Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2022 11:06:04 GMT -8
Synergism is the technical term for the theological position salvation is a collaboration (a synergy) between God and man. The term covers the whole range of positions from Pelagius, Traditionalism, Arminius, Wesley, and others. I use the term because discussions of the doctrine of salvation tend to be polarized as "Calvinism versus Arminianism" but not all monergists arrive at their position by Calvin. Augustine and Luther were monergistic (both of whom preceded Calvin and assert a view of salvation different in some ways than Calvin). Arminius was a subscriber of total depravity and many Arminians don't know that. Many Pelagians (which is a heresy) incorrectly think they are Arminian when they are not. The same problem occurs with Wesleyans. Traditionalists often argue as if they are Arminian, but Arminius argued vigorously for total depravity and against the Traditionalist view. All of the problems are avoided by understand the fundamental differences between monergism (God alone) versus synergism (God and man together). THE SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN THE DISCUSSION OF SOTERIOLOGICAL DOCTRINE IS THAT POSTERS DO NOT ADEQUATELY UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN POSITION. The SECOND biggest problem is getting the other side's views incorrect. Not seeing how claims made from scripture do not apply to atheists is a problem. If you'll go back to the beginning of this thread and read my original reply to this op you will note I asked one question, and no one has answered it. No one. It is a very valid and op-relevant question. The reason it is a valid question is because if there is no example in scripture of the claims made actually occurring then we should be asking why that is and how veracious can a doctrine be if it can't find such precedence in scripture. Can you share what the answer is for your athiest issue? What answer would you have liked to see? I could answer my own questions but the onus is not on me to do so. As I just said in my previous post, our doctrine of salvation should apply to everyone. Calvinism must apply to all. Arminianism must apply to all. If either of them do not apply to all then they are, at best, incomplete doctrines. They do not cover all situations. This is why I asked the op (and anyone supporting the position asserted in the op) to provide at least one example in scripture of that happening in the life of the atheist. There are several other reasons why this is important besides the matter of wholly applicable doctrine and finding actual precedent in scripture. This question, and the answer to this question are important also because it has to do with properly exegeting scripture. The predominant inherent context of scripture is within theism, not atheism. ALL of us are working from a text we believe is true and authoritative to all that it speaks, and it speaks very little about the atheist. That means we must approach scripture acknowledging it is predominantly speaking about what happens within the lives of theists, not atheists. Not only is scripture overwhelmingly written in the context of theists, mot atheists, but the specific theists it writes about are unique among the world full of theists - whether Jews or Christians, all of scripture is written by and all of scripture is written to, and most of scripture is written about those theists who lived in a covenant relationship with the Creator God asserted in the scriptures (as opposed to those worshiping Thor, Aengus Og, or Kanaloa  ). Ignoring the inherent contexts of scripture - those contexts scripture itself asserts - is going to lead to bad doctrine. So when we read the Bible, the book that is inescapably written by, to, and for worshipers of the one true God we have to put in some effort to parse out what does and what does not apply to the unregenerate atheist. This op does not do that. It assumes it, and it assumes it without merit or evidence. That's not a partisan observation. For example, as I have already noted two or three other times in this thread, this op quotes Ephesians 1:13 asserting the order is 1) repentance, 2) new heart/spirit, then 3) new life BUT that verse is written about the salvation experience of those already saved. It was NOT written to people who were not saved, and it was not written about people who were not saved. It most certainly was not written about people who had absolutely no belief in God. It was not written about atheists, so if this op intends his use of this verse to apply to all in need of salvation, he has to prove that verse does so, not assume it. In other words, it's his responsibility to prove something he's asserting that exceeds the specific of the verse he has proof-texted. He also has to address the inclusion in Christ stated in the verse (something completely ignored in this op) because if the verse applies to atheists, then that atheist is included in Christ when he heard the gospel! Show me an example in scripture where scripture itself explicitly reports an atheist is included in Christ when he heard the gospel and believed. That's all I am asking. Just show me. The op was posted four days ago and there's at least a half-dozen posters participating. Am I to believe several earnest Christians could not find one example in five days? Or is it likely no one bothered? If the latter, then what is the likelihood a position is being asserted that does not have any scriptural basis? |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 11:59:37 GMT -8
