"Ethan Metsger" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4088FF0A-D090-7965-EA85-9C56D6DCAEF5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:39:55 -0400, gary <biblicist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Ethan's order is: First: regeneration; Second: Belief; Third:
>> Salvation.
>> I maintain that this order is contradicted by Scripture and therefore
is
>> impossible.
>> Before I begin, we need to all agree on the definition of
"regeneration."
>
> I don't think this has been under question.
Actually it has been questioned by everyone with whom I have been
conversing, including you. That is, the meaning that I attach to it has
been
denied by everyone including you.
>> Most agree that regeneration IS the new birth. A person is regenerated
>> when
>> he is born again. This means that he is born of God. He is born of
>> "incorruptible" seed through the word of God. Also, that he is a child
of
>> God. Thus he is given new life. This life is the life of God, and is
thus
>> eternal. Scripture says he has been given life, Eternal Life,
Everlasting
>> Life.
>
> Your willingness to confuse the _consequence_ of regeneration (eternal
> life) with regeneration is, however, problematic.
In regeneration we are given the new life. Are you suggesting that the
life
God gives us is not Eternal Life? Does He first give you a tem****ary sort
of
new life, and then later give you Eternal Life? This makes no sense. I am
not confusing the consequent of regeneration with regeneration.
Regeneration
IS receiving Eternal Life. When a child is born, does he not have the life
he continues to have from there onward. Scripture knows of only one kind
of
new life given by God, and that is Eternal Life. If you disagree, be
specific. Give scriptures for your assertion that God somehow gives us
life
which is not eternal. This is only problematic for you because you deny
that
"whosoever believes in Him HAS Eternal Life."
> We may summarize your
> argument as follows: one is given eternal life by coming to Christ.
> Because regeneration and eternal life are the same thing, one is
> regenerated by coming to Christ.
No. One comes to Christ through faith. When one believes in Him for
Eternal
Life, God regenerates the person. We receive the GIFT of salvation which
(the salvation taking the infinite power of God to produce), when we
believe. You want to divorce the power which accomplishes regeneration/new
birth from God who is our Father, to make it being produced by our puny
faith, which is a recognition of helplessness, not of power. The person
regenerated has been "raised with Him through faith in the working of God,
who raised Him from the dead." The little phrase "faith IN THE WORKING OF
God" is extremely significant. It indicates, as I have asserted for weeks,
that believing the gospel means believing that one has received Eternal
Life. This IS faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
It
also demolishes Calvinism at its core, so of course, you must deny it, for
having faith in the working of God raising us, means that we have not been
raised before having this faith. So at first you casually state:
"GKM:"Before I begin, we need to all agree on the definition of
"regeneration." To which you responded: "I don't think this has been under
question." But this is the very center of the question. It is the dominate
fact in the gospel. If one does not believe in Christ FOR Eternal Life
then
one has NOT believed the gospel.
That regeneration is the impartation of Eternal Life is obvious, for the
following reasons: 1) we are raised WITH HIM through faith in the
operation
of God (Col. 2:12; Eph. 2:5); 2) since we are raised (a euphemism of being
born again) through faith, and whoever believes in Him (has faith in Him)
HAS Eternal Life, the necessary consequent is that when we are
regenerated,
we are born of God, God gives us His life, Eternal Life, and 3) "whoever
believes in Him shall not perish" proves Eternal Life from the negative
side. 4) "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes
in
Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment,
but
has passed from death into life."
Now what you need to preserve your system is that "regeneration" NOT be
the
impartation of new life, of Eternal Life. Because we KNOW that this comes
only to the believer. And you have the unregenerate unbeliever being
regenerated! But the problem is regeneration MEANS new birth. And new
birth
means passing from death to life, and this means having Eternal Life, and
not coming into judgment, SHALL NOT PERISH.
>> I maintain that a person is regenerated, given Eternal Life,
Everlasting
>> Life, life from God, WHEN he believes, and NEVER before.
>
> Are you saying that belief, or any effort antecedent to belief, in any
way
> causes regeneration?
