Regeneration MUST Precede Faith............

[makesends]

I'm not sure I'm following correctly, but my initial question confusion is what do you mean we are missing a lot of data?

I mean we are weak on facts. We don't know the depth of the riches, we have the words, but not the meaning. Daily I discover more, and begin to realize how little I know of the Being I call God, and the depth of horror that sin is, opposing God and its hatred of what God is making, and of the nature of what we look forward to in Heaven.

I really don't think we are, at least, not in relation to our need of knowing and or our capacity to know. We don't need the nitty gritty details for building a new earth or a new race of being.

In relation with some minimum accumulation of truth, I agree, except that that doesn't mean that our knowledge is pivotal to salvation.

But what we actually need God gives at the time God thinks we are ready to know, I have decided He's just very precise about things really, there's no such thing as our being shown something too soon or too late with God, He's apparently got His own ideas, and we are supposed to be here trusting in His wisdom and timing and not our own...

AMEN THAT!! Nicely put.

This is what I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

Can you say it again?

I see the quality of our faith to be at least within the context of our own choices after we are saved. We have no copout, predestinarians or no, we know there's no excuse for poor behavior.

And faith is an issue we pray for... And faith is something God desires all His children to have, therefore we should be able to acquire a certain purity of faith irregardless of what stage of learning and understanding we are at...

Don't you think that's about right? What are you trying to say?

When I say that the nature of salvific faith is not of quantity, but quality, I am talking about the fact that it is not OURs by source—WE don't generate it. I also believe that it is the same faith, and of the same source, as the "faith by which we stand" and in which we grow. That same faith we read in Scripture can be built up and there can be no question that it is also made more pure in our thinking and concerning our love and hope and so on. But that is my point. That the source of it (the Spirit of God) is altogether pure, altogether knowledgeable, altogether dedicated, altogether loving, lacking nothing at all. The quality therefore of what he does in us is valid, but WE do not have that dedication, love, purity or knowledge of sufficient quantity to make our faith valid. It is not WE who make our faith valid.

It is our faith in that the Spirit of God is in us, and we are IN HIM. We are designed for this, we respond to it, it is part of us, and increasingly so. It 'carries us along.' It is made our own, but is not generated by us, even though we may groan with the effort, hurt when it is weak, and feel the desperate need of it.

 

[makesends]

Regeneration MUST Precede Faith............​

.... seems to be some confusion. The thread said to discuss whether Regeneration precedes Faith and I thought it fair to mention the verses that MANY put forward as their proof the Faith precedes Regeneration. Although I feel that Regeneration precedes Faith, I admit that these verses cannot be easily dismissed and therefore would be part of the discussion. There are not many free willies on this site to defend their stance.

Aside: Don't kill the messenger *giggle*

Ok, let's discuss those verses, and any others, though I find every one of them better supporting a Reformed POV than any self-deterministic system.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I mean we are weak on facts. We don't know the depth of the riches, we have the words, but not the meaning. Daily I discover more, and begin to realize how little I know of the Being I call God, and the depth of horror that sin is, opposing God and its hatred of what God is making, and of the nature of what we look forward to in Heaven.

In relation with some minimum accumulation of truth, I agree, except that that doesn't mean that our knowledge is pivotal to salvation.

AMEN THAT!! Nicely put.

When I say that the nature of salvific faith is not of quantity, but quality, I am talking about the fact that it is not OURs by source—WE don't generate it. I also believe that it is the same faith, and of the same source, as the "faith by which we stand" and in which we grow. That same faith we read in Scripture can be built up and there can be no question that it is also made more pure in our thinking and concerning our love and hope and so on. But that is my point. That the source of it (the Spirit of God) is altogether pure, altogether knowledgeable, altogether dedicated, altogether loving, lacking nothing at all. The quality therefore of what he does in us is valid, but WE do not have that dedication, love, purity or knowledge of sufficient quantity to make our faith valid. It is not WE who make our faith valid.

It is our faith in that the Spirit of God is in us, and we are IN HIM. We are designed for this, we respond to it, it is part of us, and increasingly so. It 'carries us along.' It is made our own, but is not generated by us, even though we may groan with the effort, hurt when it is weak, and feel the desperate need of it.

Okay... I was missing the stress on salvific faith, I was just thinking faith in general for some reason when I read you the first time... .