I`m still not seeing the connection to athiests but I`ll review these latest posts again and get back to you. Let's start small. Do atheists ever get saved? Do you believe a sound doctrine of salvation must and should cover the conversion experience or process when an atheist gets saved? Do you think it important, perhaps even necessary to be able to point to a specific example in scripture that supports any doctrine of salvation being asserted? For my part, I will answer all three questions in the affirmative. Yes, atheists do get saved. Yes, sound soteriological doctrine must cover all salvation experiences, whether they be that of the atheist, those subscribing to the harvest religions, or the Jew, the Buddhist, the Muslim, Jainist, Gnostic, and even including the religious Christian who hasn't actually had a conversion experience. Sound doctrine covers them all. Yes, I should be able to point to a specific scripture where what I assert is clearly evidenced as stated in by scripture itself and not as I interpret it to fit my point of view. I don`t consider asking me questions having a dioscussion. But since you at least answer your questions my answers would be no not applicable and probably. In the case of an athiest, they would have to stop being an athiest before they could qualify to recieve the gift of salvation. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 12:06:22 GMT -8
Can you share what the answer is for your athiest issue? What answer would you have liked to see? I could answer my own questions but the onus is not on me to do so. As I just said in my previous post, our doctrine of salvation should apply to everyone. Calvinism must apply to all. Arminianism must apply to all. If either of them do not apply to all then they are, at best, incomplete doctrines. They do not cover all situations. This is why I asked the op (and anyone supporting the position asserted in the op) to provide at least one example in scripture of that happening in the life of the atheist. There are several other reasons why this is important besides the matter of wholly applicable doctrine and finding actual precedent in scripture. This question, and the answer to this question are important also because it has to do with properly exegeting scripture. The predominant inherent context of scripture is within theism, not atheism. ALL of us are working from a text we believe is true and authoritative to all that it speaks, and it speaks very little about the atheist. That means we must approach scripture acknowledging it is predominantly speaking about what happens within the lives of theists, not atheists. Not only is scripture overwhelmingly written in the context of theists, mot atheists, but the specific theists it writes about are unique among the world full of theists - whether Jews or Christians, all of scripture is written by and all of scripture is written to, and most of scripture is written about those theists who lived in a covenant relationship with the Creator God asserted in the scriptures (as opposed to those worshiping Thor, Aengus Og, or Kanaloa ). Ignoring the inherent contexts of scripture - those contexts scripture itself asserts - is going to lead to bad doctrine. So when we read the Bible, the book that is inescapably written by, to, and for worshipers of the one true God we have to put in some effort to parse out what does and what does not apply to the unregenerate atheist. This op does not do that. It assumes it, and it assumes it without merit or evidence. That's not a partisan observation. For example, as I have already noted two or three other times in this thread, this op quotes Ephesians 1:13 asserting the order is 1) repentance, 2) new heart/spirit, then 3) new life BUT that verse is written about the salvation experience of those already saved. It was NOT written to people who were not saved, and it was not written about people who were not saved. It most certainly was not written about people who had absolutely no belief in God. It was not written about atheists, so if this op intends his use of this verse to apply to all in need of salvation, he has to prove that verse does so, not assume it. In other words, it's his responsibility to prove something he's asserting that exceeds the specific of the verse he has proof-texted. He also has to address the inclusion in Christ stated in the verse (something completely ignored in this op) because if the verse applies to atheists, then that atheist is included in Christ when he heard the gospel! Show me an example in scripture where scripture itself explicitly reports an atheist is included in Christ when he heard the gospel and believed. That's all I am asking. Just show me. The op was posted four days ago and there's at least a half-dozen posters participating. Am I to believe several earnest Christians could not find one example in five days? Or is it likely no one bothered? If the latter, then what is the likelihood a position is being asserted that does not have any scriptural basis? You are talking around scriptures not about them which is not my cup of tea, but as I said in my previous post. Athiests cannot get saved unless they stop being athiests and believe. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 13:32:13 GMT -8
I guess it`s about time to say a few things about regeneration. The term appears twice in scripture and I cite both passages below. Regeneration appears in the book of Matthew in reference to the time when Jesus will regenerate His creation and there will be a new earth and a new heaven. The term appears a second time in Titus as the moment we become saved as the Spirit of Christ washes us and removes our sins. This is the regeneration that is being discussed in the OP.
