Proof Regeneration Precedes Faith

[Guest]

Hello all in name of Jesus:

This short diatribe is not directed at any one in particular; it is simply intended to be mutually edifying to both our Calvinist and Arminian brethren, and anyone in between. As we continue this topic, let us all remember the great potential we have to repeat historical events—often unbeknownst to us. As the old adage goes: the only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn anything from history.

As I read through history, my feeble logic seems to suggest that the mainstream Reformation of the 16th century was peculiarly devoid of much missionary activity or burden for the lost (to speak of), as one would postulate it would. There was some attempts, I must say, to their credit, of these Reformers (both Calvinist and Arminian) to spawn a much needed interest in propagating Bibles and literature readily available to the commoners (which could be read and chewn on). I thank God for their service to the Lord in this manner. However, much to my chagrin, as history unfolded, the mainstream Reformers seemingly perpetuated the largely Catholic institution of persecuting the few who were bearing the bulk of the mission work during that time period. Those who happened to survive these inquisitions were simply too few to resume the missionary calling (to any large extent) they saw as their destiny.

Not until the mid-1800s were these small enclaves finally populated enough and free enough to fan out from under the dubious shelter of ascendant Protestantism, which was still hostile to missions, and spread their wings worldwide. These scattered groups seemed to be the first loosely associated body since New Testament days to proclaim emphatically that Christians must never use compulsion with those refusing to accept the terms of Discipleship as laid out by Jesus. In their minds, conversion compelled was no conversion at all and could therefore not be called conversion. True, true; these groups were just as fallible as any other group—they had their own respective trials and tribulations. Now, don’t get my wrong, the Holy Spirit in no way requires the assistance of mere men, but there is some truth in that one song that goes something like: “My house is full, but my field is empty, Who will go and work for Me today? It seems my children, all, want to sit around my table, But no one wants to work my fields.”

I bring up these points in no way to offend or to brow beat or to proclaim that I have the solitary correct way of seeing things. I have much to learn from all stratas of Christianity. But may we simply need to receive a vision from the Lord in this area. I say all of this to enforce my main point: there is a tendency amongst all of us to neglect the “weightier matters of the law” (Matt. 23:23) in favor of an endless bickering over the minutest points of doctrine as per a confession of faith drawn up several hundred years prior. Although there is a place for debating; Jesus debated the Pharisees in the synagogue, Paul debated the Philosophers on Mar’s Hill, and Peter James and John debated the Judiazers; debates simply need to be maintained in their proper venue without neglecting the “weightier” matters.

So, as we continue to courteously sharpen iron, let us keep in mind the Great Commandment and the Great Commission which our Lord taught us so often (He knew we would require the repetition) and may He bestow upon us the grace in order to fulfill it.

Because He lives

[Guest]

well said, loaves.

You said it much better than I tried to a couple of pages back.

however, mark will accuse you of wanting to sit around the campfire and sing "cum baya."

TK

[Guest]

Hi Mark,

So what are you saying.
Edwards was misled in quoting all those texts?
Should we remove them from our Bible?
Was Edwards not aware of God’s saving love or something?

Have you ever read Edwards, seriously.
I have read a lot of his writings and there are few Christians who could even come close to his understanding of Christian doctrine!
Have you read his work on Freedom of the Will?

I started a new thread on this subject. You can find it at the link below.

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1788

Robin

[Guest]

If 1 John 5:1 were to read like: "Everyone who has been born of God believes that Jesus is the Christ, and everyone who has been born of him loves the Father"...then we might have reasons to believe John's doctrine is compatible with Calvinism. But of course, this verse doesn't read this way!

Well...If it read that way, it would maybe imply perseverance (because every person who has been born still believes & loves), but it wouldn't imply anything about the order of regeneration and faith. It would say that every person who has been born also believes. That is, if you know that they are born, you know they believe.

John wasn't writing about that!

I agree with you. That particular form of analysis--Can I see in the context that the author was intending to answer the particular question I'm asking?--has become increasingly important to me. It's something we all need to keep at the front of our minds any time we're looking at the various proof texts. On both sides, people tend to draw inferences that the context often just doesn't justify. If it's not obvious that the author had your questions in mind, you should be very cautious about applying it to your questions.

That kind of proof texting easy to do with any verse, any time you're studying something. It's hard to acquire break bad habits and acquire good ones. But, "Never read a Bible verse," and "A text without a context is a pretext for proof text."

[Guest]

Whoops, I also meant to say to Sean: I'm not dropping the Judas exchange, but it might be a bit till I respond. It's going to take some thought to lay things out in a clear way that provides more than a flippant response, and I want to get back to the Matt. 23:37 thread first. I'm going to try to do that tonight, before my coffee shop closes.

