|
|
Post by Redeemed on Sept 9, 2022 15:01:58 GMT -8
In the Reformed statement of the ordo salutis, regeneration precedes faith, for, it is argued, a sinner must be given new life in order to be able to believe. Although this is admittedly stated only as a logical order, it is not wise to insist even on that; for it may as well be argued that if a sinner has the new life through regeneration, why does he need to believe? "At first glance, this issue might seem to be inconsequential. But it is actually one of the key disagreements in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. For a Calvinist, if God does not first regenerate people before they trust in Christ as Savior, that faith is something people produced on their own, making salvation dependent on them instead of on God. For an Arminian, if God must regenerate people in order for them to believe, there is no genuine free will, and the call to believe is pointless." Got? Careful study through the Bible does not yield a step-by-step order concerning God’s salvation process in the life of His elect; rather, many of the arguments are predicated on logical reasonings. Jeremy A. Evans says, “This relationship between regeneration and faith is intended to be understood logically, not temporally. Temporally, the cause-and-effect relationship occurs simultaneously; logically, regeneration occurs before faith.” David Allen similarly notes, “A majority of Calvinists argue that temporally, regeneration and conversion are simultaneous events. But they often see a necessary logical order.” R.C. Sproul says, “When Reformed theology says regeneration precedes faith, it is speaking in terms of logical priority, not temporal priority. We cannot exercise saving faith until we have been regenerated, so we say faith is dependent on regeneration, not regeneration on faith.” Elsewhere Sproul seems to make regeneration more than a merely a necessary condition; he says, “We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe.” Many people erroneously believe that regeneration precedes faith. This is a false doctrine of 5 point Calvinism. The reasoning is that since the unbeliever is spiritually dead and cannot understand spiritual phenomenon (and that is true), that a person must be regenerated by God the Holy Spirit before he can understand and believe the Gospel. And that is false. Regeneration is synonymous with being born again. To say that regeneration must occur before a person can believe the Gospel, is to ignore and deny the fact that the purpose of the Gospel message is to bring the unbeliever to the point where he can place his faith in Christ for salvation. Romans 10:14-15 says, 'How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? 15 And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, ''‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the Gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!’" God has made Himself known and has made salvation available to man. It then becomes man's responsibility to make a decision based on the Gospel message, to either place his faith, his trust in Christ to provide that salvation, or to reject the Gospel message and therefore reject Christ and remain spiritually dead. The Bible is clear that faith precedes and is necessary to be born again (regenerated). 'Believe (have faith) in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved (born again, regenerated)...' Acts 16:31. And again, the Bible says, 'For by grace you have been saved (born again, regenerated) through faith ; and that (salvation, not faith) is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast' Eph 2:8-9. Why Regeneration Cannot Precede Faith
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Sept 10, 2022 10:52:07 GMT -8
There’s a wide-spread theology, influenced by 16th century theologian John Calvin, which teaches that regeneration (spiritual rebirth) precedes faith. The dogma says that men are so morally depraved that they are incapable of faith until the Holy Spirit first works a miracle on the heart, regenerating it. Well-known, self-proclaimed Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, affirms this idea in his book, What is Reformed Theology?, saying, “Unless we first receive the grace of regeneration, we will not and cannot respond to the gospel in a positive way. Regeneration must occur first before there can be any positive response of faith” (p. 186).
This doctrine is false. The Bible clearly teaches that faith is produced from hearing the gospel (Rom. 10:17; 1 Thess. 2:13). “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation …” (Eph. 1:13). The gospel is the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). Howbeit, if Calvin was right, the gospel can do nothing for salvation; only the Holy Spirit’s miraculous work on the heart can. It may be argued that the gospel does produce faith after the Spirit regenerates the mind, but the point remains the same that the Spirit’s regeneration is the primary enabler of faith, and without it the gospel can do nothing—ever. The power of God unto salvation, according to this view, is the miraculous operation of the Spirit; not the gospel. Don't fall for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2022 9:18:23 GMT -8
The Bible is clear that faith precedes and is necessary to be born again (regenerated).
