Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ok, it seems you are purposely not wanting to engage here.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.
I haven’t. You are just wrong.Once again you have totally ignored all my points about v.5.
If you are asking if saved equals regeneration, then yes.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?
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.
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.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.
No. It’s in scripture. You can look it up and when you understand it, get back to me.The first thing we must do is define the "natural" man.
Would you care to define the "natural" man?
How about if I just give you what the lexicon says ...No. It’s in scripture. You can look it up and when you understand it, get back to me.
Okay.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
- of or belonging to breath
- having the nature and characteristics of the breath
- the principal of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes
- governed by breath
- 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.
I agree that you gave the Strong’s definition.Does your "Okay" mean you agree, or disagree?
Actually, I gave you:I agree that you gave the Strong’s definition.
I’ll wait until you actually address some scripture.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.
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 haven’t. You are just wrong.
Okay.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.
OK, now we're getting somewhere.If you are asking if saved equals regeneration, then yes.
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.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.
This is just waffling. You stated this: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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?