When you bosom starts burning there is a little temperature sensitive thermometer in your chest that pops up.
When it pops you're saved. How hard can that be?
Posted on 04/19/2003 7:32:39 AM PDT by drstevej
The Theology of John Calvin
The subject of this address is the theology of John Calvin and I shall ask leave to take this subject rather broadly, that is to say, to attempt not so much to describe the personal peculiarities of John Calvin as a theologian, as to indicate in broad outlines the determining characteristics of the theology which he taught. I wish to speak, in other words, about Calvinism, that great system of religious thought which bears John Calvin's name, and which also--although of course he was not its author, but only one of its chief exponents--bears indelibly impressed upon it the marks of his formative hand and of his systematizing genius. Of all the teachers who have wrought into it their minds and hearts since its revival in that tremendous religious upheaval we call the Reformation, this system of thought owes most perhaps to John Calvin and has therefore justly borne since then his name. And of all the services which Calvin has rendered to humanity--and they are neither few nor small--the greatest was undoubtedly his gift to it afresh of this system of religious thought, quickened into new life by the forces of his genius, and it is therefore just that he should be most widely remembered by it. When we are seeking to probe to the heart of Calvinism, we are exploring also most thoroughly the heart of John Calvin. Calvinism is his greatest and most significant monument, and he who adequately understands it will best understand him.
It was about a hundred years ago that Max Gobel first set the scholars at work upon the attempt clearly to formulate the formative principle of Calvinism. A long line of distinguished thinkers have exhausted themselves in the task without attaining, we must confess, altogether consistent results. The great difficulty has been that the formative and distinctive principles of Calvinism have been confused, and men have busied themselves rather in indicating the points of difference by which Calvinism is distinguished from other theological tendencies than in seeking out the germinal principle of which it itself is the unfolding.
The particular theological tendency with which Calvinism has been contrasted in such discussions is, as was natural, the sister system of Lutheranism, with which it divided the heritage of the Reformation. Now undoubtedly somewhat different spirits do inform Calvinism and Lutheranism. And equally undoubtedly, the disunguishing spirit of Calvinism is due to its formative principle and is not to be accounted for by extraneous circumstances of origin or antecedents, such as for example, the democratic instincts of the Swiss, or the superior humanistic culture of its first teachers, or their tendency to intellectualism or to radicalism. But it is gravely misleading to identify the formative principle of either type of Protestantism with its prominent points of difference from the others. They have vastly more in common than in distinction. And nothing could be more misleading than to trace all their differences, as to their roots, to the fundamental place given in the two systems respectively to the principles of predestination and justification by faith.
In the first place, the doctrine of predestination is not the formative principle of Calvinism, it is only its logical implication. It is not the root from which Calvinism springs, it is one of the branches which it has inevitably thrown out. And so little is it the peculiarity of Calvinism, that it underlay and gave its form and power to the whole Reformation movement--which was, as from the spiritual point of view a great revival of religion, so from the doctrinal point of view a great revival of Augustinianism. There was, accordingly, no difference among the Reformers on this point; Luther and Melanchthon and the compromizing Butzer were no less zealous for absolute predestination than Zwingli and Calvin. Even Zwingli could not surpass Luther in sharp and unqualified assertion of this doctrine; and it was not Calvin but Melanchthon who paused, even in his first preliminary statement of the elements of the Protestant faith, to give it formal assertion and elaboration.
