Regeneration preceeds faith

[FreeGrace2]

You're not looking hard enough:
psalm 65
3 Iniquities prevail against me: as for our transgressions, thou shalt purge them away.
4 Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.

David understand that He had no chance if not for God choosing him and causing Him to approach. He wasn't offended by God's "interference" in his life. He was grateful for it.

The Hebrew word for "choose" is: bâchar
baw-khar'
A primitive root; properly to try, that is, (by implication) select:—acceptable, appoint, choose (choice), excellent, join, be rather, require.

iow, through "trying", or testing, God chooses. This isn't anything close to the RT view that God chooses unconditionally. Because He doesn't. All His choices have conditions to be met.

Yeah. Those that have learned and been taught by the Father.

He was also clear on those that God did not draw to Christ.

My point as well. They didn't listen and learn from the Father, and did not believe in Christ.

 

[stenerson]

The Hebrew word for "choose" is: bâchar
baw-khar'
A primitive root; properly to try, that is, (by implication) select:—acceptable, appoint, choose (choice), excellent, join, be rather, require.

iow, through "trying", or testing, God chooses. This isn't anything close to the RT view that God chooses unconditionally. Because He doesn't. All His choices have conditions to be met.

Yes, you are trying to hard to change the meaning of scripture. You are freely choosing to do this.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yes, you are trying to hard to change the meaning of scripture. You are freely choosing to do this.

This is what I said:
The Hebrew word for "choose" is: bâchar
baw-khar'
A primitive root; properly to try, that is, (by implication) select:—acceptable, appoint, choose (choice), excellent, join, be rather, require.

iow, through "trying", or testing, God chooses. This isn't anything close to the RT view that God chooses unconditionally. Because He doesn't. All His choices have conditions to be met.
Your charge is without merit. I gave the meaning of the word. There was nothing to change from my side. Your post suggests that you disagree with what the lexicon says about the word.

Please provide verses where it's very clear that God chooses unconditionally, other than the Jewish people. That I'll grant you.

If you'd like, I will, upon request, provide all 6 categories of election found in Scripture.

 

[stenerson]

This is what I said:
The Hebrew word for "choose" is: bâchar
baw-khar'
A primitive root; properly to try, that is, (by implication) select:—acceptable, appoint, choose (choice), excellent, join, be rather, require.

iow, through "trying", or testing, God chooses. This isn't anything close to the RT view that God chooses unconditionally. Because He doesn't. All His choices have conditions to be met.
Your charge is without merit. I gave the meaning of the word. There was nothing to change from my side. Your post suggests that you disagree with what the lexicon says about the word.

I think I'll trust just about every scholar and translator on how they understood the word. Your lame attempts of redefining choose is a bit pathetic.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I think I'll trust just about every scholar and translator on how they understood the word. Your lame attempts of redefining choose is a bit pathetic.

So you don't like lexicons, is that it?

 

[stenerson]

So you don't like lexicons, is that it?

I don't like the misuse of Lexicons in order to twist scripture. Greek scholars and translators understood what the word means, regardless of their theology.
One could use a lexicon in such a sloppy manner to change any doctrine. That's just plain disrespectful, irreverent and dishonest and frankly, foolish.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't like the misuse of Lexicons in order to twist scripture. Greek scholars and translators understood what the word means, regardless of their theology.

I showed what the lexicon says. How did that twist Scripture? Please explain.

One could use a lexicon in such a sloppy manner to change any doctrine. That's just plain disrespectful, irreverent and dishonest and frankly, foolish.

So, please explain how I did all that. So far, you've just thrown charges. Where's the evidence?

 

[JM]

Of course regeneration precedes faith, it is an evangelical grace of God and listed as gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Of course regeneration precedes faith, it is an evangelical grace of God and listed as gift of the Holy Spirit.

Please provide Scriptural support for your claims. Thanks.

 

[Hentenza]

Please provide Scriptural support for your claims. Thanks.

Is pretty simple.

Eph. 2
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Not of yourself. Is that simple enough?

 

[Foghorn]

I didn't say he was teaching the jailer. He was TELLING the jailer what he MUST DO to be saved.

Yes. Believe. Are you saying the jailer is able to all of his own when scripture teaches it is not possible for man?
If you believe it is possible for man, scripture please?

There's nothing in the context or anywhere else that God regenerates (prepares as Calvinism likes to say it) people so they will believe.

Scripture is full of God being the cause. It also teaching man is not able of himself. You don't see this? really?

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:44. Oh, by the way, look in your lexicons, you will notice in the Greek "draw" is actually "drag."

Truth is never silly, and I never said truth was. I did say that the RT view that God commands man to do something he is incapable of doing is silly. Because it isn't the truth.

Really? God only commands people to do what they are capable of doing? Ok then, live by the Law, keep all the commandments. If you can do this you don't even need a Savior.