An yet the debate has existed for nearly 2000 years. If the Bible were clear there wouldn't be any debate. ALL of us should stop appealing to a falsehood. It is the way a person reads the Bible that makes his/her position clear to him, not what is "clear" in the Bible. That is why the debate exists. That is why the debate persists. That is what is clear in this op (why would anyone consider a video of a guy holding a shotgun to be objective)? |
|
|
|
Post by Redeemed on Sept 11, 2022 12:33:41 GMT -8
The Bible is clear that faith precedes and is necessary to be born again (regenerated).
An yet the debate has existed for nearly 2000 years. If the Bible were clear there wouldn't be any debate. ALL of us should stop appealing to a falsehood. It is the way a person reads the Bible that makes his/her position clear to him, not what is "clear" in the Bible. That is why the debate exists. That is why the debate persists. That is what is clear in this op (why would anyone consider a video of a guy holding a shotgun to be objective)? Excellent post and the way you state your position and thoughts are highly commendable. I can tell by reading your posts that you put a lot of study time in before posting. And that you read Literature from teachers in both camps. In other words you know what you're talkin about. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2022 12:40:07 GMT -8
An yet the debate has existed for nearly 2000 years. If the Bible were clear there wouldn't be any debate. ALL of us should stop appealing to a falsehood. It is the way a person reads the Bible that makes his/her position clear to him, not what is "clear" in the Bible. That is why the debate exists. That is why the debate persists. That is what is clear in this op (why would anyone consider a video of a guy holding a shotgun to be objective)? Excellent post and the way you state your position and thoughts are highly commendable. I can tell by reading your posts that you put a lot of study time in before posting. And that you read Literature from teachers in both camps. In other words you know what you're talkin about. I have my moments  . Thx for the kind words. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 11, 2022 20:51:53 GMT -8
The Bible is clear that faith precedes and is necessary to be born again (regenerated).
An yet the debate has existed for nearly 2000 years. If the Bible were clear there wouldn't be any debate. ALL of us should stop appealing to a falsehood. It is the way a person reads the Bible that makes his/her position clear to him, not what is "clear" in the Bible. That is why the debate exists. That is why the debate persists. That is what is clear in this op (why would anyone consider a video of a guy holding a shotgun to be objective)? The Bible is (to put it a different way) cut and dry on a large number of issues. We call it orthodoxy. It is common practice in religeous dialogue to say that the Bible is clear on an issue. It`s a common way of saying a scripture isn`t reasonably debatable on it`s meaning. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2022 8:16:35 GMT -8
An yet the debate has existed for nearly 2000 years. If the Bible were clear there wouldn't be any debate. ALL of us should stop appealing to a falsehood. It is the way a person reads the Bible that makes his/her position clear to him, not what is "clear" in the Bible. That is why the debate exists. That is why the debate persists. That is what is clear in this op (why would anyone consider a video of a guy holding a shotgun to be objective)? The Bible is (to put it a different way) cut and dry on a large number of issues. We call it orthodoxy. It is common practice in religeous dialogue to say that the Bible is clear on an issue. It`s a common way of saying a scripture isn`t reasonably debatable on it`s meaning. Yep. However, the op-relevant point was the post to which I was replying was an example of a lack of sticking to clear scripture and the completely biased (lack of objectivity) claim of "clear scripture." |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 12, 2022 8:19:29 GMT -8
Regeneration occurs when one is water baptized (Jn 3:5; Rom 6:3-5; etc) and from Mark 16:16 belief precedes baptism/regeneration....and water does not wash away sins and obedience in submitting to water baptism is not a work of merit.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 8:47:59 GMT -8
The Bible is (to put it a different way) cut and dry on a large number of issues. We call it orthodoxy. It is common practice in religeous dialogue to say that the Bible is clear on an issue. It`s a common way of saying a scripture isn`t reasonably debatable on it`s meaning. Yep. However, the op-relevant point was the post to which I was replying was an example of a lack of sticking to clear scripture and the completely biased (lack of objectivity) claim of "clear scripture." Oh, I thought you said no clear scripture exists now you say it does hmmmm. LOL. There is a sequence leading to salvation, scripture is quite direct in explaining it and there is no need to be unbiased concerning something that is a fact per the gospel. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Sept 29, 2022 13:01:59 GMT -8
The Bible is clear that faith precedes and is necessary to be born again (regenerated).
