose you go fishing, it is a leisure activity for you not work, however for the professional fisherman it is work. Let's look at the verses you have posted,

In context , Paul is writing about how the dividing line between the Jews and the gentiles has been removed.

Ephesians 2:8-10 ( YLT ) 8for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you—of God the gift, 9not of works, that no one may boast; 10for of Him we are workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God did before prepare, that in them we may walk.

Paul says we are not saved by works, what are these works? Remember the Jews were trying to please God by keeping the law.

Ephesians 2:11-17 ( KJV ) 11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.



14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.



When we look at the context, it is clear that Paul is speaking of the works of the law. After he tells them that they are not saved by works, he goes on to tell them that Christ has abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances. This is the Mosaic law.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 11:19 PM
I get your point ..... You want to push baptismal regeneration, which is a works based salvation. That's fine with me but having studied that view I must reject it on Biblical grounds.

My point is John 1:13 has noting to do with baptism. Ahough I would be interested in hearing you Biblical grounds or rejection baptismal regeneration.

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 11:27 PM
My point is John 1:13 has noting to do with baptism.

I never said it did. I only said verse 13 refers to spiritual birth which is produced by God.


I would be interested in hearing you Biblical grounds or rejection baptismal regeneration.

I repeat .... It adds your work of submitting to baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation. Eph. 2:8-9 says ... For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift--
Eph 2:9 not of works, so that no one can boast.

enough said

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 11:37 PM
My point is John 1:13 has noting to do with baptism. Ahough I would be interested in hearing you Biblical grounds or rejection baptismal regeneration.

One more Biblical reason for rejecting baptismal regeneration.

John 3:7 Do not be amazed that I told you that you must be born again.
John 3:8 The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don't know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

“BUT CANST NOT TELL WHENCE IT COMETH.”
The word “whence” is ‘pothen’, which means FROM WHICH, FROM WHERE, FROM WHAT PLACE. The word “cometh” is ‘erchomai’, which means TO COME, TO APPEAR, TO SHOW UP, TO COME TO.
If the new birth came about at baptism, then we would know from "whence it cometh" But Scripture clearly tells us thou, "knowest not whence it cometh" Therefore I conclude that baptism is not the means which produces the new birth.

Butch5
Jan 2nd 2009, 11:51 PM
I never said it did. I only said verse 13 refers to spiritual birth which is produced by God.



I repeat .... It adds your work of submitting to baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation. Eph. 2:8-9 says ... For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift--
Eph 2:9 not of works, so that no one can boast.

enough said

I've just shown you from the context that Eph.2:8-9 is speaking of works of the law.

Is Eph. 2:8-9 the only verses that deal with salvation? What about,

Paul said,

Romans 10:13 ( KJV ) 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Don't we have to call on the name of the Lord?

Peter said we have to repent.

Acts 2:38 ( KJV ) 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Are these works?

alethos
Jan 2nd 2009, 11:56 PM
Paul said,

Romans 10:13 ( KJV ) 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Don't we have to call on the name of the Lord?

Yes
We need to call upon the Lord to be saved.

However
We don't call upon the name of the Lord to become regenerated. Not a single Scripture tells us to call upon the Lord to become regenerated. In fact a spiritually dead corpse is unable to call upon the name of the Lord.

There is a difference between regeneration and salvation. They are not the same thing.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:01 AM
One more Biblical reason for rejecting baptismal regeneration.

John 3:7 Do not be amazed that I told you that you must be born again.
John 3:8 The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don't know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

“BUT CANST NOT TELL WHENCE IT COMETH.”
The word “whence” is ‘pothen’, which means FROM WHICH, FROM WHERE, FROM WHAT PLACE. The word “cometh” is ‘erchomai’, which means TO COME, TO APPEAR, TO SHOW UP, TO COME TO.
If the new birth came about at baptism, then we would know from "whence it cometh" But Scripture clearly tells us thou, "knowest not whence it cometh" Therefore I conclude that baptism is not the means which produces the new birth.