Just as little can the doctrine of justification by faith be represented as specifically Lutheran. It is as central to the Reformed as to the Lutheran system. Nay, it is only in the Reformed system that it retains the purity of its conception and resists the tendency to make it a doctrine of justification on account of; instead of by, faith. It is true that Lutheranism is prone to rest in faith as a kind of ultimate fact, while Calvinism penetrates to its causes, and places faith in its due relation to the other products of God's activity looking to the salvation of man. And this difference may, on due consideration, conduct us back to the formative principle of each type of thought. But it, too, is rather an outgrowth of the divergent formative principles than the embodiment of them. Lutheranism, sprung from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul seeking peace with God, finds peace in faith, and stops right there. It is so absorbed in rejoicing in the blessings which flow from faith that it refuses or neglects to inquire whence faith itself flows. It thus loses itself in a sort of divine euthumia, and knows, and will know nothing beyond the peace of the justified soul. Calvinism asks with the same eagerness as Lutheranism the great question, "What shall I do to be saved?" and answers it precisely as Lutheranism answers it. But it cannot stop there. The deeper question presses upon it, "Whence this faith by which I am justified?" And the deeper response suffuses all the chambers of the soul with praise, "From the free gift of God alone, to the praise of the glory of His grace." Thus Calvinism withdraws the eye from the soul and its destiny and fixes it on God and His glory. It has zeal, no doubt, for salvation but its highest zeal is for the honour of God, and it is this that quickens its emotions and vitalizes its efforts. It begins, it centres and it ends with the vision of God in His glory and it sets itself; before all things, to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity.
If thus the formative principle of Calvinism is not to be identified with the points of difference which it has developed with its sister type of Protestantism, Lutheranism, much less can it be identified with those heads of doctrine--severally or in sum--which have been singled out by its own rebellious daughter, Arminianism, as its specially vunerable points. The "five points of Calvinism," we have no doubt learned to call them, and not without justice. They are, each and every one of them, essential elements in the Calvinistic system, the denial of which in any of their essential details is logically the rejection of the entirety of Calvinism; and in their sum they provide what is far from being a bad epitome of the Calvinistic system. The sovereignty of the election of God, the substitutive definiteness of the atonement of Christ, the inability of the sinful will to good, the creative energy of the saving grace of the Spirit, the safety of the redeemed soul in the keeping of its Redeemer,--are not these the distinctive teachings of Calvinism, as precious to every Calvinist's heart as they are necessary to the integrity of the system? Selected as the objects of the Arminian assault, these "five-points" have been reaffirmed, therefore, with the constancy of profound conviction by the whole Calvinistic world. It is well however to bear in mind that they owe their prominence in our minds to the Arminian debate, and however well fitted they may prove in point of fact to stand as a fair epitome of Cavinistic doctrine, they are historically at least only the Calvinistic obverse of "the five points of Arminianism." And certainly they can put in no claim, either severally or in sum, to announce the formative principle of Calvinism, whose outworking in the several departments of doctrine they rather are--though of course they may surely and directly conduct us back to that formative principle, as the only root out of which just this body of doctrine could grow. Clearly at the root of the stock which bears these branches must lie a most profound sense of God and an equally profound sense of the relation in which the creature stands to God, whether conceived merely as creature or, more specifically as sinful creature. It is the vision of God and His Majesty, in a word, which lies at the foundation of the entirety of Calvinistic thinking.
The exact formulation of the formative principle of Calvinism, as I have said, has taxed the acumen of a long line of distinguished thinkers. Many modes of stating it have been proposed. Perhaps after all, however, its simplest statement is the best. It lies then, let me repeat, in a profound apprehension of God in His majesty, with the poignant realization which inevitably accompanies this apprehension, of the relation sustained to God by the creature as such, and particularly by the sinful creature. The Calvinist is the man who has seen God, and who, having seen God in His glory, is filled on the one hand, with a sense of his own unworthiness to stand in God's sight as a creature, and much more as a sinner, and on the other hand, with adoring wonder that nevertheless this God is a God who receives sinners. He who believes in God without reserve and is determined that God shall be God to him, in all his thinking, feeling, willing--in the entire compass of his life activities, intellectual, moral, spiritual--throughout all his individual, social, religious relations--is, by the force of that strictest of all logic which presides over the outworking of principles into thought and life, by the very necessity of the case, a Calvinist.
