Please explain if no one is predestined

[FreeGrace2]

Being made alive equals regeneration. No faith required. You need to stop using “salvation” or “being saved” in such a generic sense. State what you are referring to. Regeneration, justification, sanctification, etc.

Ok, it seems you are purposely not wanting to engage here.

Of course "being made alive" means regeneration.

What you keep ignoring is the end of v.5, "it is by grace you have been saved".

So, once AGAIN, does "being made alive" equate to "have been saved", or not?

If not, how do the 2 phrases relate to each other?

 

[Hammster]

Once again you have totally ignored all my points about v.5.

I haven’t. You are just wrong.

 

[Hammster]

Ok, it seems you are purposely not wanting to engage here.

Of course "being made alive" means regeneration.

What you keep ignoring is the end of v.5, "it is by grace you have been saved".

So, once AGAIN, does "being made alive" equate to "have been saved", or not?

If not, how do the 2 phrases relate to each other?

If you are asking if saved equals regeneration, then yes.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

And that would be my point. Just as there’s no verses that explain the Trinity, there are no verses that state, as you seem to want as proof, that regeneration precedes faith. Does that mean we deny the Trinity? Of course not. And it’s not a reason to deny that regeneration precedes faith, either.

On that note I had a thought on one of the classic passages on regeneration...

John 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

I emboldened Nicodemus' words for a reason, why did he ask these questions, and why are they included in the Gospel account? For the modern reader, it seems so silly, kind of like "duh, that's impossible". So what is the point? Well, Nicodemus is thinking in terms of natural birth, while Jesus is speaking in terms of Spiritual birth, and thinking in terms of natural birth, who among us can say we caused our natural birth? It's not a question in the text, it's not taught directly, but the implication is there. The natural carnal man walking in the flesh has no means to be "born from above", he is born from below, his thoughts are centered in the stuff of earth, a naturalist by birth.

 

[Hammster]

On that note I had a thought on one of the classic passages on regeneration...

John 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

I emboldened Nicodemus' words for a reason, why did he ask these questions, and why are they included in the Gospel account? For the modern reader, it seems so silly, kind of like "duh, that's impossible". So what is the point? Well, Nicodemus is thinking in terms of natural birth, while Jesus is speaking in terms of Spiritual birth, and thinking in terms of natural birth, who among us can say we caused our natural birth? It's not a question in the text, it's not taught directly, but the implication is there. The natural carnal man walking in the flesh has no means to be "born from above", he is born from below, his thoughts are centered in the stuff of earth, a naturalist by birth.

I’m not faulting those who oppose the doctrines of grace. I was there once. I believe you were, too. But once one comes to see that it’s truth, it opens up scripture in tremendous ways. John 3 becomes crystal clear. It’s like before, I saw in the glass darkly. Not any more.

Praise God.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Does the natural man understand spiritual things?

The first thing we must do is define the "natural" man.

Would you care to define the "natural" man?

 

[Hammster]

The first thing we must do is define the "natural" man.

Would you care to define the "natural" man?

No. It’s in scripture. You can look it up and when you understand it, get back to me.

 

[Dr. Jack]

No. It’s in scripture. You can look it up and when you understand it, get back to me.

How about if I just give you what the lexicon says ...

"Strong’s Definitions
ψυχικός psychikós, psoo-khee-kos'; from G5590; sensitive, i.e. animate (in distinction on the one hand from G4152, which is the higher or renovated nature; and on the other from G5446, which is the lower or bestial nature):—natural, sensual."

