Elect

[Guest]

Hi Mark,

In Romans 10:20, Paul is quoting Isaiah 65:1.

65:1
"I was sought by those who did not ask for Me; I was found by those who did not seek Me. I said, 'Here I am, here I am,' To a nation that was not called by My name.

Isaiah is prophesying about the gentile nations, and not the elect. I think John Wesley’s notes will be helpful:

65:1 I am, &c. - This in the primary sense of this text, is a prophecy of the conversion of the Gentiles, upon the rejection of the Jews; for their contempt and crucifying of Christ, cannot be doubted by any, who will not arrogate to themselves a greater ability to interpret the prophesies of the Old Testament, than St. Paul had, who, Romans 10:20, expressly so interprets it, and applies it, which shewsthe vanity of the Jews in their other interpretations of it. Sought - The word signifies properly a diligent enquiry in things relating to God. Asked not - That in times past made no enquiry after me; l am now found by them that formerly sought me not. I said - I invited whole nations by the preaching of my gospel to behold me, and that with importunity, doubling my words upon them, and this I did unto a nation not called by my name, with whom I was not in covenant.

Robin

[Guest]

Paidion,

You are certainly entitled to your construct. However, what came first? His encounter with Jesus which led him to faith, was it not? All I am saying is that in regeneration, the seed or principle of the new life is planted. It became effective (alive) through the Lord's call. Paul's obedience made it experiential. If Paul didn't have this encounter with Jesus first, he probably would have continued in his persecution of Christians, all the while thinking he was doing a service to God. Regeneration once again is wholly a gracious gift of God and in no way can man take the credit. But the Arminian will insist that it is because of his initial act of "faith", that God regenerates the believer of his "free will" to choose God in salvation. That again "smells like smoke" to me. This kind of freedom of the will is overblown and goes too far in my opinion. Whose will is truly free when we are in bondage to sin, death and seperation from God? "If the Son sets you free, you shall be free indeed"? What does that mean? Do you believe in baptismal regeneration? I don't. But it sounds like you do.
Jesus set Paul free not baptism. In accord with the promise of God I've cited before from EZ 36:25-27, Paul was given a new heart and moved to follow Jesus, not in accordance to the "dead" will of his flesh, but by the Spirit regenerating him so that he may become " willing" to act and do God's good pleasure. Arminianism likes to put the "donkey before the cart".

Peace,
Bob

[Guest]

I agree with Paidion: it is very difficult to see regeneration before faith in Paul's experience unless that is what you want to believe. There really is no need to force Scripture into a prefabricated mold. Let it speak.

Traveler, Jesus presented himself to many people during his earthly ministry and he did so with signs and wonders, yet not all were regenerated. Paul's experience parallels most people's experience who encountered Jesus during his earthly ministry: Jesus presents himself and demonstrates his authority through signs and wonders; some believed and some did not.

Faith is non-existent without grace. If God had not sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to die for man that man might be justified [= unmerited favor of God = grace], then there is no object for faith. Faith has no meaning without grace. To say that faith excersized by free agency in some way diminishes God is completely non-sensical to me. 1) Faith is meaningless without grace because there is no object. 2) Faith is the expression of man's inability and the recognition of God's goodness. Faith doesn't elevate man, it humbles him. This is why Paul never equates faith with works. The meritorious works [Old Testament Law] that Paul spoke of were objects that men boasted in because the works expressed their capability before God. (Or at least this is what they thought.) Faith however expresses man's inability, not capability, before God. They are very different and it is appalling to me that Scripture is being twisted to fit within a particular mold.

[Guest]

Faith doesn't elevate man, it humbles him. This is why Paul never equates faith with works. The meritorious works [Old Testament Law] that Paul spoke of were objects that men boasted in because the works expressed their capability before God. (emphasis mine)

Exactly.

What separates you from any other unbeliever?

You talk about grace and then define grace by Justification etc,
BUT MY QUESTION is what makes the difference between you and your unbelieving neighbour?

Please simply answer this.

Just make sure YOU DO NOT fall into works expressed by their capability you mentioned above?

Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

Do you think that when someone has true faith as described in the Scripture that the person is:

1) understanding their inability and their need for a Saviour, or

2) thinking to himself, "look at me, I'm believing right now. Go me!"