If we wish to reduce this statement to a more formal theoretical form, we may say perhaps, that Calvinism in its fundamental idea implies three things. In it, (i) objectively speaking, theism comes to its rights; (ii) subjectively speaking, the religious relation attains its purity; (iii) soteriologically speaking, evangelical religion finds at length its full expression and its secure stability. Theism comes to its rights only in a teleological view of the universe, which recognizes in the whole course of events the orderly working out of the plan of God, whose will is consequently conceived as the ultimate cause of all things. The religious relation attains its purity only when an attitude of absolute dependence on God is not merely assumed, as in the act, say, of prayer, but is sustained through all the activities of life, intellectual, emotional, executive. And evangelical religion reaches its full manifestation and its stable form only when the sinful soul rests in humble, self-emptying trust purely on the God of grace as the immediate and sole source of all the efficiency which enters into its salvation. From these things shine out upon us the formative principle of Calvinism. The Calvinist is the man who sees God behind all phenomena, and in all that occurs recognizes the hand of God, working out His will; who makes the attitude of the soul to God in prayer the permanent attitude in all its life activities; and who casts himself on the grace of God alone, excluding every trace of dependence on self from the whole work of his salvation.
I think it important to insist here that Calvinism is not a specific variety of theistic thought, religious experience, evangelical faith, but the perfect expression of these things. The difference between it and other forms of theism, religion, evangelicalism, is a difference not of kind but of degree. There are not many kinds of theism, religion, evangelicalism, each with its own special characteristics, among which men are at liberty to choose, as may suit their individual tastes. There is but one kind of theism, religion, evangelicalism, and if there are several constructions laying claim to these names they differ from one another, not as correlative species of a more inclusive genus, but only as more or less good or bad specimens of the same thing differ from one another.
Calvinism comes forward simply as pure theism, religion, evangelicalism, as over against less pure theism, religion, evangelicalism. It does not take its position then by the side of other types of these things; it takes its place over them, as what they too ought to be. It has no difficulty thus, in recognizing the theistic character of all truly theistic thought, the religious note in all really religious manifestations, the evangelical quality of all actual evangelical faith. It refuses to be set antagonistically over against these where they really exist in any degree. It claims them in every instance of their emergence as its own, and seeks only to give them their due place in thought and life. Whoever believes in God, whoever recognizes his dependence on God, whoever hears in his heart the echo of the Soli Deo gloria of the evangelical profession--by whatever name he may call himself; by whatever logical puzzles his understanding may be confused--Calvinism recognizes such as its own, and as only requiring to give full validity to those fundamental principles which underlie and give its body to all true religion to become explicitly a Calvinist.
Calvinism is born, we perceive, of the sense of God. God fills the whole horizon of the Calvinist's feeling and thought. One of the consequences which flow from this is the high supernaturalism which informs at once his religious consciousness and his doctrinal construction. Calvinism indeed would not be badly defined as the tendency which is determined to do justice to the immediately supernatural, as in the first so in the second creation. The strength and purity of its apprehension of the supernatural Fact (which is God) removes all embarrassment from it in the presence of the supernatural act (which is miracle). In everything which enters into the process of the recovery of sinful man to good and to God, it is impelled by the force of its first principle to assign the initiative to God. A supernatural revelation in which God makes known to man His will and His purposes of grace; a supernatural record of the revelation in a supernaturally given Book, in which God gives His revelation permanence and extension ,--such things are to the Calvinist matters of course. And above all things, he can but insist with the utmost strenuousness on the immediate supernaturalness of the actual work of redemption; this of course, in its impetration. It is no strain to his faith to believe in a supernatural Redeemer, breaking His way to earth through a Virgin's womb, bursting the bonds of death and returning to His Father's side to share the glory which He had with the Father before the world was. Nor can he doubt that this supernaturally purchased redemption is applied to the soul in an equally supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.
Thus it comes about that monergistic regeneration--"irresistible grace," "effectual calling," our older theologians called it,--becomes the hinge of the Calvinistic soteriology, and lies much more deeply imbedded in the system than many a doctrine more closely connected with it in the popular mind. Indeed, the soteriological significance of predestination itself consists to the Calvinist largely in the safeguard it affords to the immediate supernaturalness of salvation. What lies at the heart of his soteriology is absolute exclusion of creaturely efficiency in the induction of the saving process, that the pure grace of God in salvation may be magnified. Only so could he express his sense of men's complete dependence as sinners on the free mercy of a saving God; or extrude the evil leaven of synergism, by which God is robbed of His glory and man is encouraged to attribute to some power, some act, some initiative of his own, his participation in that salvation which in reality has come to him from pure grace.