An yet the debate has existed for nearly 2000 years. If the Bible were clear there wouldn't be any debate. ALL of us should stop appealing to a falsehood. It is the way a person reads the Bible that makes his/her position clear to him, not what is "clear" in the Bible. That is why the debate exists. That is why the debate persists. That is what is clear in this op (why would anyone consider a video of a guy holding a shotgun to be objective)? You seem rather dogmatic and unnecessarily narrow in your application to have made such a broad statement above. Why is that? Double minded comes to mind...... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2022 13:28:44 GMT -8
An yet the debate has existed for nearly 2000 years. If the Bible were clear there wouldn't be any debate. ALL of us should stop appealing to a falsehood. It is the way a person reads the Bible that makes his/her position clear to him, not what is "clear" in the Bible. That is why the debate exists. That is why the debate persists. That is what is clear in this op (why would anyone consider a video of a guy holding a shotgun to be objective)? You seem rather dogmatic and unnecessarily narrow in your application to have made such a broad statement above. Why is that? Double minded comes to mind...... Irrelevant. I could be as dogmatic, narrow-applying, and broadly stating as they come and still be correct. Stop using ad hominem, red herrings, and other fallacious content and address the content of the post. The fact is the other poster did NOT stick to what is plainly stated but offered a doctrinally informed interpretation that is eisegesis in nature, and then presented the eisegesis as if it was actual scripture. No one should approve of that in either practice or content. No one can or should claim the Bible is "clear" when what they're asserting is eisegetic. That is the antithesis of "clear." No dogmatic narrow application broad statement double-mindedness needed. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Oct 1, 2022 7:45:26 GMT -8
You seem rather dogmatic and unnecessarily narrow in your application to have made such a broad statement above. Why is that? Double minded comes to mind...... Irrelevant. I could be as dogmatic, narrow-applying, and broadly stating as they come and still be correct. Stop using ad hominem, red herrings, and other fallacious content and address the content of the post. The fact is the other poster did NOT stick to what is plainly stated but offered a doctrinally informed interpretation that is eisegesis in nature, and then presented the eisegesis as if it was actual scripture. No one should approve of that in either practice or content. No one can or should claim the Bible is "clear" when what they're asserting is eisegetic. That is the antithesis of "clear." No dogmatic narrow application broad statement double-mindedness needed. You basically said you didn't know but now you know.... Exactly what do you "call that" position? You're "poisoning the well" by conflating eisegesis with exegesis. If you extrapolate a position it is "exegesis". If someone else does it... it is "eisegesis". For example, Luk 20:41 And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son? Luk 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Luk 20:43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Luk 20:44 David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son? Exegesis!!!! Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Eisegesis!!!! What exactly is the difference? Please expound upon your claims..... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2022 8:37:28 GMT -8
Irrelevant. I could be as dogmatic, narrow-applying, and broadly stating as they come and still be correct. Stop using ad hominem, red herrings, and other fallacious content and address the content of the post. The fact is the other poster did NOT stick to what is plainly stated but offered a doctrinally informed interpretation that is eisegesis in nature, and then presented the eisegesis as if it was actual scripture. No one should approve of that in either practice or content. No one can or should claim the Bible is "clear" when what they're asserting is eisegetic. That is the antithesis of "clear." No dogmatic narrow application broad statement double-mindedness needed. You basically said you didn't know but now you know.... Exactly what do you "call that" position? You're "poisoning the well" by conflating eisegesis with exegesis. If you extrapolate a position it is "exegesis". If someone else does it... it is "eisegesis". For example, Luk 20:41 And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son? Luk 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Luk 20:43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Luk 20:44 David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son? Exegesis!!!! Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Eisegesis!!!! What exactly is the difference? Please expound upon your claims..... Not a word of that is correct. Go back and give my post another read and read it as many times as it takes to correctly understand it because I'm not going to pretend the straw man has any veracity. No "I don't know now I know" or well-poisoning occurred. Simply quoting a few verses is not exegesis and I never said it was. What I did say is... - What people claim is clear is often not clear to anyone but them and usually a matter of their doctrinal interpretation, NOT what is plainly stated. What is plainly stated is clear, not always what people claim is "clear."