Please. Your bizarre need to twist faith into a work (unless it is a gift) is Scripturely untenable and does violence to His Holy Word. I challenge you to look at every example where Christ commends a person for their faith and see if it fits better with 1 or 2 above. Paul contrasts faith and works and you should do the same without qualifying what Paul is "trying" to say. It is clear what he is saying especially in Romans 4.

Now, about why one believes and another does not. Let's be clear that both Calvinists and non-Calvinists eventually get to the point where something is a mystery because they cannot explain it. For Calvinists, the mystery is the following: God predestined a group of people to be elect and he predestined a group of people to be reprobate. It is a mystery why John and Sally are in the elect group and Tony and Sue are in the non-elect group. A non-Calvinist would place this mystery in man's free will which is encompassed by the creative power of God. God created man with free agency. This is incredible that God's omnipotence extends to creating a creature with free agency! That which is inherent to free agency lies within the creative power of God and yet He created man free. A mystery, indeed, and yet the mystery lies with God. Actually, there are a lot of things that remain a mystery to us related to God's creative power: angels, demons, time, energy, space, gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamic, etc. Can you explain why two objects with mass should attract each other? Can you explain how energy can be created ex nihilo? I venture the answer to be no. Neither can I explain how God creates a being with free agency and that being truly is free--it is a mystery. The creative power of an omnipotent God, a mystery! Why does one believe and another not? It's a mystery but the mystery lies within the omnipotent God's creative power to create a being that excersizes free agency. (I'm not saying that this makes God responsible for our free will decisions since he is the Creator. I'm saying that He creates a being with free will and what is inherent to free will is a mystery that we relegate to God's creative power.) I'm sure this wasn't the simple answer you were looking for, but I'll contend that I do not have to explain myself any further than I would if I were to attempt to explain why two objects having mass attract each other or how energy can be created ex nihilo--all lies within God's creative power. And to Him be glory!

I boast in nothing but Christ and Him crucified. Faith is non-existent apart from God's unmerited favor in sending his Son Jesus Christ as a propitiation for sin. Without grace, there is no object for faith. Do you get this? Faith expresses inability and not capability (which is what works express). Do you get this? If you don't understand what the expression of faith looks like, then I again strongly encourage you to look in the gospels to see how faith is expressed.

Paul would truly be confused by this non-sense; and, since he was so keen on distinquishing works and faith without any qualification and in accordance with a natural understanding of each, he might do a little "in-your-face" rebuking like he did with Peter.

Grace and Peace,
Lewis

[Guest]

Hello Lewis,

Faith is the fruit of regeneration. It is not your faith that produces the new life. It is the Holy Spirit. It is not because you believed, but of God's grace that you believe. Grace is always first in regeneration. Faith follows.
That is our activity. God does not believe for us, nor have faith for us.

Eph 2, EZ 36, Jn 1, and many others have already been shown to illustrate
the prior work of God done upon us before we came to faith. That is regeneration. I have said many times you do not self-generate, physically or spiritually. So your faith doesn't regenerate you first. Faith is subsequent.

[Guest]

Traveler,

I know the Reformed position. Stating that regeneration (logically) precedes faith does not make it true. And I think if you followed the Proof Regeneration Precedes Faith board you will notice no overwhelming conclusion that Scripture does in fact support this view. If I have time, I will go through each of the Scriptures that you cited and do so in some detail.

But I further object to your use of Paul's conversion in questioning Homer in your post Sun Jun 24, 2007 on the Proof Regeneration Precedes Faith board: "What do you make of and notice about Apostle Paul's conversion?" We discussed that on this board and it was pointed out that this does not conclusively or even remotely suggest that regeneration preceding faith. It only exists in your mind because you want it to exist. Let's go through this again. Your response to Paidon: "However, what came first? His encounter with Jesus which led him to faith, was it not?...." I responded: "Jesus presented himself to many people during his earthly ministry and he did so with signs and wonders, yet not all were regenerated. Paul's experience parallels most people's experience who encountered Jesus during his earthly ministry: Jesus presents himself and demonstrates his authority through signs and wonders; some believed and some did not."

You have not shown that Paul's experience in any way demonstrates regeneration preceding faith. I expect you to show this before continuing to throw it around on other boards.

Lewis

[Guest]

Lewis,

Thanks for your reply. I don't have a lot of time right now due to family issues, but I will leave you with a thought: Since when do the miracles
and signs Jesus performed have anything to do with regeneration? I pointed out the prior "work" of Jesus upon Paul before he was converted.
The scripture never implies man has the power in and of himself to either merit or of his own un-enabled will to come to Christ for salvation. If that were true, the implication is man has the ability to keep the Law unto salvation and not need an ultimate saviour. Again, I think John describes to us in contrast the natural birth set against the new birth: "not of human decision,nor a husbands will.. but of God". That's grace. Its that simple.