There is nothing therefore, against which Calvinism sets its face with more firmness than every form and degree of auto-soterism. Above everything else, it is determined to recognize God, in His son Jesus Christ, acting through the Holy Spirit whom He has sent, as our veritable Saviour. To Calvinism, sinful man stands in need, not of inducements or assistance to save himself; but precisely of saving; and Jesus Christ has come not to advise, or urge, or woo, or help him to save himself; but to save him; to save him through the prevalent working on him of the Holy Spirit. This is the root of the Calvinistic soteriology, and it is because this deep sense of human helplessness and this profound consciousness of indebtedness for all that enters into salvation to the free grace of God is the root of its soteriology, that election becomes to Calvinism the cor cordis of the Gospel. He who knows that it is God who has chosen him, and not he who has chosen God, and that he owes every step and stage of his salvation to the working out of this choice of God, would be an ingrate indeed if he gave not the whole glory of his salvation to the inexplicable election of the Divine love.
Calvinism however, is not merely a soteriology. Deep as its interest is in salvation, it cannot escape the question--"Why should God thus intervene in the lives of sinners to rescue them from the consequences of their sin?" And it cannot miss the answer--"Because it is to the praise of the glory of His grace." Thus it cannot pause until it places the scheme of salvation itself in relation with a complete world-view in which it becomes subsidiary to the glory of the Lord God Almighty. If all things are from God, so to Calvinism all things are also unto God, and to it God will be all in all. It is born of the reflection in the heart of man of the glory of a God who will not give His honour to another, and draws its life from constant gaze upon this great image. And let us not fail punctually to note, that "it is the only system in which the whole order of the world is thus brought into a rational unity with the doctrine of grace, and in which the glorification of God is carried out with absolute completeness." Therefore the future of Christianity--as its past has done--lies in its hands. For, it is certainly.true, as has been said by a profound thinker of our own time, that "it is only with such a universal conception of God, established in a living way, that we can face with hope of complete conquest all the spiritual dangers and terrors of our times." "It, however," as the same thinker continues, "is deep enough and large enough and divine enough, rightly understood, to confront them and do battle with them all in vindication of the Creator, Preserver and Governor of the world, and of the Justice and Love of the divine Personality."
This is the system of doctrine to the elaboration and defence of which John Calvin gave all his powers nearly four hundred years ago. And it is chiefly because he gave all his powers to commending to us this system of doctrine, that we are here today to thank God for giving to the world the man who has given to the world this precious gift.
Thus, according to you, Christ's love is conditional and able to be withdrawn. That's not security; that's manipulative and temportal.
Eternal security is knowing that if God knows everything, He already knows who will sit with Him in heaven and who won't. So in God's mind, it is set in stone. If we are graced by God's touch to know Christ and follow his lead, we realize Christ's sacrifice has allowed us to be counted among those with God.
That's security. And it's eternal.
It is not based on what we do after we believe. It is based on the fact that we do believe.
BTW Doc, how do you know that you are elect? What process did you go through so that you knew you that you had done what is necessary to convince yourself that you were one of the "elect"?
And how do you KNOW that you have eternal life?
Is it based on the fact that after you believed that you have managed to live a good life? Is it based on the fact that after you believed you are able to keep his commandments? Or is it based on the fact that after you believed you fulfilled your end of the promise (you believed) and now it is God's responsiblity to give you the eternal life that He promised to those who believe?
That should be your first hint that you are reading it wrong:>)
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
"How can we square this verse with predestination? If it is not the will of God to elect everyone unto salvation, how can the Bible then say that God is not willing that any should perish?
In the first place we must understand that the Bible speaks of the will of God in more than one way. For example, the Bible speaks of what we call God’s sovereign efficacious will. The sovereign will of God is that will by which God brings things to pass with absolute certainty. Nothing can resist the will of God in this sense. By his sovereign will he created the world. The light could not have refused to shine.
The second way in which the Bible speaks of the will of God is with respect to what we call his preceptive will. God’s preceptive will refers to his commands, his laws. It is God’s will that we do the things he mandates. We are capable of disobeying this will. We do in fact break his commandments. We cannot do it with impunity. We do it without his permission or sanction. Yet we do it. We sin.
