Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and John 6:37

[Josheb]

But in your theology, a person is regenerated before they repent and / or come to Christ. How then is repentance / coming to Christ, necessary to regeneration?

There is no evidence what others believe is correctly understood. Stop saying, "In your theology....." Say, "In the theology that I wrongly and perversely imagine you hold..."

Or better yet..... ask me what others believe! Do not assume. Ask. Ask because I, and @Arial, and @makesends can speak for ourselves without having to appeal to theologians. I can, do, and have backed up everything I post with scripture and, more often than not, the scriptures state what I posted. Inferences are uneeded.

But in your theology, a person is regenerated before they repent and / or come to Christ.

Is that what was actually posted?

How then is repentance / coming to Christ, necessary to regeneration?

It's not. The regenerate repent. The unregenerate do not and if they did it would be a product of their flesh, of their mind of flesh and the mind of flesh is hostile to God; it does not and CANNOT please God (Rom. 8:7). Repentance is based on having been convicted of sin. A person denying sin does not repent of that which they deny. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts us of sin. When Peter says, "Repent and be baptized," do not wrongly imagine the Spirit is not already present in both men directing their every thought, word, and deed, and do NOT attribute the work of the Spirit to the sinful flesh (that runs the risk of unforgiveable sin). In any example where scripture is silent why choose sinful unregenerate flesh as causal over God?

You misquoted Revelation 22:17.

Rev 22:17, And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

My regrets. I'm going to cut you some slack here because I did say Jesus was speaking to the bride when it is he and the bride who are speaking. That does not change the fact they are speaking to the bondservants of Christ, the saints, those who are all already regenerate, already in Christ. It does not change the fact the verse nowhere states the will of the unregenerate flesh is what makes them come.

Revelation 22:17 NAS
The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

The NAS and KJV do not say different things. So do NOT say I misquoted anything. Your claim was the coming is done by the choice of the unregenerate's sin-enslaved flesh when Revelation 22:17 states no such thing. It says come, come, come but THE NEVERS STATES THAT THE SINFUL WILL DOES SO!!! The verse is said to those who are already saved! They are all already regenerate. Not a single one of them is an atheist. The book of Revelation was written "to show to his bondservants," NOT atheists (Rev. 1:1). Verse 22:16 states the angel was sent "to testify to you of these things for the churches," not the unregenerate fleshly non-believers. Who is the "you" in that verse? It is the bondservants of Christ.


It is you who has been abusing the text, not me. You read sinner's volition into the text where none is mentioned and what is mentioned precludes your inferential interpretation. The verse you cited does not actually state what you say it says. Even if we were to infer some choice on the part of the hearer, the hearer is not an unregenerate non-believer in need of salvation from sin! The entire book was written to believers about things believers would experience. It is believers who hear Jesus and the bride say, "Come....."

 

[justbyfaith]

Where did I say they are "necessary to regeneration"? They are necessarily a result of regeneration. You didn't say what they are necessary to, nor what you meant.

I said that faith is necessary to regeneration. You said the opposite; that regeneration precedes faith.

 

[justbyfaith]

He is the first cause of all fact. If he is the first cause of free will, and free will is the main cause of rape and murder, then he is the first cause of them too. No cause came before him. How much more obvious can it be?

No, God is not responsible for rape, murder, and incest.

He gave to mankind free will; which is a good thing.

Mankind then perverted it and used it the wrong way in order to produce something that is not directly from the heart of God.

 

[justbyfaith]

How then is repentance / coming to Christ, necessary to regeneration?

makesends: It's not.

justbyfaith: That is heresy.

 

[justbyfaith]

You read sinner's volition into the text

I will say again that a person cannot come to Christ apart from being drawn to Christ but that being drawn to Christ does not guarantee coming to Christ.

The sinner is enabled to receive Christ when he is drawn to Christ.

It is in fact a matter of making a free will decision to receive Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

A man is drawn to Christ by the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

So, in being drawn to Christ, a man is not going to be forced to receive Christ.

Psa 110:3, Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

 

[justbyfaith]

The NAS and KJV do not say different things.

Then the NAS says that we can take of the water of life freely as an act of the will.

 

[justbyfaith]

It is you who has been abusing the text, not me.

What text have I been abusing?

 

[justbyfaith]

There is no evidence what others believe is correctly understood. Stop saying, "In your theology....." Say, "In the theology that I wrongly and perversely imagine you to hold..."

Jhn 19:19, And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Jhn 19:20, This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
Jhn 19:21, Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
Jhn 19:22, Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

 

[makesends]

No, God is not responsible for rape, murder, and incest.

He gave to mankind free will; which is a good thing.

Mankind then perverted it and used it the wrong way in order to produce something that is not directly from the heart of God.

Or, so goes your narrative.