Absolutely not! Faith is the very opposite of having any power to produce
life, much less Eternal Life and being born of God! It is God who GIVES
the
gift of Eternal Life which means being born of God, and never peri****ng,
to
the one who simply believes in Christ for it. The implication of "believes
in Christ FOR IT," is stated directly in scripture in two places right off
the top of my head: Colossians 2:12b "… you also were raised with Him
through faith in the working of God." Unless your faith incor****ated this
work of God – being raised to Eternal Life, then you did NOT believe for
Eternal Life. And also, 1 Timothy 1:16 "However, for this reason I
obtained
mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a
pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life."
> _This_ is what the problem is, Gary. Not that regenerate people
> believe--we all agree they do. But _how_ people are regenerated. I
think
> Bob has beat this drum a bit in your communication with him, but this is
> the real crux of the issue.
No it is not. We both agree that it is the power of God which regenerates.
We do not disagree as to the HOW, but as to the WHEN. God only regenerates
when a person believes. The transition from death to life is when
regeneration occurs. This transition from death to life is said to be a
"raising." This raising is WITH Christ. BUT most im****tantly it is
"through
FAITH IN the operation/working/power of God." Col 2:12 (KJV; NKJV; NIVUS)
Thus scripture clearly and decisively states that saving faith is present
WHEN this "raising to newness of life" occurs.
> So _how_ are people regenerated?
Through faith in the power of God.
> The order in Scripture is clear: Faith <- Hearing <- the Word (Ro
> 10.17).
NO, that is NOT the order. The order of words in a sentence is not the
order
of how things happen. The passage reads: 17 "So then faith comes by
hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Only those who have heard the
word of God, the gospel, can hear it, and only those who have heard it can
believe it. So, yes the order is clear, but it sure must not be clear to
you.
Three verses earlier God repeats the order: Romans 10:14 "How then shall
they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they
believe
in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a
preacher?" A child can understand this.
> The Word opens our ears (we are regenerated through the Word; 1Pe
> 1.23) and we hear, and then we have faith.
I understand what you say. But it is not true. You keep misquoting Pet.
1:23. I corrected this several times before. The passage reads: 23
"having
been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the
word
of God which lives and abides forever."
Hence your primary argument vanishes into thin air. We are NOT regenerated
by the Word. Not by the Word, which is Christ, nor by the Word which is
scripture. We are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Remember John 3:6 "That
which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit
is
spirit." Peter says we are born again of incorruptible seed. (The term
s****a
(meaning "seed") In I John 3:9 we read: 1 John 3:9 "Whoever has been born
of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin,
because
he has been born of God." Here "Seed" is the translation of "sperma." The
point is that you invent the phrase, "the Word opens our ears." I don't so
much object to the opening of the ears by God's word, but I do object to
equating this with regeneration.
Next, consider the passage: Matthew 13:14 "And in them the prophecy of
Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not
understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;15 For the hearts of
this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their
eyes
they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their
ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I
should heal them.'"
Although He does not say that they closed their own ears, it is implied,
for
it is explicitly stated how their eyes were closed, they closed them
themselves. Further, had they not grown hard of hearing and shut their own
eyes, they could have heard and turned and been healed. These verses show
that your doctrine of them being born deaf and blind are false.
> The _how_ of regeneration is the Word acting in us.
"But in the long run the exact identification [of 'seed'] is not so
im****tant, so long as we recognize that the author is talking about a
divine
agency for begetting God's children, which not only brings us into being
but
also remains and keeps us His children." [Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles
of
John, p. 411.]
> Our whole discussion
> is predicated on your insistence that the Word is really a bunch of
words
The words of God are not in the same category as any other words. Your
contempt for "words" is contradicted by scripture: Acts 11:13 "And he
told
us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send
men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14 'who will
tell
you words by which you and all your household will be saved.'" Further,
Christ says: John 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh
profits
nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64
"But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the
beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him."
It is true that words are, strictly speaking, just blotches of ink on
paper.
It is the meaning behind those blotches which we mean.
Note it is the Spirit who GIVES LIFE. The spiritual words of the Gospel
give
life if they are believed. Note that He says: "some of you who do not
believe." He does not say: "some of you who cannot believe." This is your
position. That they CANNOT believe.
Whereas, the above verse tells us that these did "close their own eyes."
Thus it is not at all improbable that they also "shut their own ears." It
does say that they were not born in this condition, for their "hearts grew
dull."
> that we decide to listen to of our own will, rather than a living and
> active part of our regeneration.