Alethos---John 3:7 Do not be amazed that I told you that you must be born again.
John 3:8 The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don't know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."


I don't follow you, this is speaking of those wo are born of the Spirit. This Scripture is not even addressing baptism.

alethos
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:01 AM
One other thing.

If baptism saves, then all those who have been baptized must be saved. However I know a lot of people who have been baptized, who give absolutely no evidence of having been born again and saved.

Or does baptism only save individuals who attend your church, but not other's?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

alethos
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:04 AM
I don't follow you, this is speaking of those wo are born of the Spirit. This Scripture is not even addressing baptism.

You previously said you are born again at baptism.

If being born again is produced at ones baptism then we would know from whence it cometh, but John 3:8 says we don't know from whence it cometh.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:07 AM
Yes
We need to call upon the Lord to be saved.

However
We don't call upon the name of the Lord to become regenerated. Not a single Scripture tells us to call upon the Lord to become regenerated. In fact a spiritually dead corpse is unable to call upon the name of the Lord.

There is a difference between regeneration and salvation. They are not the same thing.

We were not talking about regeneration in Eph 2, we were dscussing salvation. you said baptism is a work, and you said there are not works to be saved. So I will repeat, must we call on the name of the Lord? if so, is that not something that we do?

Peter said repent, must we repent in order to be saved? If so, is that not something we do?

And Jesus said,

Mark 16:14-16 ( NKJV ) 14Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Jesus said we must be baptized.

alethos
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:11 AM
We were not talking about regeneration in Eph 2, we were dscussing salvation. you said baptism is a work, and you said there are not works to be saved. So I will repeat, must we call on the name of the Lord? if so, is that not something that we do?

Peter said repent, must we repent in order to be saved? If so, is that not something we do?

And Jesus said,

Mark 16:14-16 ( NKJV ) 14Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Jesus said we must be baptized.

Actually, Mark 16:16 isn't in many New Testament manuscripts!
But, even if one accepts it as original, what does it say?
It says 'The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved....'. What does it not say? It does not say that baptism saves. Nor does it say that the one who has believed and has been baptized IS saved - rather it says WILL BE saved.
What does the next phrase say though? "...but whoever has not believed will be condemned." No mention of baptism as being a grounds for condemnation. What if someone (like the infamous thief on the cross) believed but was not baptized? Mk. 16:16 does not say that they would be condemned, does it?
The only way that baptism can be made essential to salvation is if it were included in both sides of the equation
Further, Paul definitely did not include baptism as part of the Gospel message when he said: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." (1 Cor. 1:17)

The arguments made for baptismal regeneration are basically the same arguments made by the Judaizers for circumsision being necessary for salvation. Whole books of the Bible were written to refute that position. I think the arguments apply as well to this issue.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:11 AM
You previously said you are born again at baptism.

If being born again is produced at ones baptism then we would know from whence it cometh, but John 3:8 says we don't know from whence it cometh.

John 3:8 says we don't know where those who are born of the Spirit, come and go.

I assume you are saying this is how a person is regenerated, correct? If so please show me how, as I don't see how the action of being born again is shown here. I realize Jesus is telling Nicodemus, you must be born again, and that you must be born of the Spirit, but I don't see here a description of how the Spirit makes one born again.

alethos
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:16 AM
OK Butch here is a hypothethical senario.

A man reads the Bible repents and believes in Christ Jesus. He reads in the morning paper that a church is performing baptisms this morning. He hurries out the door to go to this church to get baptized. On the way to the church he is killed in a auto accident. Is this man saved or unsaved?

alethos
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:22 AM
John 3:8 says we don't know where those who are born of the Spirit, come and go.

That isn't what the verse says. Here is what it says .....

John 3:8 The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don't know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."