I'd give the same answer that Paul did.

Sure, nothing wrong with that. But would you explain to the person how they can believe? Something Paul did not do there. If so, what would you tell them? "you have the power to make yourself believe?"

Well?

The point keeps getting ignored, misunderstood, or something by the reformed. For those so-called "non-elect" (for whom Christ didn't die) there is no possibility of being saved, so telling them that they will be saved if they believe is dishonest.

How is it dishonest? Isn't that the truth? Paul said so himself.

The issue your fighting against is how one believes. Messy theology IMO.

 

[Foghorn]

I said this:
Yes, you apparently are "seeing things". But I don't. Not any of these verses tells us that God is the cause of one's believing.

More probably, you believe these verses mean that God is the cause. But the wording doesn't lead one to that conclusion.

Calvinism cannot defend it's position that God is the cause of one's believing.


Why would one think that it is impossible for me to accept Christ is the head of the church? Such comments reveal how little of what I post is being understood.


If there is any evidence of that in my posts, please point it out. Because I totally reject that. And tired of being mischaracterized.


There is no support for that idea in Scripture. Only in RT talking points.


The verse doesn't say or suggest that. What it does say is that those currently believing (present participle) have been born again. It says nothing about WHEN one initially believed unto salvation. Further, the present participle occurs at the same time as the action of the main verb (born again).

So, saving faith and regeneration occur at the same time.


Nope. To "see" in that verse is used to indicate seeing by being there. iow, no one gets into the kingdom apart from being born again.

Jesus clarifies this in v.5: "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

So, seeing and etering are equated.

to "see":
1) to see
1a) to perceive with the eyes
1b) to perceive by any of the senses
1c) to perceive, notice, discern, discover
1d) to see
1d1) i.e. to turn the eyes, the mind, the attention to anything
1d2) to pay attention, observe
1d3) to see about something
1d3a) i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it
1d4) to inspect, examine
1d5) to look at, behold

The clear meaning has to do with observation, not understanding, which seems to be the way the reformed want to understand it.


No, as I said.


None of this is supported by the context anywhere. It simply isn't. What is clearly communicated is that when one hears and believes, THEN they are sealed in Him with or by the Holy Spirit of promise. (4:30).

There is no support for the idea that one is regenerated before being given the gift of faith. In fact, there is no support in Scripture for God giving the "gift of faith" so that one will believe. When one believes the gospel, God gives the believer the whole body of faith, which is found in Scripture. As a noun.

The gift of faith certainly isn't about verbs, like believing.


I've always made the point that only when the believer is filled with and walking by means of the Holy Spirit, can they develop character qualities.

And when the believer grieves and quenches the Holy Spirit, they will fulfill the desires of the flesh, and cannot develop character qualities.

The point of 2 Pet is that we MUST ADD TO OUR FAITH, as Peter said.

He didn't say that God will add them, or that God gave them to us.

When he said that God has given us "everything we need for life and godliness", he was referring to the indwelling Holy Spirit, who empowers us to develop the character qualities.

But it seems RT forgets, or ignores, the possibility of grieving/quenching the Holy Spirit. When believers behave that way, the usual line is "they really didn't have saving faith". It was just some kind of "spurious/false/dead/etc faith".

This is interesting indeed. I can see there is nothing I can say to you that you would consider. No offense intended but your well trained in a view which raises man to having a power to do what scripture teaches he cannot do. IMO you have an erroneous understanding of the atonement.

I am waiting however, for you to show in scripture the teaching man has the ability within himself to seek after Christ and believe all of himself. Prevenient grace does not work simply because no matter how much one is wooed or persuaded he, man, is still not able to respond spiritually, he is dead to it until he is regenerate. It takes nothing short then a supernatural act of God on man's behalf.

But please, present scripture to teach the opposite.

 

[Foghorn]

Personally I don't get too worked up concerning the timing of repentance, belief, conversion, regeneration etc.
There are different text that hit it from different angles. Is a person that is being drawn to God, say, in fear and desperation, becoming conscience of their sinfulness, but not yet assured of salvation, is this person regenerate? They may be struggling with and pleading with God for a lengthy time before they are given faith and assurance. The intricacies of the mysterious workings of the Holy Spirit can't be dissected like this IMHO. Some folks gain faith and assurance quickly, some may seek and struggle for years and then gain assurance. I don't feel I need to dissect the work of the Spirit and how or when He changes our heart.
Why should I? It is made plain enough that repentance and faith are granted by God. Is a convert a regenerate or a new creation during the seeking and pleading phase before granted faith? I don't know nor care to speculate. I'm satisfied to know God Himself drew them to Christ and completed the work.

Amen bro!

As I have mentioned before, the draw in the Greek means to drag, and I don't know of anyone willing to come that needs dragging.
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:44.