 

[Carbon]

While I agree that regeneration logically precedes faith, I think that your verse here does not make the case you think it is making. Note the following where I convey the verse's meaning in light of different theological frameworks.

I will supply the way different readers see the verse.

1. no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit's regeneration)
2. no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit's enablement via prevenient grace)
3. no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit's conviction)

Take note of differing theological understandings of "by the Holy Spirit." Different background assumptions create different understandings of the passage in question. What is there to discuss? Answer: the validity of different background assumptions is a key point of discussion.

I agree there is and can always be a discussion as many see things differently. Thanks for pointing that out. Great reply

However, there does not seem to be much Calvinism and Arminian discussions/debates here, with this thread, I was hoping to provoke some. I agree with you and at the same time, after reading explicit scripture there really isn't anything to discuss. But I believe the discussion fizzles away once our eyes open to the truth.

 

[makesends]

I agree there is and can always be a discussion as many see things differently. Thanks for pointing that out. Great reply

However, there does not seem to be much Calvinism and Arminian discussions/debates here, with this thread, I was hoping to provoke some. I agree with you and at the same time, after reading explicit scripture there really isn't anything to discuss. But I believe the discussion fizzles away once our eyes open to the truth.

Well, @fastfredy0 has opened a whole diet of worms with the several verses that are used in support of Arminianism. We can start there.

John 3:16 was the first he mentioned.
Introductory readings, my underline:

Berean Literal
"For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life."

NET
"For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Interlinear
"Thus for loved God the world that the Son the only begotten He gave so that everyone believing in Him not should perish but should have life eternal"

Good News Translation
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life."

The Greek does not designate degree of love, but simply "thus". "So" has always been a good translation, as the Greek is not particular, and neither is "so". "So" can be taken to imply degree, but does not designate it.

------------------------------
The Arminian argument(s) I have heard depending on this verse read it to say that God had such an immense general love for Humanity that he died for absolutely everyone, in hopes that they might believe on him and might by believing have eternal life. I have yet to hear any Arminian admit that it is implied, then, that God did not know who would and who would not believe.

Leaving alone the 'iffy' sound of the subjunctive, "might", of 3:16, almost as if Jesus died just in case someone, anyone at all, really, just might (who knows?) up and believe, 3:17 to them nails it on down, affirming that God had no intention of condemning anyone in the world. To me, it only affirms that God did not send his Son to condemn anyone, because 3:18 follows up with the fact that the ones not believing are already condemned —because they did not believe. THUS, the notion the Arminian may have, who argues that the sins forgiven all are not why anyone is condemned, but because they they failed to believe that Jesus died for them. Nice math! The problem is, that those not believing are ALREADY condemned! This implies that they are 'fitting to form' —they were already unbelievers, and remain so. No mention of their will or choosing.

For anyone having a problem following what I'm trying to say there, consider a parallel fact—that of Perseverance of the Saints. The Arminian complains that doctrine implies that there is no need for the Elect to do anything, since it is already set in stone —automatic fact— that they will be and remain saved. My response to that is that it is a bogus view of the matter. It is only a sure thing that the Elect will believe, and it is only a sure thing that those believing will be saved. No mention of anything automatic. But, we do so because it is so. 'Fitting to form'. Ha! I hope that didn't muddy up the waters.

The passage comes on the heels of Jesus' teaching Nicodemus about being born from above. By the sound of it, verse 16 is still Jesus talking to Nicodemus. Notice in this whole discourse how little mention there is of the human will being involved in any decision to believe. What it does tell us is that the ones believing will have eternal life, and, as I mention above, that in 3:18, the ones not believing are already condemned. The passage up to verse 21 still fails to mention choice, though it does talk about preferences. It specifically shows that people prefer darkness because of their evil deeds, and those who live by the truth are aware that their deeds are already exposed to God.

 

[Carbon]

Well, @fastfredy0 has opened a whole diet of worms with the several verses that are used in support of Arminianism. We can start there.

John 3:16 was the first he mentioned.
Introductory readings, my underline:

Berean Literal
"For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life."

NET
"For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Interlinear
"Thus for loved God the world that the Son the only begotten He gave so that everyone believing in Him not should perish but should have life eternal"

Sounds like a good start.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Well, @fastfredy0 has opened a whole diet of worms with the several verses that are used in support of Arminianism. We can start there.