"Outline of Biblical Usage

1. of or belonging to breath
   
   1. having the nature and characteristics of the breath
      
      1. the principal of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes
         
   2. governed by breath
      
      1. the sensuous nature with its subjection to appetite and passion"

"Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5591: ψυχικός
ψυχικός, ψυχική, ψυχικόν (ψυχή) (Vulg.animalis, Gem.sinnlich), "of or belonging to the ψυχή;
a. having the nature and characteristics of the ψυχή i. e. of the principle of animal life," which men have in common with the brutes (see ψυχή, 1 a.); (A. V. natural): σῶμα ψυχικόν, 1 Corinthians 15:44; substantively, τό ψυχικόν(Winer's Grammar, 592 (551)), 1 Corinthians 15:46: since both these expressions do not differ in substance or conception from σάρξ καί αἷμα in 1 Corinthians 15:50, Paul might have also written σαρκικον; but prompted by the phrase ψυχή ζῶσα in 1 Corinthians 15:45 (borrowed from Genesis 2:7), he wrote ψυχικόν.
b. "governed by the ψυχή i. e. the sensuous nature with its subjection to appetite and passion (as though made up of nothing but ψυχή): ἄνθρωπος (equivalent to σαρκικός (or σάρκινος, which see 3) in Genesis 3:1), 1 Corinthians 2:14; ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μή ἔχοντες, Jude 1:19 (A. V. sensual (R. V. with marginal reading 'Or natural, Or animal'); so in the following example); σοφία, a wisdom in harmony with the corrupt desires and affections, and springing from them (see σοφία, a., p. 581b bottom), James 3:15. (In various other senses in secular authors from Aristotle and Polybiusdown.)"

Hence, the "natural" man can be defined as the physical man.

 

[Hammster]

How about if I just give you what the lexicon says ...

"Strong’s Definitions
ψυχικός psychikós, psoo-khee-kos'; from G5590; sensitive, i.e. animate (in distinction on the one hand from G4152, which is the higher or renovated nature; and on the other from G5446, which is the lower or bestial nature):—natural, sensual."

"Outline of Biblical Usage

1. of or belonging to breath
   1. having the nature and characteristics of the breath
      1. the principal of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes
   2. governed by breath
      1. the sensuous nature with its subjection to appetite and passion"

"Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5591: ψυχικός
ψυχικός, ψυχική, ψυχικόν (ψυχή) (Vulg.animalis, Gem.sinnlich), "of or belonging to the ψυχή;
a. having the nature and characteristics of the ψυχή i. e. of the principle of animal life," which men have in common with the brutes (see ψυχή, 1 a.); (A. V. natural): σῶμα ψυχικόν, 1 Corinthians 15:44; substantively, τό ψυχικόν(Winer's Grammar, 592 (551)), 1 Corinthians 15:46: since both these expressions do not differ in substance or conception from σάρξ καί αἷμα in 1 Corinthians 15:50, Paul might have also written σαρκικον; but prompted by the phrase ψυχή ζῶσα in 1 Corinthians 15:45 (borrowed from Genesis 2:7), he wrote ψυχικόν.
b. "governed by the ψυχή i. e. the sensuous nature with its subjection to appetite and passion (as though made up of nothing but ψυχή): ἄνθρωπος (equivalent to σαρκικός (or σάρκινος, which see 3) in Genesis 3:1), 1 Corinthians 2:14; ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μή ἔχοντες, Jude 1:19 (A. V. sensual (R. V. with marginal reading 'Or natural, Or animal'); so in the following example); σοφία, a wisdom in harmony with the corrupt desires and affections, and springing from them (see σοφία, a., p. 581b bottom), James 3:15. (In various other senses in secular authors from Aristotle and Polybiusdown.)"

Hence, the "natural" man can be defined as the physical man.

Okay.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Okay.

Okay.

Does your "Okay" mean you agree, or disagree?

 

[Hammster]

Does your "Okay" mean you agree, or disagree?

I agree that you gave the Strong’s definition.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I agree that you gave the Strong’s definition.

Actually, I gave you:
1) String's definition
2) Thayer's definition
3) The Biblical use of the word according to those lexicons.

Do you agree that the lexical definitions, and Biblical use is correct, or incorrect. And if you believe the lexical definitions incorrect, could you please provide sources, and reasons why these Greek lexicon are incorrect.