I assume you are saying this is how a person is regenerated, correct? If so please show me how, as I don't see how the action of being born again is shown here. I realize Jesus is telling Nicodemus, you must be born again, and that you must be born of the Spirit, but I don't see here a description of how the Spirit makes one born again.

John chapter 3 is Jesus discussion about the necessity of being born again.

Jesus tells Nicodemus that a person is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter heaven. John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The new birth is produced in us by the Spirit of God.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:25 AM
Alethos---Actually, Mark 16:16 isn't in many New Testament manuscripts!
But, even if one accepts it as original, what does it say?
It says 'The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved....'. What does it not say? It does not say that baptism saves. Nor does it say that the one who has believed and has been baptized IS saved - rather it says WILL BE saved.


Right, so, to be saved at the judgment one must be baptized.



Alethos---What does the next phrase say though? "...but whoever has not believed will be condemned." No mention of baptism as being a grounds for condemnation. What if someone (like the infamous thief on the cross) believed but was not baptized? Mk. 16:16 does not say that they would be condemned, does it?
The only way that baptism can be made essential to salvation is if it were included in both sides of the equation


Sorry my friend, the issue is not what one must do to be condemned, the issue is what one must do to saved. There is no need to mention baptism in the second clause because, if one does not believe, it does not matter whether or not they are baptized, they cannot be saved.

Regarding the thief, He was saved under the OT covenant, not the NT.



Alethos---Further, Paul definitely did not include baptism as part of the Gospel message when he said: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." (1 Cor. 1:17)

And we see Paul using the example that Christ set. The gospels record thousands coming to Christ and it says He baptized many, yet not He Himself but his disciples. Paul was doing the same thing, he was following Christ's lead. And I think Christ made it clear that baptism was part of the gospel.


Alethos---The arguments made for baptismal regeneration are basically the same arguments made by the Judaizers for circumsision being necessary for salvation. Whole books of the Bible were written to refute that position. I think the arguments apply as well to this issue.

They are not the same, circumcision was a work of the old covenant, and not necessary under the new. The Judiazers were tying the old and new covenants together.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:28 AM
Alethos---That isn't what the verse says. Here is what it says .....

John 3:8 The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don't know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."


OK, how does this describe the new birth?




Alethos---John chapter 3 is Jesus discussion about the necessity of being born again.

Jesus tells Nicodemus that a person is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter heaven. John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The new birth is produced in us by the Spirit of God.


Agreed, but this does not explain how God rebirths us.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:32 AM
OK Butch here is a hypothethical senario.

A man reads the Bible repents and believes in Christ Jesus. He reads in the morning paper that a church is performing baptisms this morning. He hurries out the door to go to this church to get baptized. On the way to the church he is killed in a auto accident. Is this man saved or unsaved?

According to the Scriptures, I would say he was not saved. However, that is up to God, if God wants to save him, he can. He can save us without belief if he wants to.

alethos
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:34 AM
OK, how does this describe the new birth?

Start in John 3:1 and read on through to 3:9. The whole discussion revolves around the new birth.


Agreed, but this does not explain how God rebirths us.

Quite simply being born again is solely a supernatural act of God whereby He brings the spiritually dead to life. One in which he doesn't ask for any help from us.

I am going to stop posting for a while so you can catch up and respond to posts #132 and #137

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:42 AM
Alethos---Start in John 3:1 and read on through to 3:9. The whole discussion revolves around the new birth.

I have read it, many times and it does not tell us how or when the Spirit makes one born again




Alethos---Quite simply being born again is solely a supernatural act of God whereby we bring the spiritually dead to life. One in which he doesn't ask for any help from us.

Well, I don't know that anyone is spiritually dead, God doesn't need help to make one born again, however that does not mean that He does it to people indiscriminately.

None of this tells us how or when God makes one born again. OK, we must be born of the Spirit, how and when does that happen?

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:44 AM
One other thing.

If baptism saves, then all those who have been baptized must be saved. However I know a lot of people who have been baptized, who give absolutely no evidence of having been born again and saved.