Matthew 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.
Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
The Calvinist doctrine of regeneration does not exist in scripture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2022 15:20:20 GMT -8
Let's start small. Do atheists ever get saved? Do you believe a sound doctrine of salvation must and should cover the conversion experience or process when an atheist gets saved? Do you think it important, perhaps even necessary to be able to point to a specific example in scripture that supports any doctrine of salvation being asserted? For my part, I will answer all three questions in the affirmative. Yes, atheists do get saved. Yes, sound soteriological doctrine must cover all salvation experiences, whether they be that of the atheist, those subscribing to the harvest religions, or the Jew, the Buddhist, the Muslim, Jainist, Gnostic, and even including the religious Christian who hasn't actually had a conversion experience. Sound doctrine covers them all. Yes, I should be able to point to a specific scripture where what I assert is clearly evidenced as stated in by scripture itself and not as I interpret it to fit my point of view. I don`t consider asking me questions having a discussion.  ? Am I to understand that to mean questions can't occur in a discussion? Oops! My bad. That's a question! Do you consider the fair and equal exchange of information based on mutually affirming inquiry and response a discussion? Aw, did it again. my bad. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2022 15:22:52 GMT -8
Let's start small. Do atheists ever get saved? Do you believe a sound doctrine of salvation must and should cover the conversion experience or process when an atheist gets saved? Do you think it important, perhaps even necessary to be able to point to a specific example in scripture that supports any doctrine of salvation being asserted? For my part, I will answer all three questions in the affirmative. Yes, atheists do get saved. Yes, sound soteriological doctrine must cover all salvation experiences, whether they be that of the atheist, those subscribing to the harvest religions, or the Jew, the Buddhist, the Muslim, Jainist, Gnostic, and even including the religious Christian who hasn't actually had a conversion experience. Sound doctrine covers them all. Yes, I should be able to point to a specific scripture where what I assert is clearly evidenced as stated in by scripture itself and not as I interpret it to fit my point of view. My answers would be no not applicable and probably. In the case of an atheist, they would have to stop being an atheist before they could qualify to receive the gift of salvation. Hmmmm.... Splitting hairs? No, atheists do not get saved because the have to stop being atheists before they qualify. That change resulting in their receipt of the gift of salvation would mean the former atheist got saved, though. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 15:26:51 GMT -8
I don`t consider asking me questions having a discussion. ? Am I to understand that to mean questions can't occur in a discussion? Oops! My bad. That's a question! Do you consider the fair and equal exchange of information based on mutually affirming inquiry and response a discussion? Aw, did it again. my bad. Asking a legit question would be fine. Debating me by asking me questions isn`t especially questions you don`t want to spend your own time answering. And I did answer your questions. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 15:29:34 GMT -8
My answers would be no not applicable and probably. In the case of an atheist, they would have to stop being an atheist before they could qualify to receive the gift of salvation. Hmmmm.... Splitting hairs? No, atheists do not get saved because the have to stop being atheists before they qualify. That change resulting in their receipt of the gift of salvation would mean the former atheist got saved, though. It would not mean the athiest got saved, devils believe etc. so no it isn`t splitting hairs. An atheist would have to realize his error before he could begin to seek God for the gift of salvation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2022 15:39:52 GMT -8
I guess it`s about time to say a few things about regeneration. The term appears twice in scripture and I cite both passages below. Regeneration appears in the book of Matthew in reference to the time when Jesus will regenerate His creation and there will be a new earth and a new heaven. The term appears a second time in Titus as the moment we become saved as the Spirit of Christ washes us and removes our sins. This is the regeneration that is being discussed in the OP. Matthew 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. Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; The Calvinist doctrine of regeneration does not exist in scripture. The problem with this is you've limited the op, your response, and the discussion to the two mentions of the specific word when there are other places in scripture in which regeneration is referenced using different language. For example, John 3:3's being born anew from above ( gennethe anothen) would be regeneration. Or do you not think John 3:3 is a reference to regeneration? Is John 3:3 not a " renewing of the Holy Ghost"? Furthermore, your use of Matthew 19:28 is not applicable to this op because Jesus specifically, explicitly states the regeneration to which he is referring occurs when he sits on his throne. The regeneration to which Paul refers in Titus 3:5 has already occurred in the lives of the saints. Are you suggesting Titus 3:5 is evidence Jesus and the apostles are sitting on their respective thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel and regeneration has nothing to do with the conversion experience described in this op? Btw, your post was reported for violating Rules 1b and 1c. Please keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Sept 12, 2022 15:39:56 GMT -8
Ezekiel 18:30-32“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!Notice what comes first 1- Repent , turn away from sin 2- the after you repent you get a new heart/spirit ( calvinism- regeneration, new life) 3- repent then you live, have life- ie new heart, spirit. John has the same order in in his opening of the gospel and in his purpose statement for writing his gospel. John 1:12-13“Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. Same order as above receive, believe, call on Him then the new birth follows. See also John 5:24;40
John 20:31“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. Once again the order is consistent with the OT- belief/repentance precedes life.
