This should end the discussion about easy grace and OSAS!

[ToBeLoved]

I have no idea what you mean by my supposedly seeing natural generation as a "prequel" to regeneration.

Jesus used the idea of birth to illustrate for Nicodemus the fact that there had to be a radical change in a person's disposition before they could participate in the Kingdom of God.

Nicodemus took this quite literally and Jesus gave him another illustration from nature which would correct him about that.

He used the idea of the invisible wind and it's visible effects to explain how the new spiritual birth worked with saved men. He said that there was a secret act of the wind for which we simply saw the results when we heard the sound etc.

He said this to illustrate that it is that way with being born again.

It isn't that one has to literally enter the womb again and be born again in that way. It was a spiritual application that He was teaching Nicodemus about. (One that he really should have known about since he was a teacher of Israel and should have known that men died "spiritually" when Adam sinned.)

The secret actions of the wind give visible results that we can see. Likewise the secret actions of the Spirit of God give visible results that we can see when one is born again.

If you can't follow what I mean then you'll have to ask someone else to explain it to you after this.

Whatever!


English is my first language since you asked - "sort of".
The necessity of not using "words that are non-existent in the context" makes no sense at all.

I could have just quoted the scripture I suppose. But then you have that in your Bible and you still are not able to understand what was being taught.

I suppose that you are in good company with Nicodemus in that respect. But remember that the Lord chided him for teaching when he was not up to par on certain things.

I won't trade insults with you anymore after this.

Please feel free to ask me any question you may have about my beliefs about OSAS or even the compatibility of predestination free will if you are going to comment about my beliefs along those lines. I'll be happy to respond.

Be civil though. Otherwise I won't respond.

I am perfectly civil. You seem to think to much of yourself and if you are a teacher, teaching than you should be more humble, long suffering and patient. Fruit of the spirit, that is what I would expect. Your the one who get's off the handle each time you do not like something.

Then make yourself further a victim by saying I do not like you because you are a Calvinist. Not quite. I deplore the teaching, not the sinner. I'm following what God says, not falling into the trap that you have.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I am not being rude. I explained that generate or generation is not a word used to describe sexual intercourse or the fertilization of an egg with sperm...................Can you please show me any source/dictionary that uses this word as you have described?

Of course it is. We use it in our language all the time to talk about the origins of human life.

Webster tells us that the meaning in this regard:

a : the action or process of producing offspring : ( see also "procreation")

b : the process of coming or bringing into being

Now what did I say that was rude.

If I took you to be being rude and you were not being rude - - I apologize.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I am perfectly civil. You seem to think to much of yourself and if you are a teacher, teaching than you should be more humble, long suffering and patient. Fruit of the spirit, that is what I would expect. Your the one who get's off the handle each time you do not like something.

Then make yourself further a victim by saying I do not like you because you are a Calvinist. Not quite. I deplore the teaching, not the sinner. I'm following what God says, not falling into the trap that you have.

Disregarding the first part of your post ---- what trap have I fallen into?

I ask because you have been mistaken about my beliefs in the past.

I deplore much of so called 5-point Calvinism myself.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Disregarding the first part of your post ---- what trap have I fallen into?

I ask because you have been mistaken about my beliefs in the past.

I deplore much of so called 5-point Calvinism myself.

In post 658 you said:

It appears that you read that opinion and decided that you needed to counter it with a nasty counter opinion. IMO you did it simply because you hate me because you believe (wrongly) that I am a Calvinist.

My response:

Then make yourself further a victim by saying I do not like you because you are a Calvinist. Not quite. I deplore the teaching, not the sinner. I'm following what God says, not falling into the trap that you have.

To think that a Christian would hate another Christian over belief when they are both Children of God is what you believed. I called it a trap, because we are called by Christ to love one another and I hate the theology, not the person.

 

[AndOne]

 

[Marvin Knox]

In post 658 you said:

It appears that you read that opinion and decided that you needed to counter it with a nasty counter opinion. IMO you did it simply because you hate me because you believe (wrongly) that I am a Calvinist.

My response:

Then make yourself further a victim by saying I do not like you because you are a Calvinist. Not quite. I deplore the teaching, not the sinner. I'm following what God says, not falling into the trap that you have.

To think that a Christian would hate another Christian over belief when they are both Children of God is what you believed. I called it a trap, because we are called by Christ to love one another and I hate the theology, not the person.