Or does baptism only save individuals who attend your church, but not other's?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Are you talking about inital salvation or are your talking about our ultimate salvaton at the Judgment?

alethos
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:52 AM
Are you talking about inital salvation or are your talking about our ultimate salvaton at the Judgment?

Either ...................

Sirus
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:56 AM
alethos, why did you not reply to my comments on regeneration?


I believe I was born again by a supernatural act of God. I was passive. In fact I was dead, and dead men can't raise them selves to life. Have you ever seen a corpse able to raise itself from the dead?I didn't say a dead man raises himself. The dead throughout scripture communicate with and receive from God just fine. You are going to have to deal with that despite it contradicting your theology.

Before the cross Jesus said the spirit is indeed willing but the flesh is weak. You'll have to deal with that.

Mary said her spirit rejoiced in God her savior. You'll just have to deal with that.

Job said there is a spirit in man that is the candle of the Lord and the Spirit gives man understanding. Jesus, the Word that all things were made by is the light that lights all men. You'll just have to deal with that.

Paul said to will is present. You'll just have to deal with that.

Those are just a few off the top of my head, I can post hundreds more, but you get the idea....and from scripture. Spiritual death is not an inability or paralysis or anything that makes our spirit dysfunctional in any way. You'll just have to deal with that.

In order for you to think this brand of theology you must use NT passages out of context and by themselves, making your interpretation anything but holistic.



Oh really then why is it written in Scripture .....

Eph 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,

The dead are unable to receive gifts. Take a gift to a dead man and see if he receives it from you. Men first must be made alive so they are able to receieve gifts. Once made alive, we receive the gift of eternal life through faith in Christ.

In your theology dead men are able to raise themselves back to life. Scripture says it is God alone that raises us to life.

Eph 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sinsI said your concept of spiritual death is not in scripture and I have quickly and easily proven it above. The dead throughout scripture receive from God just fine. Even to the point of the Spirit being in man. If your view was holistic you would know that and not say such unbiblical things.



The point is that unless the Father first draws a person, that person absolutely cannot come to Jesus. A person who says he can come without the Father drawing him, has to ignore both John 6:44 and 6:65.
No one seeks after God, except those whom God has first sought out. You either didn't read the chapter or are interpreting it through some preconceived theological lens. I asked you to tell me from the text of that chapter how God draws. Can you do that?



Take any translation you prefer. John 1:13 basically says the same thing. The NIV wording is just plainer. If you prefer the KJV it says the same thing using different words. Here it is from the KJV ....
John 1:13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
It says the new birth is solely of God. Man plays no role in the new birth.Look;
Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

So now I will post what I said earlier that you didn't respond to.

"The will of God you are referring to that is not of man but only of God is the mystery of Christ coming in the flesh to be the Savior of man that was hid from past ages from the foundation of the world that is now revealed. It was conceived of God before man was even created and it was accomplish by God only and not man. It was His will and purpose that no man could resist –that is, stop from happening. It is God’s plan of redemption that is of God and not of man."

Now, John 1:13 is not saying man playes no part because as I and others have shown the previous verse says to those that believe and receive. It is stating the process and act of being born again, from it's conception in the mind of God before the foundation of the world, to Christ coming in the flesh and being rejected by his own (John 1) and being buried and raised again was God's will, not mans will.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 01:59 AM
Either ...................

When a person is baptized they are born again, they are placed in a relationship with Christ. That is initial salvation. The past tense, you have been saved. Then you had the present tense, you are being saved, that is as we walk with Christ, then there is the future tense, you shall be saved. This is our ultimate salvation, when we are resurrected.

When a person is baptized they are saved, they are in this relationship with Christ, however, they must continue in this relationship in order to be saved at the resurrection.

So, to answer your question regarding those who give no evidence, either they were never saved, in which case their baptism meant nothing or they are saved but backslidden, or they were saved and have turned from Christ.