A third way the Bible speaks of the will of God has reference to God’s disposition, to what is pleasing to him. God does not take delight in the death of the wicked. There is a sense in which the punishment of the wicked does not bring joy to God. He chooses to do it because it is good to punish evil. He delights in the righteousness of his judgment but is “sad” that such righteous judgment must be carried out. It is something like a judge sitting on a bench and sentencing his own son to prison.
Let us apply these three possible definitions to the passage in 2 Peter. If we take the blanket statement, “God is not willing that any should perish,” and apply the sovereign efficacious will to it, the conclusion is obvious. No one will perish. If God sovereignly decrees that no one should perish, and God is God, then certainly no one will ever perish. This would then be a proof text not for Arminianism but for universalism. The text would then prove too much for Arminians.
Suppose we apply the definition of the preceptive will of God to this passage? Then the passage would mean that God does not allow anyone to perish. That is, he forbids the perishing of people. It is against his law. If people then went ahead and perished, God would have to punish them for perishing. His punishment for perishing would be more perishing. But how does one engage in more perishing than perishing? This definition will not work in this passage. It makes no sense.
The third alternative is that God takes no delight in the perishing of people. This squares with what the Bible says elsewhere about God’s disposition toward the lost. This definition could fit this passage. Peter may simply be saying here that God takes no delight in the perishing of anyone.
Though the third definition is a possible and attractive one to use in resolving this passage with what the Bible teaches about predestination, there is yet another factor to be considered. The text says more than simply that God is not willing that any should perish. The whole clause is important: “but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”
What is the antecedent of any? It is clearly us. Does us refer to all of us humans? Or does it refer to us Christians, the people of God? Peter is fond of speaking of the elect as a special group of people. I think what he is saying here is that God does not will that any of us (the elect) perish. If that is his meaning, then the text would demand the first definition and would be one more strong passage in favor of predestination.
In two different ways the text may easily be harmonized with predestination. In no way does it support Arminianism. Its only other possible meaning would be universalism, which would then bring it into conflict with everything else the Bible says against universalism."
Sproul, R. (. C. (1986). Chosen by God. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
So what happened on Calvary ?
Was anyone saved that day?
And as far as the bushmen go ...
Luke 12:47-48 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
So then because no bush man can do as God (the master) has ordered then the bush man is lost correst? Because The bible says thay ALL men are without excuse as all men have the law written on their heart ..so having that law on their heart and the Jews the law on tablets they are responsible to keep it PERFECTLY .
The only one that ever kept the Law perfectly was Jesus ..
The Law points us to Christ
If you note the scripture you used speaks to levels of reward and punishment..NO where does it say that ALL is forgiven the one that knew not. Read Romans 1-3
It is not based on what we do after we believe. It is based on the fact that we do believe.
Logical inconsistancey
You believe that God does not want Robots to love Him, so he gives them free will to choose him....But apparently you become a robot after you are saved and God does not mind keeping you saved by making you a robot.
And how do you KNOW that you have eternal life?
How do you KNOW you have ? Because you said the formula prayer? Or because you have the witness of the Holy Spirit?
Marlowe does all ALWAYS mean all of all sorts and kind?
All my kids are having a birthday party for me tomorrow...But that is not quite true..all my local kids are having the party ...all does not mean all
If you were going to be intellectually honest you know that is true in your own speech
I have showed you it is true in Greek
Now for no
The scripture :
Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
oudeis {oo-dice'} including feminine oudemia {oo-dem-ee'-ah} and neuter ouden {oo-den'}
Part of Speech pron Outline of Biblical Usage
1) no one, nothing
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 236
AV - no man 94, nothing 68, none 27, no 24, any man 3, any 3, man 2, neither any man 2, misc 13; 236
How would you answer that question Rn?
How would the [FR Fifth Amendment]s answer that question?
I resent RIGHTLY dividing the word of God (as I showed you with the Greek translation) with the liar Clinton
I respectfully ask you to withdraw that comment
For your information Augustine , Luther, Calvin, Knox, Spurgeon , Whitfield , Edwards were all alot more biblically literate than Marlowe ..and none of them were liars
I know I am saved by the grace of God Corin...I have the witness of the Holy Spirit as I know you do.