What do you say we both just start from scratch as if we simply had some terrible misunderstanding along the way?

Let's cut to the chase shall we?

Exactly what theological teaching of mine do you hate and why do you hate it?

Why do you call me a sinner (other than the fact that we are all, in the natural, sinners)? Or is it actually me and others who believe like me whom you are calling sinners because of our doctrines?

 

[Job8]

I do not equate regeneration with the new birth. The two things are certainly related to each other. But they are not the same thing.

This is false doctrine. Regeneration means the New Birth, and the New Birth means regeneration, which means to be "born again", "born from above", "born of the Spirit", and "born of God".

Peter shows us the connection between the power of the Gospel and the New Birth (1 Pet 1:23-25) and James confirms this: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Both the Gospel and the Holy Spirit are involved in the New Birth (Tit 3:5): Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

As we can see clearly below THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between regeneration and the New Birth.

Strong's Concordance (3824)
paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal
Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: paliggenesia
Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah)
Short Definition: a new birth, regeneration
Definition: a new birth, regeneration, renewal.

HELPS Word-studies
3824 paliggenesía (from 3825 /pálin, "again" and1078 /génesis, "birth, beginning") – properly, the coming of new birth because "born again";regeneration.

3824 /paliggenesía ("renewal, rebirth") is used twice in the NT referring to: a) the re-birth ofphysical creation at Christ's return (Advent), which inaugurates His millennial kingdom (Mt 19:28; cf. Ro 8:18-25); and b) the re-birth all believers experience at conversion (Tit 3:5).

 

[Marvin Knox]

This is false doctrine. Regeneration means the New Birth, and the New Birth means regeneration, which means to be "born again", "born from above", "born of the Spirit", and "born of God".

Peter shows us the connection between the power of the Gospel and the New Birth (1 Pet 1:23-25) and James confirms this: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Both the Gospel and the Holy Spirit are involved in the New Birth (Tit 3:5): Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

The charge of false doctrine is a pretty strong charge don't you think?

Generation is not birth and regeneration is not rebirth no matter what the guy's name is who commented on it in his volume.

Strong, like most others, simply makes a very slip shod correlation between the two words. It doesn't even take a lot of knowledge of the Greek language to see that this is the case. They are clearly not the same word either in the Greek language or the English language.

I suppose that we could debate that fact in a sort of third party "favorite Greek expert against favorite Greek expert" exchange. But I assure you that you would lose that debate. I have been through it before.

We are, indeed, born into the Kingdom of God through the preaching and reception of the Word of God as 1 Peter clearly tells us.

But there are no magic vibrations associated with the sound waves inherent in the preaching of the gospel that somehow infuse a spark of life in the dead spirit of a natural man where there existed no life before.

As the book of Titus tells us - both the gospel and the Holy Spirit are indeed involved in the new birth (and in more ways than you care to admit as I read it).

As we can see clearly below THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between regeneration and the New Birth.

Strong's Concordance (3824)
paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal
Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: paliggenesia
Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah)
Short Definition: a new birth, regeneration
Definition: a new birth, regeneration, renewal.

HELPS Word-studies
3824 paliggenesía (from 3825 /pálin, "again" and1078 /génesis, "birth, beginning") – properly, the coming of new birth because "born again";regeneration.

3824 /paliggenesía ("renewal, rebirth") is used twice in the NT referring to: a) the re-birth ofphysical creation at Christ's return (Advent), which inaugurates His millennial kingdom (Mt 19:28; cf. Ro 8:18-25); and b) the re-birth all believers experience at conversion (Tit 3:5).

We can't "CLEARLY" see any such thing.

What we do see is an all too human commentary that has been inserted into what should rightly be limited to being a simple Greek - English lexicon.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Why do you call me a sinner (other than the fact that we are all, in the natural, sinners)? Or is it actually me and others who believe like me whom you are calling sinners because of our doctrines?

You said that I hated you.

I said I do not hate anyone. I may hate the theology but I don't hate the sinner (person)

 

[brotherjerry]

I strongly agree - this point is absolutely foundational. At the risk of seeming to "taunt" those who believe otherwise, the case for seeing Israel as God's elect - and then Jesus and Jesus alone - inheriting that "role" is devastatingly powerful.