Just because baptism saves, that does not mean that everyone who is baptized will be saved, because baptism is not the only thing that saves. Paul said we are saved by grace through faith, You see I could say the same thing about faith that you said about baptism.

So what saves us is Grace, how is that grace applied? There are several requirements, faith, repentance, confessing the name of the Lord, and baptism. So only the one who does all 4 of these is placed into relationship with Christ.

alethos
Jan 3rd 2009, 02:00 AM
alethos, why did you not reply to my comments on regeneration?

I didn't know there was a rule which said I had to respond to every one.

You disagree with my view. Fine

I disagree with your view, as well as your use of Scripture.

Not saying I'm right or you're wrong.

I'll leave it at that.

alethos
Jan 3rd 2009, 02:12 AM
When a person is baptized they are born again, they are placed in a relationship with Christ. That is initial salvation. The past tense you have been saved. Then you had the present tense, you are being saved, that is as we walk with Christ, then there is the future tense, you shall be saved. This is the our ultimate salvation, when we are resurrected.

When a person is baptized they are saved, they are in this relationship with Christ, however, they must continue in this relationship in order to be saved at the resurrection.

So, to answer your question regarding those who give no evidence, either they were never saved, in which case their baptism meant nothing or they are saved but backslidden, or they were saved and have turned from Christ.

Just because baptism saves, that does not mean that everyone who is baptized will be saved, because baptism is not the only thing that saves. Paul said we are saved by grace through faith, You see I could say the same thin about faith that you said about baptism.

So what saves us is Grace, how is that grace applied? There are several requirements, faith, repentance, confessing the name of the Lord, and baptism. So only the one who does all 4 of these is placed into relationship with Christ.

Thanks ... I remain unconvinced by any arguments from the baptismal regenerationist's. I too was baptized, but I know experiencially that my new birth and salvation wasn't obtained when I was baptized. Plus I've seen to many people trusting in their baptism, who give absolutely no evidence of either being born again or being saved or of having become a new creature in Christ in which all things have become new (2 Cor 5:17).

Acts 16:30 Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with my spirit, that I am a child of God:

Good night and so long

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 02:19 AM
Thanks ... I remain unconvinced by any arguments from the baptismal regenerationist's. I too was baptized, but I know experiencially that my new birth and salvation wasn't obtained when I was baptized. Plus I've seen to many people trusting in their baptism, who give absolutely no evidence of either being born again or being saved or of having become a new creature in Christ in which all things have become new (2 Cor 5:17).

Acts 16:30 Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with my spirit, that I am a child of God:

Good night and so long

The same thing is said of faith, many claim to have it, but give no evidence that they are actually saved.

Have a good night.

alethos
Jan 3rd 2009, 03:35 PM
The same thing is said of faith, many claim to have it, but give no evidence that they are actually saved.

Have a good night.

Fair enough, then for me I will have to base the reality of my salvation on subjective matter, and the guidelines in Scripture. In 2 Cor 13:5 Paul said .....
2 Cor 13:5 Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith. Examine yourselves. Or do you not recognize for yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless you fail the test.
That means we can do a self examination to see if we truly are in the faith, and if Christ Jesus truly dwells in us.
The most important test is whether or not I have the witness and testimony of God's Spirit within me that my faith is genuine, and my salvation is a reality. That's what Paul in Romans was saying that very genuine believer has.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit Himself witnesses with our spirit that we are children of God.
I can testify that I have examined my self and I have God's Spirit witnessing to my spirit that I am a child of His.
By the way, His witnessing to my spirit that I am a child of His came to me before my baptism.
Therefore I believe that your position that a person isn't born again until he is baptized doesn't subjectively or Biblically hold up.
Those who hold to the baptismal regeneration position have water on the brain. Sorry, I couldn''t resist the pun.