Romans 10:8-13But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Again above we see its hearing the gospel, believing the message , confessing then calling upon the Lord results in salvation.
Acts tells us the same order in Acts 11:18- "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.” Repent precedes life.
Paul confirms the order in Ephesians below as well. Hearing and believing precedes the Holy Spirit that we were sealed with not before belief.Ephesians 1:13“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit James and Peter have the same exact order in James 1:18 , 1 Peter 1:23.
See how scripture is consistent when you do not read your doctrine into it but read it objectively, without bias ? conclusion: as we read in these SALVIFIC passages there is a consistent order. 1- hearing the word, the gospel 2- believing the gospel 3- receiving the gospel 4- calling upon the Lord 5- confessing Jesus is Lord 6- resulting in the new birth, born of God, salvation, eternal life The Biblical Order Salutis Summary of The Biblical order- notice where new life, regeneration is on the list from Scripture. 1- the preaching of the gospel- Rom 10 2- the hearing of the gospel- Rom 10 3- belief in the gospel- John 1:12 4- receiving the gospel- John 1:12 5- repentance Luke 5:32 6- the new birth that results in #7 7- salvation, eternal life- John 1:13 8- Justification- Rom 8:30 9- Sanctification- Rom 8 10- Glorification Rom 8:30 hope this helps !!! Be careful, lol, lest your strawman become too strong for you to knock down! Is not the receiving the very fact of becoming the dwelling place of God? Regeneration? But that's just a side comment, for humor's sake. My rebuttal to your argument is simply that the order of what is written is irrelevant to cause and effect of the thing. In fact, even time sequence is irrelevant to the cause and effect. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 15:58:21 GMT -8
I guess it`s about time to say a few things about regeneration. The term appears twice in scripture and I cite both passages below. Regeneration appears in the book of Matthew in reference to the time when Jesus will regenerate His creation and there will be a new earth and a new heaven. The term appears a second time in Titus as the moment we become saved as the Spirit of Christ washes us and removes our sins. This is the regeneration that is being discussed in the OP. Matthew 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. Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; The Calvinist doctrine of regeneration does not exist in scripture. The problem with this is you've limited the op, your response, and the discussion to the two mentions of the specific word when there are other places in scripture in which regeneration is referenced using different language. For example, John 3:3's being born anew from above ( gennethe anothen) would be regeneration. Or do you not think John 3:3 is a reference to regeneration? Is John 3:3 not a " renewing of the Holy Ghost"? Furthermore, your use of Matthew 19:28 is not applicable to this op because Jesus specifically, explicitly states the regeneration to which he is referring occurs when he sits on his throne. The regeneration to which Paul refers in Titus 3:5 has already occurred in the lives of the saints. Are you suggesting Titus 3:5 is evidence Jesus and the apostles are sitting on their respective thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel and regeneration has nothing to do with the conversion experience described in this op? Btw, your post was reported for violating Rules 1b and 1c. Please keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. Dry your eyes. I fixed it for you. It was more of a compliment than anything else. The tap dancer I mentioned was Don Rickles who would tap dance when he got himself in trouble and an A is usually not considered an offense. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 16:27:49 GMT -8
Ezekiel 18:30-32“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!Notice what comes first 1- Repent , turn away from sin 2- the after you repent you get a new heart/spirit ( calvinism- regeneration, new life) 3- repent then you live, have life- ie new heart, spirit. John has the same order in in his opening of the gospel and in his purpose statement for writing his gospel. John 1:12-13“Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. Same order as above receive, believe, call on Him then the new birth follows. See also John 5:24;40
John 20:31“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. Once again the order is consistent with the OT- belief/repentance precedes life.
