Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
printed and on the fridge
Yes, I have heard the Calvinists try to 'wiggle' out of the problem of Regeneration by making it 'logical' and not temporal, the only point is that it will not wash.
You cannot believe until you are regenerated so you can believe.
Regeneration must precede faith in your system
As Sproul plainly says, 'the Reformed view of predestination teaches that before a person can choose Christ his heart must be changed. He must be born again. He then points out that the maxim 'Regeneration precedes faith' is 'a cardinal point of Reformed theology'....So after adamantly insisting that regeneration precedes faith, some Calvinists, even those who would not go so far as Hoeksema, Berkhof, and the Primitive Baptists, sensing that their views will not stand the test of Scripture attempt to palliate their maxim. After stating the the new birth is the cause of repentence and faith, Keener regresses and says; 'I am not telling you that you are born again and you begin to believe and to repent later' Sproul after terming regeneration 'the necessary conditon of faith' claims that believer's act of faith are simultaneous, not separated, with respect to time. He posits that regeneration precedes faith 'with respect to logical priority, not temporal priority' After stating that conversion both repentence and faith, the Baptist theologian maintains that 'regeneration and conversion' are not choronologically separate' 'They are 'but the divine and human sides of the same fact'
Contrary to any variety of Calvinism, the Bible is perfectly clear that the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is the basis for our justification and spiritual blessings is given after a man believes (Rom.4:22-24) In the Bible a man has life because he believes, he does not believe because he has life;(Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, p.521,526)
Thus, both the logical and temporal order is faith then regeneration, not faith because of regeneration.
As for the faith being given, Wesley believed that also, but did not hold that one could not reject that faith, thus, the individual with prevenient grace,could make a decision to accept or reject the faith.
The Calvinist's with their view of regeneration before faith, make any rejection impossible, thus, election not faith is the basis for their salvation.
As my post to you stated, they cannot be simultanous either, one is saved by faith.
In Calvinism, faith is occuring at the same time (for the sake of argument) as regeneration, then one is not being saved because of what he is believing in (the saving work of Christ) he is being saved because he is elected, thus, the faith has nothing to do with the regeneration which must be a result of that faith, not before it or simultanous with it.
The Biblical order is regeneration because of faith, any other order is not the Gospel.
Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.(Rom.3:28)
The Calvinist's would read that one is justified at the same time with faith, not by it.
Beside the fact that only one translation I found (NRS) translated it as the 'begotten' as the perfect (has been), every other translation translated it as is (NASb, NIV, KJV, Geneva,) how does that passage say that regeneration and faith occur at the same time?
John is simply saying if you believe then you have been born of God, not that you were born of God and believed at the same time!
We are saved by faith which precedes regeneration.
Maybe you will listen to the Bible!
No, dr, because we are very specfic about the order as set forth by the Scriptures is clear faith precedes regeneration and justification, redemption, propitiation, adoption, since faith is what puts into Christ.
You are also specfic about the order you believe in regeneration and faith or before faith.
Either way, it is not scriptural.
Your salvation is based on election which gives you regeneration, and not your faith.
Thats what we Calvinists are trying to say, though sometimes, I suspect, our words get in the way.
That's just not my modus operendi. Here at UB, I'm one of the student leaders of Campus Crusade. I've been given carte blanche in the Bible study I am one of three leaders of. Could you imagine if I did this theological wrangling there? Could you imagine how divisive I could be? How disruptive I could be?
There comes a time when we recognize that Christians honestly differ on the interpetations of the text. You and I disagree with each other on Calvinism. Alright, we'll have to leave it at that. I am convinced that only Calvinism gives God all the glory He deserves in salvation, but, ultimately, what you believe in that respect is between you and God. I will try to help you along and show you why I am convinced that Calvinism is correct, but I will not harshly excoriate you for not believing Calvin. (How could I? I, too, believed in the Arminian position until a year ago last Sept.)
I am not being wishy-washy on theology -- indeed, I am uncompromising on what I believe. It's just that there are things worth fighting over, and there are things that are not worth fighting over. Alas, too much of Christianity has failed to realize this. My own denomination has seen a ghastly split over the issue of communion. One group asserts that the privilege of partaking in communion should be withheld until the elders have gotten to know a person and that he is, indeed a believer. The other group teaches that the question of whether or not a person partakes is one of self-examination. Seems a rather small issue for a denomination that otherwise agrees to split over, but the polemics that go both ways are disheartening.
Oh, well. I'm doing what I can to make sure I don't make that mistake.
That means that the v.25 is talking about those who are spiritually dead becoming spiritually alive.
Have you never experienced this?
Of course, as you pointed out, v.25 is talking about the so-called "first resurrection" in Revelation 20. But you still haven't understood what spiritual death and spiritual life really are.
(Satan really does hate amillennialism. That's also why so many professing Christians hate amillennialism.)
I don't read it that way. I don't think the passages warrant adding the word "spiritual" to "death" throughout these passages.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
These are the ones who already have life. I'll accept your term and call it "spiritual life". They will not come into condemnation, or judgement. Contrast with this:
Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
Do you see the difference? They that hear his voice shall live but what's different about these as compared to those in verse 24?
The answer is that there is no requirement for belief as there is in verse 24 is there? They shall live, but it doesn't say anything about being given spiritual life. They will live physically, as the people Jesus resurrected were raised physically. Now it's true they probably believed and became spiritually alive after their resurrection.
Did Christ literally raise up the dead during his earthly ministry? Yes. Why would he literally raise up the dead? Because he was a nice guy? Because he could? The simple answer is so that people would believe it could be and would be done so in the future resurrections.
As I said this exactly parallels the events in Revelation verse 20.
These two are equivelent:
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
And these are equivelent:
Joh 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
They have to be talking about the same thing because it was Jesus Christ describing both things. It was Jesus describing it to John in John, and it was Jesus describing it to John in Revelation. They must be consistent.
That's mighty charitable of you.... :-)
(Satan really does hate amillennialism. That's also why so many professing Christians hate amillennialism.)
Satan believes Christ is coming back to rule governments:
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
I have faith in the promise of his coming. Satan fears it:
Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
...even before they believe in "Calvinism"? Then what is the point of believing in anything?
BTW, if the "Election" were held today, would you be saved? Would I? How can anyone know for sure?
Interesting food for thought and study....
Are you sure it won't cause indigestion?
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.