Butch5
Jan 3rd 2009, 08:34 PM
Fair enough, then for me I will have to base the reality of my salvation on subjective matter, and the guidelines in Scripture. In 2 Cor 13:5 Paul said .....
2 Cor 13:5 Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith. Examine yourselves. Or do you not recognize for yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless you fail the test.
That means we can do a self examination to see if we truly are in the faith, and if Christ Jesus truly dwells in us.
The most important test is whether or not I have the witness and testimony of God's Spirit within me that my faith is genuine, and my salvation is a reality. That's what Paul in Romans was saying that very genuine believer has.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit Himself witnesses with our spirit that we are children of God.
I can testify that I have examined my self and I have God's Spirit witnessing to my spirit that I am a child of His.
By the way, His witnessing to my spirit that I am a child of His came to me before my baptism.
Therefore I believe that your position that a person isn't born again until he is baptized doesn't subjectively or Biblically hold up.
Those who hold to the baptismal regeneration position have water on the brain. Sorry, I couldn''t resist the pun.

Well, you said, His Spirit witnessed with your spirit before you were baptized. This is subjective, can you present evidence that His Spirit has witnessed with your spirit? Feelings are subjective and cannot be relied upon. However, Scripture is not subjective, and I have given strong evidence that baptism is one of the requirements for salvation, you can disagree, however you cannot change the Scriture.

alethos
Jan 4th 2009, 01:35 AM
I have given strong evidence that baptism is one of the requirements for salvation, you can disagree, however you cannot change the Scriture.

"If we accept the erroneous idea that baptism is a means of regeneration, then it would follow that all baptized persons are regenerated. But are they?" (Lehman Strauss, Litt.D., F.R.G.S.)

Once again if baptism is a requirement for salvation, then all baptized people should give evidence of of their salvation. Trouble is we don't see that to be the case. While Scripture is correct, it must be that those like yourself who espouse baptismal regeneration most likely possess a faulty understanding of the Scriptures.

Once again If the new birth came about at baptism, then we would know from "whence it cometh" But Scripture clearly tells us thou, "knowest not whence it cometh" (see John 3:8 below). Therefore I conclude that baptism is not the means which produces the new birth. The last time I mentioned this, it went completely over your head. I suspect it will be no different this time around.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

"Because fallen man is morally unable to incline himself by faith to Christ, regeneration is a logical necessity for faith to occur. If we were to posit that faith precedes regeneration, then we would be assuming that unregenerate people, while still in an unregenerate state, have the moral ability to exercise faith." (Sproul)

We must remember that faith and repentance are spiritual acts which cannot be exercised by an unregenerate person. Put another way, the Bible never exhorts the sinner, "Believe and thou shalt be born again." Rather, we are told, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. . . " (William W. Sasser)

And finally

"born (meaning born again) not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God." (John 1:13)

From the above verse it becomes clear that being born again comes not through a humans decision. If we posit that faith or our belief is required to be born again, then how would we explain the verse above, which says our decision does not play a part in our being born again? Our choosing to be baptized being a decision would also be excluded as a condition for being born again.

Unregenerate men don't possess the desire to repent and believe the gospel.

To end this post I will post the words of Paul

1 Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

To read more on the false teachings of baptismal regeneration go to one of the following sites:

http://www.tmch.net/baptregenerate.htm

http://www.feasite.org/Tracts/fbcbaptr.htm

http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/qa010.html

Butch5
Jan 4th 2009, 02:53 AM
Alethos---"If we accept the erroneous idea that baptism is a means of regeneration, then it would follow that all baptized persons are regenerated. But are they?" (Lehman Strauss, Litt.D., F.R.G.S.)

This is incorrect, simply because baptism itself does not save. What saves is grace through, faith, baptism, repentance, and confession. Every one of these is listed as necessary for salvation.


Alethos---Once again if baptism is a requirement for salvation, then all baptized people should give evidence of of their salvation. Trouble is we don't see that to be the case. While Scripture is correct, it must be that those like yourself who espouse baptismal regeneration most likely possess a faulty understanding of the Scriptures.