What does "responsible" mean here? Did I imply that rape, murder and incest are directly from the heart of God?

But, "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." Yes, it really is that simple. The temporal agony of the human soul doesn't even rise to the level of "collateral damage", by comparison. Why you would go to such trouble to extricate God from responsibility —no! from CREDIT!— for this whole temporal reality, is beyond me. God himself doesn't do it; why should you?

 

[makesends]

makesends: It's not.

justbyfaith: That is heresy.

Once more. It is a necessary RESULT of regeneration. Not a requirement before regeneration. Your vague words do not establish heresy.

It is heresy to deny that Romans 8 is true: The unregenerate cannot do anything to please God, nor will they do anything except remain at enmity with God, until God regenerates them. If that's too vague for you, let me know.

 

[makesends]

I said that faith is necessary to regeneration. You said the opposite; that regeneration precedes faith.

I searched back to where you mention (as a bad thing, i.e. heresy) 'if regeneration precedes faith'. I don't see where I said it, but anyway:

makesends said:
Yes, you would contend that. Regeneration comes before what you are describing, unless simultaneous with, or even being itself the effectual drawing. To "come to" Christ is not described in the passage to be an act of the will, but yet, to be one of faith. This is not a riddle: the faith is the work of the Spirit of God in the regenerated believer, and is the only way to be saved.


Consider the fact that causation is specific cause-and-effect. Whether the faith is simultaneous with the regeneration, or whether it is subsequent temporally, it is, by causal sequence, a result of the work of the Spirit of God who takes up residence within a person, changing him from death to life. It is logically impossible for the dead to do an alive thing. The dead must be made alive, to have salvific faith. (And that applies even if you think salvific faith is generated by the believer and not by the Spirit of God within him).

 

[Arial]

Hunt's arguments are sophomoric and his handling of scripture inept.

That was the point of bringing it up. We see the same sophomoric arguments and illogical reasoning on here.

 

[Arial]

It seems to me that it becomes the excuse in the secret mind of the Calvinist that he wanted to choose God but God wouldn't let him...therefore in his belief he places the responsibility for his condemnation squarely on God's shoulders in that he says that the choice is entirely up to God and that mankind has no choice in the matter of whether or not he is saved

You keep presenting completely fake, impossible, and utterly illogical, scenarios in order to argue your points. That is one reason some see this as obviously trollish behavior.

Someone cannot both be a "Calvinist" and also thinking that people can desire to choose God and God wouldn't let him. Read another way, no "Calvinist" would think that they personally desired to choose God and God wouldn't let them and walk away blaming God for his condemnation.

A completely vain and ridiculous statement.

 

[Arial]

Because in Calvinism God saves some and condemns others based solely on His free will choice.

Since you word it like that-----why is God having free will a bad thing and you having free will is a necessary and good thing?

 

[brightfame52]

Being given to Jesus by the Father is not the same thing as being drawn to Jesus by the Father.

A person being drawn is given an opportunity for regeneration but it is not guaranteed to them.

If a person receives Jesus as Lord and Saviour, they are given to Jesus by the Father.

Being drawn, they are given an opportunity to receive Him.

Again one cant come to Jesus Christ unless chosen by God, and if chosen they will believe on Jesus.

 

[Arial]

I would suggest reading the verses in question on a regular basis until their meaning reaches your heart.

I would suggest that you not make a judgement on whether or not something has reached the heart of another.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

So, I will try again.

Since "Calvinism" (or any other "ISM") is essentially WORTHLESS in terms of people being Born Again, and becoming Christians by Faith (gifted by God - Eph 2,8,9), trying to "prove anything to a Calvinist (Or an Arminian, or a Catholic, etc.) is essentially pretty much a waste of time. It's nothing but "Theology" after all.

They've all got their "Proof texts", and have handled their "Problem texts" acceptably (in their opinion) so you might as well talk to a cement block.

 

[Josheb]

I will say again that a person cannot come to Christ apart from being drawn to Christ but that being drawn to Christ does not guarantee coming to Christ.

And I will say again you are using scripture selectively and adding to it things never stated. A person is not just drawn. He is sent, drawn, AND given and the texts you cite are all verse written about people already living in a covenant relationship with God of one kind or another so they, therefore, do not apply to the unregenerate none believer.

Can an earthworm fly?

 

[Josheb]

Then the NAS says that we can take of the water of life freely as an act of the will.

Prove it.

 

[Josheb]

What text have I been abusing?

Every single verse you've cited. All of the epistloary and Revelation texts are written to and about people who are Christians. They are all already saved. The gospel texts are written about Jews, people who already believe in God and already live in a covenant relationship with God. None of them are atheist. At best your argument concerns only those God already knows covenantally. At worst you have this gigantic whole in your soteriology because none of it covers the person denying God's existence.