 

[Hammster]

Actually, I gave you:
1) String's definition
2) Thayer's definition
3) The Biblical use of the word according to those lexicons.

Do you agree that the lexical definitions, and Biblical use is correct, or incorrect. And if you believe the lexical definitions incorrect, could you please provide sources, and reasons why these Greek lexicon are incorrect.

I’ll wait until you actually address some scripture.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"Once again you have totally ignored all my points about v.5."

I haven’t. You are just wrong.

What you have posted is just your own opinion. No evidence to back up your opinion. Not even identifying the post # where you supposedly addressed my points about v.5.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Hammster]

I said:
"Once again you have totally ignored all my points about v.5."

What you have posted is just your own opinion. No evidence to back up your opinion. Not even identifying the post # where you supposedly addressed my points about v.5.

I'll leave it at that.

Okay.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If you are asking if saved equals regeneration, then yes.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Since being saved and being regenerated are equal, which is found is v.5, then we KNOW that regeneration follows faith, just as salvation does, which is found in v.8.

If you disagree, you need to explain in clear words WHY not.

Just stating that I'm wrong, or that you disagree, is only your opinion, of which everyone has.

So, let's see some evidence for how I'm wrong about regeneration following faith.

You could begin with the words "through faith" and explain what that actually means.

 

[Hammster]

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Since being saved and being regenerated are equal, which is found is v.5, then we KNOW that regeneration follows faith, just as salvation does, which is found in v.8.

If you disagree, you need to explain in clear words WHY not.

Just stating that I'm wrong, or that you disagree, is only your opinion, of which everyone has.

So, let's see some evidence for how I'm wrong about regeneration following faith.

You could begin with the words "through faith" and explain what that actually means.

I disagree because that’s not what the text says. I pointed that out in an earlier post. I don’t see the need to repeat myself.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I disagree because that’s not what the text says. I pointed that out in an earlier post. I don’t see the need to repeat myself.

This is just waffling. You stated this:
"If you are asking if saved equals regeneration, then yes"

This is directly stated in Eph 2:5.
made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

The red words at the beginning and end of the verse are the same thing. And you agree. Good.

Now, that being the case, we see that salvation is "through faith" in v.8.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—"

Contrary to your opinion, v.8 DOES state in clear terms that salvation is through faith.

And since salvation and regeneration are equated, and therefore go together, regeneration ALSO is through faith.

btw, you didn't explain or prove anything in your earlier post. There was an opinion noted, but no evidence at all.

Just as you can't get around the fact that you stated that 'everthing that happens is ordered by God', you can't get around the fact that you agreed that regeneration and salvation are equated.

So, one can conclude from your direct statements, that;
1. God orders sin to occur (or happen).
2. Regeneration is through faith.

Well, batting .500 anyway.

 

[Hammster]

Please explain if no one is predestined

 

[sungaunga]

That's clearly NOT what v.45 says. It's those who listened and learned from what the Father taught that 'come to me'. Please note the order here. Note that God has taught everyone. But ONLY those who have listened and learned from the Father will come to Jesus.

So, it's ONLY those who have listened and learned from the Father who are given to Jesus. Rather simple.

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.

Yes, it is simple. Those that listen and learn are a result of the giving. Not the other way around. First, who is "they"? Read the context. the preceding verse speaks of the one who is drawn by the Father and who, as a result of being drawn, comes to the Son and is raised up by Him. The being "taught by God" is not some general revelation that is devoid of connection with the preceding context.

You're insisting that the ones taught, heard and learned are the ones given to Jesus. Read the verses. No One Can Come... No one. No one does not mean someone. In other words, unless you're drawn by God, no amount of teaching and hearing and learning can have a salvific effect on you. You are given to Jesus then are enabled to hear listen and learn.

You're going to a later passage ,misinterpreting it and taking it’s understanding and reading it back into previous passage. I think that’s called eisegesis. You’re Reading into the text your own traditions. Only by breaking the text up into portions and ignoring its consistent themes, terms, and actions can such eisegesis be maintained.