John 3:16 was the first he mentioned.
Introductory readings, my underline:

Berean Literal
"For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life."

NET
"For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Interlinear
"Thus for loved God the world that the Son the only begotten He gave so that everyone believing in Him not should perish but should have life eternal"

Good News Translation
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life."

The Greek does not designate degree of love, but simply "thus". "So" has always been a good translation, as the Greek is not particular, and neither is "so". "So" can be taken to imply degree, but does not designate it.

------------------------------
The Arminian argument(s) I have heard depending on this verse read it to say that God had such an immense general love for Humanity that he died for absolutely everyone, in hopes that they might believe on him and might by believing have eternal life. I have yet to hear any Arminian admit that it is implied, then, that God did not know who would and who would not believe.

Leaving alone the 'iffy' sound of the subjunctive, "might", of 3:16, almost as if Jesus died just in case someone, anyone at all, really, just might (who knows?) up and believe, 3:17 to them nails it on down, affirming that God had no intention of condemning anyone in the world. To me, it only affirms that God did not send his Son to condemn anyone, because 3:18 follows up with the fact that the ones not believing are already condemned —because they did not believe. THUS, the notion the Arminian may have, who argues that the sins forgiven all are not why anyone is condemned, but because they they failed to believe that Jesus died for them. Nice math! The problem is, that those not believing are ALREADY condemned! This implies that they are 'fitting to form' —they were already unbelievers, and remain so. No mention of their will or choosing.

For anyone having a problem following what I'm trying to say there, consider a parallel fact—that of Perseverance of the Saints. The Arminian complains that doctrine implies that there is no need for the Elect to do anything, since it is already set in stone —automatic fact— that they will be and remain saved. My response to that is that it is a bogus view of the matter. It is only a sure thing that the Elect will believe, and it is only a sure thing that those believing will be saved. No mention of anything automatic. But, we do so because it is so. 'Fitting to form'. Ha! I hope that didn't muddy up the waters.

The passage comes on the heels of Jesus' teaching Nicodemus about being born from above. By the sound of it, verse 16 is still Jesus talking to Nicodemus. Notice in this whole discourse how little mention there is of the human will being involved in any decision to believe. What it does tell us is that the ones believing will have eternal life, and, as I mention above, that in 3:18, the ones not believing are already condemned. The passage up to verse 21 still fails to mention choice, though it does talk about preferences. It specifically shows that people prefer darkness because of their evil deeds, and those who live by the truth are aware that their deeds are already exposed to God.

Love = Covenant.

Those God loves, He Covenants with.

Those God hates, He doesn't covenant with.

When you view God's love as His Covenant and NOT as an emotion the verse makes sense.

For God so covenanted with the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God's Covenant is for the elect only, it's not for everyone. But you have to look at love being the literal equivalent of His Covenant.

 

[Arial]

Love = Covenant.

Those God loves, He Covenants with.

Those God hates, He doesn't covenant with.

When you view God's love as His Covenant and NOT as an emotion the verse makes sense.

For God so covenanted with the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God's Covenant is for the elect only, it's not for everyone. But you have to look at love being the literal equivalent of His Covenant.

Yes, a covenant of God is a personal relationship of love. And love in that instance is not an emotion but a promise to do good, to and for those in the covenant.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yes, a covenant of God is a personal relationship of love. And love in that instance is not an emotion but a promise to do good, to and for those in the covenant.

And the greatest display of that love is the New Covenant in Christ's blood.

a multitude no one can number

 

[makesends]

I'm just playing devil's advocate. The free willies will use John 3:16, John 6:51, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4,6. These are probably the best verses to promote the idea of "faith" preceding "regeneration". This is "what's there to discuss" that you were asking about in post #1.

I have 400ish verses that support the idea that God takes the lead in the area of salvation by faith.

Ok, let's jump to John 6:51.

"51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” I'm assuming here that @fastfredy0 's 'free willies' claim here is that "the world" mentioned in the verse is speaking of the whole world, and so logically it can only mean that indeed Christ gave his life for the whole world.

Well, I'll let others here get into the weeds of meaning of "for" and "whole world" and whatever else.