If we pay any attention at all to the Biblical narrative we cannot help but conclude that "election" is focused solely on Jesus to the exclusion of anyone else (now that Israel failed to fulfill her role as the "elect"). Yes, of course, we believers are "in Christ" and inherit the benefits of Jesus's election. But we are not "elect" in the sense most Calvinists seem to think.

What was Israel elected to? Life after death in heaven for all Jews? Of course not! They were chosen ("elected") to be the means by which God would solve the problem of sin and death. They failed and Jesus, a Messiah, took on that role - He became God's means for dealing with sin and death.

Yes we are described as 'the elect', but we are only elect in the sense that we have, freely I suggest, chosen by faith to unite ourselves with Christ, and thereby, but only thereby, to inherit the benefits of election. We were not "chosen" to be saved. Jesus was chosen as the one true Israelite.

Catching up so I am sure I may end up with more to say.

I understand what you are saying, and I do agree...but the Jews were also the chosen people to be God's testimony to the world. A failing they had was that they stayed secluded and isolated to themselves. When they should have been a witness of God's greatness to the rest of the world, they shuttered themselves off. God's "chosen" people have always been to glorify God, not for their own edification, but to be a testimony and witness to the glory of God.

 

[brotherjerry]

The problem with your little scenario is that besides God giving us the grace of salvation, He has also written His Word on our hearts and given us the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given as a comforter, as well as one who prays for us when we know not what to pray for ourselves, the Holy Spirit distributes any gifts of the Spirit and convicts us of sin. Both God's Word being written on our hearts as well as the indwelling Holy Spirit our to help us in our Christian walk. We walk our Christian walk WITH Christ.

Jesus did not die to get us to co-operate.

Jesus died so that He could indwell us and to reconcile us back to God. So then we can walk through our lives each day and each moment with Him.

The problem with those who are performance orientated is they do not see the extent of what they have in Christ because they are trying so hard to be something that God never intended us to try to be without Him. In that mindset, they do not love God with all their hearts, soul and mind, as they depend on their own strength, their own goodness and themselves. God does not ask for you to co-operate in your own strength. He is your strength.

Depend upon God. The rest comes naturally. Love God. Don't rest in what you can do. It was not designed to be that way and if you were more spiritual you would see that, but you are so into yourself and what you do.

In the Old Testament God had the co-operation of the Hebrews. He (Jesus Christ) died so we could have more than that.

Amen Sister...

 

[brotherjerry]

Marvin,

Have not been involved in the conversation completely but you confused me.

Post #648

You were generated the first time by your earthly father in secret. You were born the first time into the kingdom of this world publicly.

Post #662

Webster tells us that the meaning (of generate) in this regard:

a : the action or process of producing offspring : ( see also "procreation")

b : the process of coming or bringing into being

Post #668

Generation is not birth and regeneration is not rebirth no matter what the guy's name is who commented on it in his volume.

Why did you go through at least 2 posts explaining that generation is birth? only to say that generation is not birth?

 

[brotherjerry]

I would suggest that one should see throughout Scripture that ...
God's Plan is for full co-operation between Himself and man.

So, as to your above, we should looking at: relying on God + our performance.

Further, believers who do not see that ...
Salvation is gained through grace + co-operation (obedience, endurance, etc.)
... have been spiritually blinded by Satan + the dreaded "doctrines of men".

.

Others have already said and probably better than I could...but you are SOOOOO wrong on this. God does not want our co-operation, that word is not even in the Bible...but God wants our obedience.

No where in the Bible does it describe followers of Christ as partners. But over and over we are referred to as bond servants. Willful slaves. We are told that we should give up our will in place of God's will. Nothing co-operative about that.

 

[EmSw]

Others have already said and probably better than I could...but you are SOOOOO wrong on this. God does not want our co-operation, that word is not even in the Bible...but God wants our obedience.

No where in the Bible does it describe followers of Christ as partners. But over and over we are referred to as bond servants. Willful slaves. We are told that we should give up our will in place of God's will. Nothing co-operative about that.

So, if one does not cooperate with God, how is he a willful servant? What if one decides to give up his will, is that not cooperating? Isn't cooperation also involved in obedience?

 

[sdowney717]

Regeneration comes before justification.
All those God makes alive who were dead end up justified.
So it is dead in sins, then regenerated made alive, then justification by faith, the sealing in the Holy Spirit comes after the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 1
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
Being enabled to hear the gospel, includes being able to harken and respond in positive direction being led to Christ.
That requires regeneration first. People of the world can not hear God with understanding of the gospel message, it is pure foolishness to them.