As shown above your assumption is wrong. We also don't see evidence from everyone who has faith. So, maybe it isn't my understanding of Scripture that is wrong.


Alethos---Once again If the new birth came about at baptism, then we would know from "whence it cometh" But Scripture clearly tells us thou, "knowest not whence it cometh" (see John 3:8 below). Therefore I conclude that baptism is not the means which produces the new birth. The last time I mentioned this, it went completely over your head. I suspect it will be no different this time around.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.



It didn't go over my head, I tried to show you, that it did not speak of what you said. You cannot tell where the wind comes from of where it is going. So is "everyone" born of the Spirit. It doesn't say you can't tell where the Spirit comes from or where it goes, it says you can't tell where those who are born of the Spirit come from or go.


Alethos---"Because fallen man is morally unable to incline himself by faith to Christ, regeneration is a logical necessity for faith to occur. If we were to posit that faith precedes regeneration, then we would be assuming that unregenerate people, while still in an unregenerate state, have the moral ability to exercise faith." (Sproul)

We must remember that faith and repentance are spiritual acts which cannot be exercised by an unregenerate person. Put another way, the Bible never exhorts the sinner, "Believe and thou shalt be born again." Rather, we are told, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. . . " (William W. Sasser)


Who is Sproul that what He says carries any weight? Or Sasser? Since we are posting commentary, let me post some from some people who were actually there,

Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John

Ignatius appeals to Rom. 6:5
"Wherefore also, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection." (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, II)

It seem the Apostle John taught that baptism was required.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Barnabas 70-130
Further, what says He? "And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whosoever shall eat of them shall live for ever." (Ezek. 47:12) This meaneth, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit. "And whosoever shall eat of these shall live for ever,"

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2
Hermas 150

And I said to him, "I should like to continue my questions." "Speak on," said he. And I said, "I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins." He said to me, "That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity


The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2
Hermas 150

Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For," he continued, "before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1
Justin Martyr 160

Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1
Justin Martyr 160

But there is no other [way] than this,—to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins; and for the rest, to live sinless lives."


The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Irenaeus 180 Disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John.
In refuting the Gnostics

And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1
Irenaeus 180

"And dipped himself," says [the Scripture], "seven times in Jordan." (2 Ki. 5:14) It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (John 3:5)

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2
Clement of Alexandria 195

Then within the same period John prophesied till the baptism of salvation; and after the birth of Christ, Anna and Simeon.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3
Tertullian 195

Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3
Tertullian 195

But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ3III-2-3 Jesus Christ, are born in water,

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3
Tertullian 195

When, however, the prescript is laid down that "without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life" (John 3:5, not fully given)), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some,

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 9
Origen 228

Matthew alone adds the words "to repentance," teaching that the benefit of baptism is connected with the intention of the baptized person; to him who repents it is salutary, but to him who comes to it without repentance it will turn to greater condemnation.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 9
Origen 228

"by the laver of regeneration," (Titus 3:5) through which they were born "as new-born babes,

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 6
Pamohilius 309

Of the divine descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost which lighted on them who believed. In this we have also the instruction delivered by Peter, and * passages from the prophets on the subject, and * on the passion and resurrection and assumption of Christ, and the gift of the Holy Ghost; also * of the faith of those present, and their salvation by baptism; and, further,* of the unity of spirit pervading the believers and promoting the common good, and of the addition made to their number.





Alethos---And finally

"born [I](meaning born again) not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God." (John 1:13)

From the above verse it becomes clear that being born again comes not through a humans decision. If we posit that faith or our belief is required to be born again, then how would we explain the verse above, which says our decision does not play a part in our being born again? Our choosing to be baptized being a decision would also be excluded as a condition for being born again.


Again, as I have shown there is strong evidence that this is a corruption. However, even if it is not, it has already been shown that those who were given the right to become children of God, were those who received Him in verse 12. Those in verse 12 received Him of their own free will.





Alethos---To end this post I will post the words of Paul

1 Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.