- If the matters broached in this op were clear there wouldn't be any debate and none of us here would have any disagreement.
- Assigning doctrinal interpretation is eisegetic and not exegetic, because sound doctrine comes from exegesis, not the other way around.
- A person's dogmatic state does not preclude their being correct. Ad hominem, straw man, red herring, and non sequitur are fallacious arguments that ignore the op and topical discourse
. I never said, " no clear scripture exists." That's what another poster claimed I said but the posts speak for themselves. I never said any such thing. Don't argue against the straw man. Look at what I actually posted. And there's not a single word in the post to which I now reply that even remotely addresses ANY of that. This is the second non sequitur post in a row. Do it a third time and I'll simply ignore everything else you post because I don't collaborate with repeatedly demonstrated inability or unwillingness to discuss the op. Especially not after having asked from what's right. Neither of the last two posts address anything specific in this op and they both overtly attack me personally. No one should "Like" a post that violate rules 1b and 1c of the forum's tou. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Oct 3, 2022 12:15:01 GMT -8
You basically said you didn't know but now you know.... Exactly what do you "call that" position? You're "poisoning the well" by conflating eisegesis with exegesis. If you extrapolate a position it is "exegesis". If someone else does it... it is "eisegesis". For example, Luk 20:41 And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son? Luk 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Luk 20:43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Luk 20:44 David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son? Exegesis!!!! Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Eisegesis!!!! What exactly is the difference? Please expound upon your claims..... .Assigning doctrinal interpretation is eisegetic and not exegetic, because sound doctrine comes from exegesis, not the other way around Calvinism is a doctrinal interpretation. You're seeking to prove Calvinism true. I am not. I don't care where the evidence leads me. That is where Truth is.... That is where I want to be. As I've already told you, I'm about 90 percent Calvinist. However, I don't care for the term and I don't have any loyalty the use of it. Do you believe Calvinism is 100 percent true? Contrary to what you believe. I have. I don't know you. I'm not personally attacking you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2022 16:32:12 GMT -8
.Assigning doctrinal interpretation is eisegetic and not exegetic, because sound doctrine comes from exegesis, not the other way around Calvinism is a doctrinal interpretation. Yes, it is. Never said any different. What is not a doctrinal interpretation are my posts. I've cited scripture and stuck to what it actually states and not once have I appealed to Calvin. LOL! No, I am seeking to show how scripture teaches a monergistic salvation, beginning with the undeniable, irrefutable fact every single person belonging to the covenant mediated by Christ does so within the context of God and God alone ALWAYS being the initiator of His covenant. He does so solely based on His own will and purpose, never asking the human being brought into the covenant if he wants to join and always asking for obedience only after the covenant is established monergistically. Calvinism is simply one form of monergism and after 2000 years of debate it serves all of us better to look at monergism as a whole, not simply one man's views asserted more than 500 years ago. Not even close. On many occasions have I stated my view Calvins made mistakes cited some of his errors. The evidence proves otherwise. This is evidenced by the following statements: " You seem rather dogmatic and unnecessarily narrow in your application to have made such a broad statement above. Why is that? Double minded comes to mind......" Not only is that decidedly rude, disrespectful, and a direct attack on me personally, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this op or the contents of this thread. Dogma, application, and double mindedness are all non sequitur. That comment and others like have no place in this forum. Go back and re-read my reply to this op. There's not a single mention of Calvin there. Not a single mention in my next op-relevant post, either. In point of fact only three posters mentioned Calvin. One of them was the op, one of them was you, and none of them was me  . The evidence says otherwise. |
|
. Thx for the kind words.
.