[Guest]

Whoops, I also meant to say to Sean: I'm not dropping the Judas exchange, but it might be a bit till I respond. It's going to take some thought to lay things out in a clear way that provides more than a flippant response, and I want to get back to the Matt. 23:37 thread first. I'm going to try to do that tonight, before my coffee shop closes.

Thanks Jugulum.

I'm also still hoping that Mark will respond to my last post (and Homer's) to him. I suspect not since he has re-defined the debate. Mark, to your credit, you've gone back to the strength of promoting Calvinism. Not through exegesis of applicable texts, but philosophy and "proof texting". It certainly is best for your view to make a philosophical case. However, when we look at the texts used in context (as has been mentioned), the meaning is less than ideal for the Reformed camp. Sure, there are text that sound Calvinistic, but they are not the only texts to consider, and they are not without context of their own.

I still (as always) would love to see convincing exegetical proof the faith is produced out of regeneration. Not philosophy dictating it must be so.

[Guest]

Jugulum, Greetings,

I agree with you. That particular form of analysis--Can I see in the context that the author was intending to answer the particular question I'm asking?--has become increasingly important to me. It's something we all need to keep at the front of our minds any time we're looking at the various proof texts. On both sides, people tend to draw inferences that the context often just doesn't justify. If it's not obvious that the author had your questions in mind, you should be very cautious about applying it to your questions.

That kind of proof texting easy to do with any verse, any time you're studying something. It's hard to acquire break bad habits and acquire good ones. But, "Never read a Bible verse," and "A text without a context is a pretext for proof text."

Thanks for the reply. And well said, Amen!
I don't know....(what to add).
You got me to thinkin....

In my experience, I've had a real hard time seeing certain texts in their own context. It took a long time to see them for what they simply say! Why? What I had been taught was so lodged in my thinking that I couldn't seem to get rid it. (I think it's safe here to say that one text was Matt 24, the Olivet Discourse, lol)

Here's how it went for, like, years! I read it over and over (and over). Tried to think of every option of what it could possibly mean (what was Jesus talking about?). Finally, I arrived at a place of quasi- neutrality after reading up on just about every viewpoint that seemed to be out there (with some being more "out there" than others)....

The Olivet Discourse still puzzles me. 'Don't have it all figured out. But it makes a lot more sense than it used to. Well, anyway, after being a Dispensationalist for some time, I just don't see the things in Matt 24 that I used to. Um, for one thing, they aren't there!

Thanks Jugulum, Austin, nice place, been there once,
Rick

[Guest]

Mark (Tartanarmy),

Where are you? I see you are posting on another thread; I'm still awaiting your response to this:

I am curious about something. As I understand you, you believe the unsaved are "dead", unable to believe or do anything to please God. Then you believe they are "born again", or regenerated. They are then "alive" and enabled to believe the Gospel when they hear it. Yet I believe the scriptures inform us that our life is in Christ. If we are not in Christ, we are "dead". Our new life is only when we are in Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:17 (New King James Version)

17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Those who Calvinism depicts as regenerated are not yet in Christ prior to coming to faith in Him, yet Calvinism holds that there may be an indeterminant time (or maybe never) before the regenerate come to faith:

Westminster Confession, Chapter 10, sec. 2,3

Quote:
2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.



I note that you have regenerated infants and others, apparently who never hear the Gospel, who are regenerated. Do you hold to the Westminster Confession or do you repudiate what it says?

In your Calvinist system, are there three states that man may be in, i.e. dead, regenerate but outside Christ, and a new man in Christ?

[Guest]

Update

http://doctrinesofgrace.net/modules/new ... 91&forum=7

[Guest]

Hi Mark,

Jesus said, "By your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned."

It seems you are accusing everyone of not understanding what you say.

Hello Steve,

Some seem to have an inability to realise that words, being joined to sentences give some meaning and context.

Forgive us if we take your words at face value.

That is exactly the problem. See my comment above.

If your meaning is not what we are taking you to mean, then I suggest you choose your words more carefully.

I will take that on board Steve, but surely you are smart enough to cut me some slack when it seems patently obvious that I have a high regard for what Calvinism teaches.

Why not be gracious and entertain the notion that perhaps Tartan really does believe that Calvinism rightly understood (and itself defined by Calvinists) really is akin to a nick name for the gospel or the doctrines of grace founded upon scripture.

Is that just way too much to ask?

I mean, you have spoken well of Spurgeon for example and have quoted him at times in your presentations, and yet even he has most famously stated,

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

Now is it a far stretch for me to say that even Spurgeon might have said to deny Calvinism would be to deny the gospel or some such strong assertion?

More later, even though you have plainly stated you have no interest to read any more of my empty cloud posts.

Mark