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.

If God were their FATHER, then they would have been regenerated, so then belong to God.

Go ahead and tell me this is false doctrine, by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned, surely some of you know!!!

 

[FreeGrace2]

View attachment 166938

Only one problem with your cute poster; the doctrine of election isn't even about being chosen for salvation, as claimed by Calvinists.

Biblical election is about being chosen for special privilege and service. That definition comes straight out of the International Study Bible Encyclopedia.

It is backed up by the evidence from Scripture itself on what election is. Which isn't salvation. There are at least 6 categories of election, and none of them were chosen for salvation.

1. Jesus Christ, the Chosen One. Isa 42:1
2. angels. 1 Thess 5:21
3. the nation of Israel. Amos 3:2
4. NT believers. Eph 4:1
5. all 12 of Jesus' disciples, including the unsaved Judas. Jn 6:70
6. Paul, chosen to take the gospel to Gentlles. Acts 9:15

 

[FreeGrace2]

Others have already said and probably better than I could...but you are SOOOOO wrong on this. God does not want our co-operation, that word is not even in the Bible...but God wants our obedience.

No where in the Bible does it describe followers of Christ as partners. But over and over we are referred to as bond servants. Willful slaves. We are told that we should give up our will in place of God's will. Nothing co-operative about that.

Actually, the Bible does describe certain believers as partners. Heb 3:1 and 3:14 use the word "metachoi".

metochos
1) sharing in, partaking
2) a partner (in a work, office, dignity)

However, the word is never used in any sense of helping Christ to save us, as ZachB suggested. It's about fellowship with Him. Those who are "in fellowship" are His partners.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Regeneration comes before justification.
All those God makes alive who were dead end up justified.

When will any Calvinist provide a Scripture to support this unsupported claim?

Regeneration and salvation occur at the same time. I can take you through the grammar of 1 Jn 5:1 to prove it. The "believing ones" is a present participle, and they occur at the SAME TIME as the action of the main verb. The main verb is "has been born of God". They occur at the same time. End of discussion.

 

[sdowney717]

Only one problem with your cute poster; the doctrine of election isn't even about being chosen for salvation, as claimed by Calvinists.

Biblical election is about being chosen for special privilege and service. That definition comes straight out of the International Study Bible Encyclopedia.

It is backed up by the evidence from Scripture itself on what election is. Which isn't salvation. There are at least 6 categories of election, and none of them were chosen for salvation.

1. Jesus Christ, the Chosen One. Isa 42:1
2. angels. 1 Thess 5:21
3. the nation of Israel. Amos 3:2
4. NT believers. Eph 4:1
5. all 12 of Jesus' disciples, including the unsaved Judas. Jn 6:70
6. Paul, chosen to take the gospel to Gentlles. Acts 9:15

Unless one understands the meaning of the words, the two trying to communicate are speaking a foreign language one to the other.
Which is why you beware of false doctrine, because it sounds logical or nice, still it is a twisted lie of Satan.
You claim election is not being chosen, however consider this
https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/mar/13/1/t_conc_970020
Mar 13:20

“And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days.
g1588
and
Eph 1:4

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
Strongs=G1586
ἐκλέγομαι, eklegomai means to pick out, choose, to pick or choose out for one's self
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1586&t=NKJV

However your teaching is the elect are chosen not for salvation, which is a false teaching.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/mat/20/16/p0/t_conc_949016

The word 'chosen' is 'elect'
chosen
g1588
ἐκλεκτός eklektos

as in the verse
“So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”

 

[AndOne]

Only one problem with your cute poster; the doctrine of election isn't even about being chosen for salvation, as claimed by Calvinists.

Biblical election is about being chosen for special privilege and service. That definition comes straight out of the International Study Bible Encyclopedia.

It is backed up by the evidence from Scripture itself on what election is. Which isn't salvation. There are at least 6 categories of election, and none of them were chosen for salvation.

1. Jesus Christ, the Chosen One. Isa 42:1
2. angels. 1 Thess 5:21
3. the nation of Israel. Amos 3:2
4. NT believers. Eph 4:1
5. all 12 of Jesus' disciples, including the unsaved Judas. Jn 6:70
6. Paul, chosen to take the gospel to Gentlles. Acts 9:15

Exactly what the meme was pointing out - people just love to make salvation about any thing except God's sovereignty - which is exactly what you just did.