That is not, of course, the problem. I agree that God's word is powerful,
and that it is spiritual, and that it give life. It is, for example, Bob,
who relegates the written word to meaningless spots on paper, which are
"encoded" so that only those whom God first regenerates can understand.
Doesn't this smack of Gnosticism?
Some how you have in your mind a few passages which you think you
understand
correctly, and base your entire theology on, but what is true is that you
have simply misunderstood them.
For example, "salvation being 'not of yourselves'." You take this to mean
that man must be completely uninvolved in his salvation. This is not true.
The Greek word translated "of" is ek. It means "out of" it is a primary
preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds),
from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative;
Hence, this passage means that our salvation is OUT of God, it is by God's
power. It does not mean that we do not receive it by faith.
Another is the phrase, "dead in sins." Dead does not mean obliteration.
Man
is still in the image of God. (1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9). Isaiah 59:2
"But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have
hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear." Adam and Eve, after
their sin, still heard God, and understood Him. There was not "coded"
meaning in the words. They, in their unregenerate state still, though
dead,
understood God.
Every other passage which you think sup****ts Calvinism has a reasonable
exegesis which is possible, and which does not result in the multitude of
contradictions which your theology does.
>> So, to the Scriptures:
>>
>> John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have
>> eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 "But you are
>> not willing to come to Me that you may have life." (NKJV)
>>
>> The last phrase is decisive as to the order of attaining life and
coming
>> to Jesus. He says that they were "NOT WILLING" to come to Him THAT THEY
>> MAY HAVE LIFE!"
>
> I discussed this briefly above. You are confusing regeneration with its
> results (a renewed will, eternal life, et c.).
You are ASSUMING your conclusion. You are not proving it. So when Christ
said, Matthew 11:28 "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden,
and
I will give you rest." He had the hidden meaning that they COULD not
actually come to Him?
Why is it that you don't address those passages which you cannot
controvert?
Like John 20:30-31, and Colossians 2:12b "raised with him through your
faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." (NIVUS)
I presume you saw how Bob gave his exegesis of John 20? What utter
nonsense.
When you see a verse which clearly states "raised through your faith," us
simply must either ignore it, or do as Bob did, state that I (unregenerate
man), simply cannot understand it, because it is encoded and only those
whom
God has regenerated see it as it really is. A real problem with this is
that
I once believed as you now do.
>> He says "not WILLING" and He does NOT SAY, "not able," or "cannot."
>
> I'm not entirely sure why you would expect people who cannot come to
> desire to do so; I'm pretty confident that everyone who is unregenerate
> _wants_ to be that way; they certainly assent to it.
But you presume again to just change scripture. God does not say CANNOT
come.
> As you've dialogued with Bob, he's brought up several times the fact
that
> the unregenerate man is God's enemy, and his will is not favorably
> disposed to God. The will must be changed. How is the will changed?
The will of the enemies of the United States is sometimes changed by
talking
to them. The will of Japan was changed as a result of the bomb. Some still
won't change though all sorts of pressure are brought, Sadam.
God says: 2 Corinthians 5:20 "Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as
though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be
reconciled to God." (NKJV)
This verse is yet another which must be torn out of scripture, like John
20:
30-31. And many others to keep your system from falling.
You cannot actually believe the words which have a propositional meaning
no
matter what language is used, for if you ever did believe them, you would
cease to believe as you do.
So in answer to your question, God entreats His enemies! God PLEADS with
His
enemies. But this is so foreign to your theology, (and Calvinism) that it
must be expunged.
No, in your theology God rapes His enemies. He does so, by changing them,
without their wills, into being His friends. It is just like the plots of
many science fiction movies. All humans don't want the invader to take
over.
But every human who has "been taken over," [raped], then loves the
invader.
Because you change the gospel from what it is, God's name is blasphemed
among the nations. The atheist, the agnostic, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the
Muslim, all unbelievers, are correct in disbelieving your theology. The
God
you teach is the opposite of the God of scripture. The God you teach is
most
closely related to the God of Islam.
The atheist is strengthened in his atheism when he listens to you and
finds
out what he is expected to believe in.
And, by the way, most professing Christians, who are not Calvinists, and
know what Calvinism is, feel this way about Calvinism.
I realize that you don't want me to call you a Calvinist. And I have not
done so. But what you believe has a name, and the name is Calvinism.
Gary http://www.faithalone.org/
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post.
)))
|