My favorite way to look at this verse, and several others that are much like it, is by looking at the context where we see Jesus explaining rather cryptically, yet repetitiously, with some variation that further explains his point, that HE is the one who gives his flesh (his life) for the whole world. Earlier he had said that those the father gives him will come to him, and whoever comes to him he will not reject, which in context hints at the idea that if the Father does not give them to him, then he did not die for those. Thus, my use of the language there shows that there is no other way for anyone ever in the whole world to be saved.

Does someone here have a better look at this? I mean, better than the free willies' look at it. But different from mine.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Does someone here have a better look at this?

Not me.

 

[makesends]

Not me.

I meant, better than the free willies' look at it.

 

[Eleanor]

Regeneration MUST Precede Faith............​

What is the cause of a person's faith is left to be discussed.

Faith is a gift (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3).

If a person self-determines one's faith
then the cause of regeneration is the person and then Faith logically precedes Regeneration
this is supported by John 3:16, John 6:51, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4,6 and that God loves everyone and is fair to give everyone a chance,
and prevenient grace and possibly some Ouija boards
else
the cause of regeneration is God and then Faith logically follows Regeneration
this is supported by the verse that says "this is the gift of God that you believe" and John 1:12-13 and many more

Possibly the definitions of "Faith" and "Regeneration" is also needed.

Faith = in the NT, is belief in and trust on the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ (Ro 3:25) for the remission of one's sin.

Regeneration = rebirth from spiritual death into eternal life, when used in reference to people.

 

[Eleanor]

Moses and others had true faith in God, long before regeneration became available. Therefore, true faith in God can occur in the absence of regeneration.

Regeneration is through faith in Jesus Christ.

Those who believed in the promise (Ge 15:5, seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) were regenerated (Heb 11).
There are no unregenerated (without eternal life) spirits in heaven.

 

[Jonathan E. Brickman]

Regeneration is through faith in Jesus Christ.

Those who believed in the promise (Ge 15:5, seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) were regenerated (Heb 11).

A regenerated person, has the Father in Heaven as father, and not anyone in this world. Therefore, regeneration does not apply to anyone of the Old Covenant, who were all considered children of the man named Jacob and then renamed to Israel.

 

[Eleanor]

A regenerated person, has the Father in Heaven as father, and not anyone in this world.

I'm regenerated and my father was a human being of this world.

In receiving Christ and believing in his name, I have been given the right to become a child of God, the spirit of such child not being born of natural descent, but born of God (Jn 1:13) in regeneration (Jn 3:3-5), or his spirit is not born at all, remaining unregenerated in eternal death.

Therefore, regeneration does not apply to anyone of the Old Covenant, who were all considered children of the man named Jacob and then renamed to Israel.

Which does not refer to their spirit, but to their natural heritage.

 

[makesends]

A regenerated person, has the Father in Heaven as father, and not anyone in this world. Therefore, regeneration does not apply to anyone of the Old Covenant, who were all considered children of the man named Jacob and then renamed to Israel.

I think that is bad logic. How did people in the Old Covenant not have God the Father as father, even though they hailed as children of Israel? The only difference I can tell is that they did not have your terminology.

Maybe I'm hearing you wrong, but that seems like the same sort of logic that has compelled an acquaintance of mine to renounce his American citizenship, because he is "a citizen of Heaven".

 

[Jonathan E. Brickman]

Nope, no logic at all. A regenerate person, one is born again, fits this:

and you may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,
Matthew 23:9

 

[makesends]

Nope, no logic at all. A regenerate person, one is born again, fits this:

and you may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,
Matthew 23:9

Would you not say that your own male parent is your father, even though you are regenerate?

Seems to me you are using that verse, presupposing your notion by which to use it. Circular.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nope, no logic at all. A regenerate person, one is born again, fits this:

and you may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,
Matthew 23:9

As a child I was a daddy's girl. I was the youngest and the favorite even over his firstborn son.

Everything I did when I was young was to make my dad happy, make him proud of me and I was really good at it, so much so when he died I didn't even know who I was without him to tell me.

Because of this relationship I didn't start to actually grow up until after he died, rather than before. That was when I started figuring out who I was without my dad.

This is the type of thing Jesus is talking about. Being so close to something that what they are is what you are and become. Being so close to something you don't even know who you are without them.

That's what a father is, and that's what God, our triune God, should be to the Christian. That's what the Bible is talking about, it's not about words, it's about the relationship.

Our very identity should come from God and if we claim it does it should show in obvious ways.