So, Paul followed Jesus' example, does that mean Christ did not command baptism?


John 4:1-3 ( KJV ) 1When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) 3He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

Paul did just as Christ.

alethos
Jan 4th 2009, 03:13 AM
faith, baptism, repentance, and confession. Every one of these is listed as necessary for salvation.

You and other baptismal regenerationist's believe in a works based salvation contrary to Scripture.

2 Tim 1:9 who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal,

Titus 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared,
Titus 3:5 not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit

Yukerboy
Jan 4th 2009, 03:35 AM
You and other baptismal regenerationist's believe in a works based salvation contrary to Scripture.

2 Tim 1:9 who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal,

Titus 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared,
Titus 3:5 not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit

While I disagree with Butch alot, he is absolutely correct in saying that "faith, baptism, repentance, and confession are necessary for salvation."

Everyone of those are characteristics of those who are born again. No one who is born again lacks any of the four.

Butch5
Jan 4th 2009, 05:59 AM
You and other baptismal regenerationist's believe in a works based salvation contrary to Scripture.

2 Tim 1:9 who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal,

Titus 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared,
Titus 3:5 not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit

OK, but you have not dealt with the issue, you posted commentary from two men, one who I know is a present day preacher. However, you have given nothing that shows what they said carries any weight. I posted commentary from a man who was the Apostle John's student, I think for this reason, what he says carries a lot of weight. His name was Ignatius, this man was taught by John himself, and Ignatius said,

Ignatius appeals to Rom. 6:5
"Wherefore also, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection." (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, II)

According to Ignatius, for one to partake of the resurrection, one "must" be baptized. Given the Scriptures, and the testimony of a man who was taught directly by the apostle John, and the clear evidence that this was the belief of the early church, I think I have made a rather strong case for my position. However in light of the overwhelming evidence I have provided, you claim that what I said is contrary to Scripture.I could present many more quotes from the early church. However let's look at the Scriptures you posted. Consider these.


John 5:28-29 ( KJV ) 28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


Romans 2:3-10 ( KJV ) 3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? 5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

The second quote is from Paul, who wrote the same verses you posted. Do the verses you posted nullify these verses? If not, then I think we need to take serious look at what Paul means by works, when He says was are not saved by works.

alethos
Jan 4th 2009, 10:33 AM
Butch is absolutely correct in saying that "faith, baptism, repentance, and confession are necessary for salvation."



Then like Butch, you believe salvation is by works, contrary to Scripture.

Yukerboy
Jan 4th 2009, 07:30 PM
Then like Butch, you believe salvation is by works, contrary to Scripture.

No, these are characteristics of those who are born again. They are not born again because they have faith, been baptised, were granted repentance, and confess Jesus is Lord. They did and have those because they are born again.

alethos
Jan 4th 2009, 10:07 PM
No, these are characteristics of those who are born again. They are not born again because they have faith, been baptised, were granted repentance, and confess Jesus is Lord. They did and have those because they are born again.

Are you saying the new birth precedes faith?

Yukerboy
Jan 5th 2009, 06:21 AM
Are you saying the new birth precedes faith?

I never really thought about it before, but I figure there are two options.

1. Being born again precedes faith.
2. Being born again gives you all the characteristics of one who is born again and happen at the same time when you are a new man.

alethos
Jan 5th 2009, 12:45 PM
I never really thought about it before, but I figure there are two options.

1. Being born again precedes faith.
2. Being born again gives you all the characteristics of one who is born again and happen at the same time when you are a new man.

I don't know what theological view you espouse, but after having spent many hours of in-depth study, I agree with the Reformed position which says regeneration precedes faith, even though I am not of the Reformed faith. I believe I have found Biblical as well as subjective proof that regeneration indeed does precede faith. I highly suggest that you consider doing an in-depth study on it, because I believe it is helpful, if not necessary in arriving at a theological position that is more finely tuned and in-line with God's word.