Free Republic

As I said earlier, I believe there is often an essential link between unthankfulness and depression. It seems to me to go like this... we grumble and complain about our circumstances rather than be thankful for them as we should (ultimately) as we are exhorted in Romans 8:28-29; our unthankful disposition leads to anger, usually suppressed in some manner and to some degree; this anger eventually produces depression.

I'm not trying to suggest that this simplistic progression is trivial to overcome. On the contrary, I see it as insidious, pervasive, and akin to the "strongholds" mentioned in 2Cor. 10:4. I'd be pleased to hear anyone's perspective on these thoughts...thanks!

"Ooooh...that'll cost you a tenth for "failure to recognize irony"... and another tenth for "passive-aggressive play."

ROFL. That means I'm batting .800 I'll take it!

"That reply was a power play, as was the post that occasioned it. You guys stopped actually conversing at least two posts ago."

Yes indeed. The truth is certainly powerful. From my point of view, we never "conversed" at all. Stormhands asked a supposed rhetorical question and I gave a sincere answer to which he took offense and also revealed the ingenuine nature of his intentions to ksen. What I pointed out was that this is typical behavior for him as it is for others on this forum.

Stormhands, you get your wish...point made, subject dropped.

"My success rate (measured in marriages that persevered rather than dissolved for three years after the therapy) was far better than 22%. It was over 75%."

That's very impressive! There are so many hurting marriages out there, why would you be inclined to spend so much time on this forum. With your loving heart and pastoral gifts, the Church would be greatly edified by your labors.

"Which would then make your first post to me rather patronizing, now wouldn't it?"

A predictable response. Thank you for that patronizing judgment. I've read enough of your posts to be wary of ingenuineness. Rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue regarding my suggestion, you've validated my assessment.

"No, I didn't. The question was rhetorical. Sorry if that wasn't clear. ksen knows me well enough to have caught that."

Actually, it appeared to me that your question contained an element of cynicism. I know you well enough to have caught that.

"Well, thank you for that judgment."

You expressed your curiosity about the possibility of your depression being sin. I merely offered food for thought. If you are experiencing judgment, perhaps an examination of conscience is in order. Certainly, no offense was intended on my part. I'm no more immune to the sin of unthankfulness than you are.

"So tell me ksen. When I went into a deep depression following my round with cancer, just exactly what sin did I need to deal with?"

With all due respect, if your depression was indeed sin and not medically induced, I'd like to suggest the possibility of it being the sin of unthankfulness. I am persuaded that unthankfulness is the key ingredient behind all depression. Repentence and thankfulness to God are the true remedies. I know it's a hard pill to swallow when dealing with a crisis such as cancer, but even then, a grateful heart inclined to rest in the Providence of God will vanquish depression.

The knowledge needed by a single plumber to practice his trade is derived from the knowledge of thousands who came before him. Phd's, contractors, trial and error all played a roll in modern plumbing. The materials only in a single piece of pipe take thousands of miners, factory workers and centuries of history to make.

If you are using this as an example to prove a logical principle (cream rising to the top), then why isn't every plumber on the planet a Super Plumber!

Yes, if that is how the NT defines regeneration. But it doesn't. You are hearing a warpped interpretation that salvation is faith + repentence. It isn't

I didn't say that salvation is faith + repentence, I offered that as a definition for conversion. It seems that it would be fruitful if you would define your terminology since it appears we are both using words that convey a different concept to each of us.

Regeneration preceeds conversion. This was the historical perspective of the church and this is true orthodoxy.

I have no argument with you here. Where we diverge is in your attempt to place a time lag between these two actions.

My conviction is that regeneration is synonymous with the new birth. It logically follows the internal call in the Ordo Salutis, which suzyjaruki was kind enough to post earlier. Your scenario concerning Abraham, to my way of thinking, attempts to make the internal call a post-regenerative activity. I would reiterate that this view produces a born-again unbeliever.

To further clarify my perspective, I would define "salvation" as the entire process from election to glorification, ergo, the term "Ordo Salutis". This is a logical progression and is not intended to be a temporal timeline. Wouldn't you agree? There may be a time lag involved for certain portions of the Ordo Salutis such as the time between the outward call and the inward call, sanctification and glorification, but not between regeneration and conversion and the Ordo Salutis does not force any temporal relationship.

Consider an evangelistic rally during which many come forward, raise a hand, sign a card, etc. Some may even go to church, pray, witness, as a response to that event. Some go on to produce fruit. But some, as the Parable of the Seeds teaches, fall away. Shall we term their "decision for Christ" regeneration? I would think not. Yet this is what your perspective on Abraham would suggest. Abraham in Gen. 12 responds to God much like the one responding at the rally, yet it is in Gen. 15 where we are told Abraham believes God. It is in this chapter that the inward call coupled with regeneration produces the faithful response of Abraham.

You can ONLY interpret all of this as Abraham was indeed regenerated when he called upon the name of the Lord but he wasn’t converted until later.

A very good post indeed...well thought out and rather compelling. However... :-)

If we accept that the NT defines regeneration as being born again or being born from above and conversion means faith + repentence, then your scenario would force the possibility of a born-again unbeliever.