Romans 10:8-13But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Again above we see its hearing the gospel, believing the message , confessing then calling upon the Lord results in salvation.
Acts tells us the same order in Acts 11:18- "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.” Repent precedes life.
Paul confirms the order in Ephesians below as well. Hearing and believing precedes the Holy Spirit that we were sealed with not before belief.Ephesians 1:13“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit James and Peter have the same exact order in James 1:18 , 1 Peter 1:23.
See how scripture is consistent when you do not read your doctrine into it but read it objectively, without bias ? conclusion: as we read in these SALVIFIC passages there is a consistent order. 1- hearing the word, the gospel 2- believing the gospel 3- receiving the gospel 4- calling upon the Lord 5- confessing Jesus is Lord 6- resulting in the new birth, born of God, salvation, eternal life The Biblical Order Salutis Summary of The Biblical order- notice where new life, regeneration is on the list from Scripture. 1- the preaching of the gospel- Rom 10 2- the hearing of the gospel- Rom 10 3- belief in the gospel- John 1:12 4- receiving the gospel- John 1:12 5- repentance Luke 5:32 6- the new birth that results in #7 7- salvation, eternal life- John 1:13 8- Justification- Rom 8:30 9- Sanctification- Rom 8 10- Glorification Rom 8:30 hope this helps !!! Be careful, lol, lest your strawman become too strong for you to knock down! Is not the receiving the very fact of becoming the dwelling place of God? Regeneration? But that's just a side comment, for humor's sake. My rebuttal to your argument is simply that the order of what is written is irrelevant to cause and effect of the thing. In fact, even time sequence is irrelevant to the cause and effect. The order becomes relevant when the doctrine becomes that people get saved before they know anything about Jesus and without any kind of repentence for sins. That is the Calvinist position he is speaking against. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2022 5:48:42 GMT -8
Be careful, lol, lest your strawman become too strong for you to knock down! Is not the receiving the very fact of becoming the dwelling place of God? Regeneration? But that's just a side comment, for humor's sake. My rebuttal to your argument is simply that the order of what is written is irrelevant to cause and effect of the thing. In fact, even time sequence is irrelevant to the cause and effect. The order becomes relevant when the doctrine becomes that people get saved before they know anything about Jesus and without any kind of repentence for sins. That is the Calvinist position he is speaking against. Getting saved is a process, not something that happens instantaneously. This particular op is specifically about the question of regeneration, and whether or not regeneration precedes or follows faith. All of the mainstream soteriologies understand this. They all understand and abide by the premise conversion, or regeneration, takes a moment but salvation entails much more than merely being regenerated. Being converted takes a moment but being saved takes a lifetime. Our salvation concludes with our resurrection whereby we are raised incorruptible and immortal. Until that moment, we remain corruptible, and mortal and we require a huge ginormous pile of stuff besides regeneration including but not limited to justification, sanctification, maturation, etc. Yes, there are plenty of examples, like the thief on the cross, who made it into paradise without a lot of time in Christ and lacking deeper theological understanding, but those are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. In these regards Calvinism (and the other monergistic points of view) are no different than any of the synergistic points of view. In point of fact the above is so well embraced by synergism that it is believed a person can lose his salvation by force of his own will and deliberate action. That person is not saved until he dies and is raised. This op is specifically about the regeneration and its place in the order of salvation. This op takes verses written to people who had already been saved (either in a manner foreshadowing Christ or actually in Christ) and applies those verses to the unregenerate arguing what amounts to a humanistically psychological rendering of salvation whereby a sinner's sinful cognitive faculties are asserted to be salvifically efficacious. At least one poster went so far as to predicate God, God's action, and God's purpose and plan of/for salvation on the sinner! One of the verses cited occurs undeniably within a context of covenant that preceded knowledge or choice that can also demonstrably show no choices for obedience were offered until after their establishment in the saving covenant. On other verse explicitly states they were in Christ when the heard the gospel, not afterwards. And I did not reference Calvin once to make the