cygnusx1
Jacob the twister.....
- Apr 12, 2004
- 56,208
- 3,104
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Points 1-4 were answered clearly in [post=36019493]post 418[/post]. Why are you pretending as though your points are not answered when they clearly have been?
The epistle is written to a believer ("To Titus, my true child in a common faith")
As stated in the above post:
The "pouring out" of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which occurs after faith. The indwelling of the Spirit and the regeneration of the Spirit are disctinctly separate concepts.Because it is not listed as the MEANS by which the Spirit regenerates. To put it another way, the Spirit who saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal is that same Spirit which was poured out on us richly through Jesus.
This point is simply an erroneous conclusion proceeding from the three previous errors.
As for the other two:
"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." - John 1:12-13 (ESV)
Of course it can. Just because the two are inseparably related does not mean they are the exact same thing conceptually. It is true that all those who are born of God are adopted and vice versa. Simply stating it one way or the other in terms of grammatical order of words does not establish a chain of causality.
The error you have here is exactly the same as the error you have in Titus. You presume that the entire passage is meant to establish a clear chain of causality...right down to the choice of word order (which in addition to being fundamentally flawed is very dangerous when dealing with a translation)...when in fact it does not.
What you need this verse to say in order to prove your position was "To all who believe...He gave the right to become children of God, who were THEN born...of God." But that "then" does not exist in this passage. The phrase "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" simply refers back to the subjects of the passage in a descriptive/illustratory manner. It DOES NOT establish a chain of causality. It simply states, in like manner to passage in Titus, that those who believed and were given the right of adoption were those same people which were born of God.
False conclusion proceeding from error in #5. If adoption is not precisely synonymous with regeneration (being "born of God")...which it is not...then this conclusion is unsound.
Done (again).
Excellent post FRU
</IMG>
Upvote
0