If regeneration is receiving the new heart, being made alive from the dead, and we believe this life to be eternal life, and we insert a time lag to conversion, then we have an individual who has eternal life but yet has not been justified. If this is possible, then I dare say our terminology, and the terminology of orthodoxy is in serious jeopardy. Harley, am I missing something?

Can you give me a concise (a few sentences) definition of "regeneration" drawn from the Scriptures, since the word itself isn't given or defined in the Bible?

If I may... The term "regeneration" is taken from the Greek phrase "gennethe anothen" (I believe that's the correct transliteration) found in John 3:3. Translations often render it "born from above" or "born again".

Hope that helps.

BTW, what do you think about the efforts on this thread to paint Calvin as a synergist?

I haven't read each posting so I can only comment in general terms. Attempting to paint Calvin as a synergist is not unlike attempting to paint the outside of Gabriel's horn (mathematicians will know what I mean, others will have to look it up). :-)

The Reformers distinguished between "noticia", "ascensus", and "fiducia". Noticia is understanding the facts of the Gospel. Ascensus is believing them to be true. Fiducia is believing them to be true for oneself and trusting in them. One may have experienced noticia and ascensus, but not fiducia, the necessary evidence for true faith. The first act of a regenerate heart is to respond in true faith. If fiducia is not present, no regeneration has occurred.

Since I'm new to these threads, I may be covering old ground. I apologize in advance if the above post is redundant.

The regeneration versus conversion was one of the bigger stumbling blocks I had to overcome before I embraced Calvinism.

While this issue was not a stumbling block for me, it has been an interesting point to ponder. If we accept Webster's definition of "convert", namely, "reversed in position, opposite, contrary", and apply that to the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, it would seem to suggest that the two "events" are concurrent. That is, in regeneration, God removes the heart of stone (dead to Him) and replaces it with a heart of flesh (alive to Him). I can't think of a more radical reversal in position. I can't think of a position more contrary to what went before.

Now while the "events" of conversion are concurrent, the activities can be logically distinguished. Regeneration is the bestowing of spiritual life and faith. Conversion is the fruit through the first act of faith, repentence.

From another point of view, I wonder if "conversion" is similar to "salvation" in the sense that Scripture speaks of believers as "being saved", "having been saved", and "will be saved". It's a bit tempting to think that conversion begins at birth and is culminated at death. Since conversion only applies to the elect, and since God uses all the experiences and circumstances in one's life to prepare them for the work of regeneration and continues that work through the life-long process of converging one's positional righteousness with one's actual righteousness (sanctification), I wonder if there is a sense in which conversion is a cradle-to-grave experience for the elect...just a thought, not a conviction.

By the way, an excellent article. Thanks for posting it.

What "offense" is that?

LOL. You crack me up

I would guarantee you that most Mormons and Catholics and Moonies and Christian Scientists and Jehovah's witnesses and Bahai's would be willing to subscribe to that creed. You should know that reciting the creed does not save you. Understanding theology does not save you.

If you believe that some of the groups you've mentioned would subscribe to the Apostle's Creed, then your understanding of this creed or those groups is flawed.

You should know that while recitation of the Apostle's Creed is not salvific, neither is my telling you that I trust in Christ as my Lord and Savior. Regardless, none of this has any bearing on your refusal to address the offense I've brought to your attention.

I would say without hesitation that anyone who believes and receives Christ as savior is saved and my brother or sister in Christ be they Calvinist or Arminian or Calminian or whatever. Theology is something you develop AFTER you are saved.

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. AMEN.

Will you now respond to the offense I previously mentioned?

I'll be happy to talk with you... When I find the right kind of spirit in people, then I'll be happy to have all kinds of theological discussions.

Thank you for these kind words. Experience has taught me that religious discussions can quickly degrade into pathetic attempts to win arguments. The pursuit of truth is set aside and no real dialogue occurs. Instead, remarks tend to become mean-spirited, intellectually dishonest, and mutual wounding results. Perhaps because spiritual convictions lie close to the heart. Perhaps because sin crouches at the door waiting to have us. Perhaps both. It saddens me to observe confessing Christians engage in this type of interaction. Jesus said "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

I would enjoy discussing the Word of God with you that we might "stir up love and good works. (Heb.10:24)"

I've searched this thread for a post that might even come close to an ad-hominem attack that I might have made and I can't seem to find one.

My comment is merely one individual's perspective. If what I perceive to be ad hominem attacks are truly virtuous on your part then I seek your forgiveness. I suppose the only way you can know with certainty is to be informed by the offended party or the Holy Spirit brings conviction. That said, may I inform you that your statement "you Calvinists crack me up" followed by your referring to Calvinism as "a crock of hypocrisy" was offensive to me. Does so-called hypocrisy typically strike you as humorous, or is this the humor of derision? Even a cursory look at your homepage would indicate a deep concern for evangelism. Do you realize that everything we do or say as Christians is an evangelistic statement. Try to keep this in mind when you make your posts.

I'm curious, though, why you ignored my question regarding whether you consider a Calvinist to be your brother/sister in Christ.