case for my dissent. I have used scripture, scripture plainly read, and scripture from Genesis to Revelation. I am monergist, but my posts are not Calvinist; they are scriptural. And I'll reiterate an earlier observation in light of makesends comment. Sequence and causality should NOT be assumed where they are not stated. Correlation is not causation. God can and does many things at the same time when He saves, and we should not think otherwise. Most folks understand this. For example, knowledge alone does not cause salvation. Neither does belief. Just because one of the New Testament writers listed a string of events or conditions does not mean that is the order in which they occur. Only when the writer states there is a sequence or a causality should we agree. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 13, 2022 10:57:00 GMT -8
The order becomes relevant when the doctrine becomes that people get saved before they know anything about Jesus and without any kind of repentence for sins. That is the Calvinist position he is speaking against. Getting saved is a process, not something that happens instantaneously. This particular op is specifically about the question of regeneration, and whether or not regeneration precedes or follows faith. All of the mainstream soteriologies understand this. They all understand and abide by the premise conversion, or regeneration, takes a moment but salvation entails much more than merely being regenerated. Being converted takes a moment but being saved takes a lifetime. Our salvation concludes with our resurrection whereby we are raised incorruptible and immortal. Until that moment, we remain corruptible, and mortal and we require a huge ginormous pile of stuff besides regeneration including but not limited to justification, sanctification, maturation, etc. Yes, there are plenty of examples, like the thief on the cross, who made it into paradise without a lot of time in Christ and lacking deeper theological understanding, but those are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. In these regards Calvinism (and the other monergistic points of view) are no different than any of the synergistic points of view. In point of fact the above is so well embraced by synergism that it is believed a person can lose his salvation by force of his own will and deliberate action. That person is not saved until he dies and is raised. This op is specifically about the regeneration and its place in the order of salvation. This op takes verses written to people who had already been saved (either in a manner foreshadowing Christ or actually in Christ) and applies those verses to the unregenerate arguing what amounts to a humanistically psychological rendering of salvation whereby a sinner's sinful cognitive faculties are asserted to be salvifically efficacious. At least one poster went so far as to predicate God, God's action, and God's purpose and plan of/for salvation on the sinner! One of the verses cited occurs undeniably within a context of covenant that preceded knowledge or choice that can also demonstrably show no choices for obedience were offered until after their establishment in the saving covenant. On other verse explicitly states they were in Christ when the heard the gospel, not afterwards. And I did not reference Calvin once to make the case for my dissent. I have used scripture, scripture plainly read, and scripture from Genesis to Revelation. I am monergist, but my posts are not Calvinist; they are scriptural. And I'll reiterate an earlier observation in light of makesends comment. Sequence and causality should NOT be assumed where they are not stated. Correlation is not causation. God can and does many things at the same time when He saves, and we should not think otherwise. Most folks understand this. For example, knowledge alone does not cause salvation. Neither does belief. Just because one of the New Testament writers listed a string of events or conditions does not mean that is the order in which they occur. Only when the writer states there is a sequence or a causality should we agree. You post does not contain a single reference for a Bible passage and your opinion is too far removed from the Gospel to determine where all this is coming from. |
|
toml
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by toml on Jan 21, 2023 9:02:59 GMT -8
I see it as a slam dunk against the Calvinist idea regeneration precedes faith Yes their doctrines have no leg to stand on brother. It goes against the clear teaching in both testaments. Holding to that position creates nothing but contradictions with the majority of scripture but also confusion. That is true. Calvinism is based on certain sellected texts without regard for the whole council of scripture |
|
). 
? Am I to understand that to mean questions can't occur in a discussion? Oops! My bad. That's a question! Do you consider the fair and equal exchange of information based on mutually affirming inquiry and response a discussion? Aw, did it again. my bad. 