You have some good questions above. Personally, I do not believe anyone can name the exact time when they were born again (regenerated), if we look back we can (at least I can) see a process when I was being drawn (dragged), I enjoyed my sin but somehow I couldn't resist Jesus. Was I born again during this process? I cannot say for sure. However, I do tend to think so, since the spiritually dead have no desire for God, matter of fact scripture teaches we are all born God haters, at enmity with God and are not even able to come to Him. It is interesting. Whatever the case, I believe we are not justified until we after believing in our heart for a while (Romans 10), we finally confess (with our mouths) Jesus is Lord. I knew it was God's doing, in the beginning I didn't know hardly anything about Jesus, I know a lot about the sin I enjoyed for sure, but for some reason, I could not get away from Him. I couldn't even enjoy my sins as much, this time of my life was full of a lot of convictions.

I believe when it is granted by God, though we may not be aware of it, it is grace and mercy from God. It is irresistible.
And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” John 6:65

 

[Foghorn]

I just don't read anything in Scripture about anyone "gaining faith" from God, which seems to be your foundation.

Respectfully my friend, but your thinking carnally IMO. I'm not trying to insult you, I just think you need to let scripture speak.

I do find many passages encouraging, pleading, and commanding people to believe,

Should the gospel not d this? Either way, man is responsible.

so I believe that God created mankind with the ability and freedom to either believe or reject His promise of eternal life. That's where the huge divide is.

That is Pelagianism.

Jesus was clear about who God drew to Christ. The answer is in Jn 6:45.

Well lets look at this with the preceding verse for some clarification.

44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.


So, no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him. Those who have heard and learned will come to Christ.
Don't this speak loudly of regeneration? The all is the elect.

Here is an example: Matthew 16: 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

 

[Foghorn]

I don't like the misuse of Lexicons in order to twist scripture. Greek scholars and translators understood what the word means, regardless of their theology.
One could use a lexicon in such a sloppy manner to change any doctrine. That's just plain disrespectful, irreverent and dishonest and frankly, foolish.

Amen!

 

[Foghorn]

Of course regeneration precedes faith, it is an evangelical grace of God and listed as gift of the Holy Spirit.

Amen!

 

[Foghorn]

Please provide Scriptural support for your claims. Thanks.

You have been given much scripture already.

 

[Foghorn]

Is pretty simple.

Eph. 2
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Not of yourself. Is that simple enough?

Amen!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your claim:
Of course regeneration precedes faith, it is an evangelical grace of God and listed as gift of the Holy Spirit.

I asked for Scriptural reference, and you responded:

Is pretty simple.

Eph. 2
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Not of yourself. Is that simple enough?

Eph 2:8 is very simple, but it doesn't support your claim. Nothing there about regeneration preceding faith. And the "it is" refers back to "have been saved", NOT "through faith", as it seems you assume.

Further, consider 2:5 - even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)

What is the parenthesis for? To explain "made alive". Iow, to be "made alive", which is regeneration is equated with "have been saved".

And v.8 gives us the clear order; we are saved (regenerated) through faith. The faith precedes the salvation/regeneration.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yes. Believe. Are you saying the jailer is able to all of his own when scripture teaches it is not possible for man?

What Scripture clearly teaches that man is not able to believe?

If you believe it is possible for man, scripture please?

I believe it is clearly inherent in Paul's answer to the jailer who wanted to be saved. If he wasn't able to believe, why didn't Paul just tell him that?

Scripture is full of God being the cause. It also teaching man is not able of himself. You don't see this? really?

While He is the cause of lots of things, belief isn't one of them.

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:44. Oh, by the way, look in your lexicons, you will notice in the Greek "draw" is actually "drag."

SNORE! Look at the next verse (45). God has taught everyone, and those who have listened and learned from the Father come to Jesus.

Really? God only commands people to do what they are capable of doing? Ok then, live by the Law, keep all the commandments. If you can do this you don't even need a Savior.

The Law wasn't designed to get to heaven. The single purpose of the Law was to point one to Jesus Christ. Gal 3:26.

Sure, nothing wrong with that. But would you explain to the person how they can believe? Something Paul did not do there. If so, what would you tell them? "you have the power to make yourself believe?"

This is just such a tired old and silly argument. When ANY kind of information is presented to you, how is it that you either believe what you hear or you don't believe what you hear?

Which is pretty much what Paul told the Galatian believers:

Galatians 3:2
This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

How did they receive the Spirit? By hearing the gospel and believing it.

Well?

yeah, I know. Pretty deep stuff.

[QUOTEThe issue your fighting against is how one believes. Messy theology IMO.[/QUOTE]
I've given you a question regarding how you either believe or not believe when information if presented to you. Please expalin HOW you believe, and HOW you don't believe.