- Joined
- May 27, 2023
- Messages
- 7,508
- Reaction score
- 6,869
- Points
- 175
- Faith
- Christian/Reformed
- Country
- US
- Politics
- conservative
If we did not get into a calvin debate, or one of the many arminian vs calvin debates we probably would not know we disagree on this regeneration issue. If I met you on the street. and we just spoke Gods word. For the most part we would probably agree.

What is hidden is that in your opinion : Grace unto salvation is ineffective until the person has faith, and accepts saving grace. (Which logic would dictate makes grace not grace at all.) There is no scriptural support for the position.
The Reformed sees grace unto salvation as always effectual to actually save. ( John 6:37.44.65; Romans 8:29-30; Acts 13:48; Eze 36:26-27; 2 Cor 4:6; James 1:18)
In your view: Regeneration comes after and as a result of faith. No longer grace but a reaction of God to something the person has. (No scriptural support)
The Reformed: A person cannot have faith unless they are first made alive by regeneration. (John 3:3, 5-8; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:1,4-5,8-9; Titus 3:5; Romans 8:7-8; Acts 16:14; 1 John 5:1 (verb tense suggests being born of God precedes the act of believing---those who believe do so because they have been born of God); John 1:12-13).
The only way there would be agreement in your view and that of the Calvinist on this subject is if they weren't aware that you believe in prevenient grace. That is a "free will" argument that says a person is given a choice of whether to receive the gift of salvation (grace) or not because God would never be so unjust as to choose who to save and not save or all or give everyone equal opportunity. And that, my friend, is works based salvation. It is God reacting to man's decision, not Christ saving to the uttermost those for whom he died.