It looks like rain today)
Explain how reliance on the promises of God could be considered a logical inconsistency.
I am not responsible for keeping myself saved. What is logically inconsistent about that? You calvinists are stuck with the logical inconsistency of claiming that nothing you can do can change whether or not you are an "elect", that if you are an "elect" God will make you an "elect" no matter what you do in this life, yet if you claim to be an elect, the only way you will know is not if you "believe" but if YOU perservere.
I will perservere because I believe, not because I try to be a good person.
So keep trying, Mom. Your efforts to do good works in order to ensure your salvation appears to be evidence that you don't believe. It is evidence that you cannot accept the promise of God that those who believe HAVE eternal life. If you don't want to accept that promise, then it would seem that you have rejected that promise. Pity.
I'll rely on the promises of God. Not on my subjective feelings that maybe what I am feeling is the Holy Spirit. I know it is the Holy Spirit because I am relying on the word of God and the promises of God. The [FR 5th Amemdments] claim to have the witness of the Holy Spirit. Do they? I believe that their witness is not in line with the scriptures thus their subjective feelings are not the Holy Spirit.
So go ahead and rely on your subjective feelings of electness, and the evidence of Good deeds. That is what the [FR 5th Amendments] do. See how far that gets you. If you cannot rely totally on the promises of God as given in the scripture, then I personally think it is evidence of unbelief.
But you are responsible for saving your self. You had the free will to choose Christ or not. But once you choose him you lose your "free will" and can no longer vote pro or con on God..a puppet on a string.
There are scriptures that wesleyans will be glad to share that indicate you can lose your salvation so a claim to base your once saved always saved theology on scripture falls short ..
?You calvinists are stuck with the logical inconsistency of claiming that nothing you can do can change whether or not you are an "elect", that if you are an "elect" God will make you an "elect" no matter what you do in this life, yet if you claim to be an elect, the only way you will know is not if you "believe" but if YOU perservere.
Actually eternal security is ONLY consistant with Reform theology
God elects to salvation ..for all time and all eternity it was HIS choice. He drew us to Himself with His grace. He gave us the gift of new life , His word gave us faith and we repented and believed . Not because we were smarter ot had more self control than anyone.. He knew us from before the foundation of the world, He chose us and he keeps us..
I will perservere because I believe, not because I try to be a good person.
What if you stop believing?
So keep trying, Mom. Your efforts to do good works in order to ensure your salvation appears to be evidence that you don't believe. It is evidence that you cannot accept the promise of God that those who believe HAVE eternal life. If you don't want to accept that promise, then it would seem that you have rejected that promise. Pity.
Marlowe you are a good lawyer..but it is bad form to misstate anothers position like that .Some might even say it is an attempt to sway the jury:>). My salvation is not by works it is by grace..I am saved and kept by grace. That is why it is called mercy
I'll rely on the promises of God. Not on my subjective feelings that maybe what I am feeling is the Holy Spirit.
I rely totally on the word of God Marlowe ..
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
2Cr 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing [is] God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
1Jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son
God is faithful and true I can lean on His word as reassurence ..but even that is a mark of the Holy Spirit ..feelings are subjective BUT through it all..trial , pain , sadness I KNOW that I know that I know ...His word is true.
When you bosom starts burning there is a little temperature sensitive thermometer in your chest that pops up.
When it pops you're saved. How hard can that be?
I believe that faith - regeneration is the actual order. We're talking nano-seconds here. I think we have a photo finish. Hold your tickets.
And why do we believe? Are we so much smarter than the Jews, or the Bushmen, or the Moslems, or the agnosics or the FR-5th? Are we better people; less sinful; less fallen?
No, we believe because God opened our hearts to Christ. It was His gift to us, not the other way around.
Marlowe, does God know if you are saved?
Or is He holding His breath, hoping you don't slip up?
It makes a difference. It affords you Eternal Security...which the Arminian worries about loosing at any time.
And to say faith precedes regeneration, even by a nanosecond, means it's still in YOUR control. You choose to believe, then you are regenerated.
Nope. God does not wait on man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.