In Him,
Bob

[Guest]

Traveler,

You wrote:

The scripture never implies man has the power...of his own un-enabled will to come to Christ for salvation.

Nor does it plainly say the opposite. Both Calvinists and Arminians find what they regard to be implications one way or the other, from various passages, but no passage directly declares or denies what you stated above.

If that were true, the implication is man has the ability to keep the Law unto salvation and not need an ultimate saviour.

How so? If I say a man can believe on Christ by the exercise of his will, how is this remotely similar to saying "man has the ability to keep the Law unto salvation and not need an ultimate saviour"? This is an extreme non sequitur. Faith is one thing, obedience to the Law is entirely another. The ability to do one in no way suggests the ability to do the other.

Again, I think John describes to us in contrast the natural birth set against the new birth: "not of human decision,nor a husbands will.. but of God". That's grace. Its that simple.

Those described by John (1:13) were also not "born of blood," which clearly is a reference to natural birth. John's point about these people is that they were not [simply] born "naturally" but [also] supernaturally "of God." John is not denying that reborn people ever experienced natural birth. He is saying that their natural birth is not what he is referring to, when he talks about their becoming "sons of God" (v.12). Of course, like everyone else, they had a natural birth "of blood...of the will of the flesh"—he is not denying that, for that was the means of their coming into the world. But it was not the means of their becoming "sons of God." They had to experience an additional birth (further clarified in John 3), which was not natural, but which was "of God." Arminians believe this also.

As for Paul's conversion, this thread seemingly could have been much more brief, if you and Mark had known that non-Calvinists do not deny a prior work of God upon the person who believes. What we are saying is that there is no reason (biblically) to call this prior work "regeneration." The latter occurs when we are "born again." When Nicodemus asked, "How can this [rebirth] be?"(John 3:9), Jesus answered that this happens similarly to the healing of the snake-bitten Israelites: they looked at the bronze serpent, and were healed. So also, "whoever believes" shall "have everlasting life" (that is, "shall experience regeneration"). Thus Jesus refers to belief as the means of regeneration, as surely as looking at the bronze serpent was the means of the Israelites being healed (John 3:14-15). This does not seem ambiguous to me. Why is it less clear to you?

As Lewis pointed out, the story of Saul's conversion is an example of God/Jesus taking the initiative, showing Himself to Saul, giving the man something to believe in and strong incentives to believe it. So far as we know, this was an external revelation (the scripture does not say otherwise). There is no reason to equate seeing a vision with regeneration. Balaam saw visions, too, but was not regenerated. Paul saw additional visions of Christ after his conversion (Acts 18:9/22:17-18), but these did not result in additional regenerations. Apparently, seeing visions, and being regenerated, are two different things.

Paul does speak of the moment when "It pleased God...to reveal His Son in me" (Gal.1:15-16), but he does not tell us whether this was when he was blinded on the road, or whether it was at his baptism and Spirit-infilling, three days later. Nor does he say that this inward revelation is to be identified as the moment of his regeneration, nor (if it was) that it happened prior to his faith.

His faith, like all of ours (Rom.10:17), was based upon God's prior revelation of Himself in Christ—in Saul's case, like many others in the first century, it was a visual one. Most of us were only given a verbal presentation, but it was a presentation nonetheless, and made an appeal to our faith and our wills. In my opinion, the vision on the Damascas road was the clear presentation of Christ and His claims to the "previously ignorant" (1 Tim.1:13) Saul. Like ourselves, Saul had to decide what he would do with the information.

Paul's experience, apparently, was much more sensational than was mine or most people's, but this is only a matter of degree. It seemingly would have been difficult—amazingly stubborn—for Saul, after seeing the vision, to remain in unbelief. However, many remained in unbelief after seeing equally miraculous signs in the life of Jesus (John 12:37). Some even heard an intelligible voice from heaven, but preferred to explain it away as a thunder-clap (John 12:28-29). A person, in the final analysis, believes what he wants to believe. A vision on the road does not necessarily result in regeneration.

[Guest]

Like ourselves, Saul had to decide what he would do with the information.

Its called irresistible grace Steve.

Mark