Poll - Once Saved Always Saved

[Charis kai Dunamis]

It was generic and not specific in the portions were I indicated so...there where other portions where I spoke in particular of mr johnson as can be seen.

As I said previously, generic terms become specific when applied by individuals to another individual...which is how you applied my generic comments...is that not so?....is that my fault?

When I speak in generic terms it is true that I may have had certain individuals in mind upon which I based my generic comments [this is normal practice when making a generic comment]...but that does not mean my comments where not inclusive of other persons in general who use similar methodologies...after all...wolves hunt in packs...not as individuals...generally speaking.

Don't forget to ask mr johnson my questions...should you feel so inclined that is...to test the validity of your admiration for him.

I'm actually finding it humorous now how often we're using the word "generic". It's starting to sound wierd...

I'm sure you know by now that Ben is not coming back to the forum, and he is surely not going to answer those questions. So why ask them?

Plus I don't want him to answer those questions as much as I want him to continue our discussion on John 3...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
Well, I actually disagree with you about Ben. While you may have discussed more with him than I, I must give him credit. He gives better arguments than the majority of Arminians/free-willers/semi-pelagians. He also doesn't make discussions personal (at least he hasn't yet). He also displays a loving attitude and kindness that most Christians don't. He discusses point-by-point, which is something to be admired. I think the majority of Calvinists get mad at him because he has good arguments and they don't know how to refute them. While I disagree with Ben on the majority of issues, we agree on the fundamentals and therefore, he is my brother in Christ. This means I ought to show him respect and not just accept what other people say about him. Honestly, many people have PM'ed me to try and "warn" me about Ben, yet I have been discussing with him now for quite some time and have yet to see any sort of unacceptable behavior.

I am not discussing with Ben simply so he will concede my point. While I may hope and pray that he will see the error in his thinking, there is more to a discussion than just proving someone wrong. First of all, I learn to develop my beliefs and support for them more and more. That is probably the main reason I discuss with people is because it teaches me more, in that I see contradictions in my thinking, and I am forced to dig deeper for support. Secondly, I have had multiple people PM me and tell me that they have been watching my discussion with Ben and have learned a lot from it. When you go back and look at the forum, it looks like Ben and I have been discussing with no one else peeking in at all. Yet others are watching and reading our discussions daily. I may not be able to persuade Ben to see the errors in his thinking, but I very well may be able to persuade or strengthen readers just passing through.
​

There are times when harsh words are posted here, and it grieves me. Do we not serve the same Lord? Do we not desire the same end --- both to live eternally, and to invite others to live with Jesus, and with us?

To read a post such as yours, delights me, to the depths of my soul. This is the spirit we should have --- though disagreeing on points, we give each other the "benefit of a doubt". As I say in my text, "If someone is WRONG, give them the right to BE wrong. It is really not our responsibility what another believes; he or she who truly SEEKS God, will FIND Him. For God is a person, who answers those who call on Him."

If I succeed in conveying love and kindness to my brothers and sisters, then God has succeeded with me; it demonstrates I know Him, and He receives all the honor and glory. I pray that I do convey such --- and there is always room to grow in love and in Him.

We are always on trial; here, and in the "real world". What they know of Him, they know from us; let us therefore weigh every word we say, knowing fully that our words can spark eternity in their hearts --- either way.

It is an honor and privilege to call you my "saved brother", and yes I also call "brothers" those who post here with not so much kindness. God is the One who will judge us all; and the only person I can change, is me.

 

[moonbeam]

I'm sure you know by now that Ben is not coming back to the forum,

Really

and he is surely not going to answer those questions. So why ask them?

But WHY won't he answer those questions?...thats the point...WHY would any Spirit filled child of God refuse and avoid answering those two questions?....all that is asked in those questions is to acknowledge and confirm the words that the LORD has spoken...nothing else...why should any Spirit filled child of God need to refuse and avoid doing that?

Plus I don't want him to answer those questions as much as I want him to continue our discussion on John 3...

I am sure your discussion will continue..and continue..and continue..to have the same result.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
I love how you just totally disregard what I say.​

Didn't mean to...

Quote:
Here is your answer-

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000: The bottom line is that biblical usage of a word doesn't necessarily define it. We know this because ALL koine greek scholars use extra biblical texts to find meanings of words. Just because a word isn't used a certain way in scripture doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your argument is from silence on this Ben.Quote

There are times when a word (is) used in scripture ONCE, and only once. There are times when words are used dozens of other times, but only used ONCE to mean something specific. Just because a word is typically used to mean "see" does NOT conclude that's what it means. The context must also show that is what it means. And my argument is that "see" makes no sense when THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE.

Jesus would not have said "idein" if He meant "eiserchomai". He meant what he said. He did not mean "enter", because that is not what He said. Don't try to lighten His words, and say that what He actually meant was what He said two verses later. They are two very true statements within themselves. "idein" should NOT be substituted for "eiserchomai", nor vice versa, yet that is what you are doing-​

Well, the context does repeat --- "water-spirit", is repeated with "flesh-spirit". Why is it a stretch to see another "repeated narrative", between these two?
"Unless you are born-from-above, you cannot see the kingdom."
"Unless you are born ...of the Spirit, you cannot enter into the kingdom."

It is no stretch to see equality between "born-from-above", and "born-of-the-Spirit". To perceive "perceive" (pun intended), the rest of the context would have to convey "God's sovereign choice". The context says "whoever believes in Him may have eternal life" (15, 16). Further, a distinction is made between those who love darkness/evil, and those who love truth. The phrasing does not convey "God chose who WOULD love evil and who WOULD love truth" --- rather, it reads as though the choice, is causal.

"Those who do evil hate the light, and do not come to the light lest their evil deeds be exposed. But he who practices truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be shown wrought in God."

Under the concept of "Sovereign-regeneration", both perception AND desire change; thus, desire to come into the light is consequential. And desire for sin, ALSO is consequential to God's sovereign choice, even if only subordinate to God's NEGLECT (not sovereignly electing and monergistically regenerating).

Verses 19-21 do not read as "consequential", but rather "causal". Do you agree that "see-PERCEIVE" necessitates alignment with "those who have not been renewed will hate the light, those who have been renewed will naturally seek the light"? So when we read "those who love evil avoid the exposure of light, those who love truth eagerly come to the light", it supports "see-ENTER".

Quote:
First of all, Nicodemus didn't understand a thing Jesus said. Second of all, Jesus didn't mean "enter" when He said idein. He meant "perceive".​

In every other case of "idein", the meaning is "look-at" (participate). 37 other occurrances. Do you admit that a case of ONE deviation, is less credible than "non-deviation"?

Quote:
You have no argument here. There is absolutely no reason why perceive doesn't fit the context.​

I gave you A.T.Robertson (linked again on request) --- can you give me any Greek commentary that supports "perceive"?

QUote:
Once again, you are assuming the physical; yet Jesus taught the opposite about "the kingdom of God". You still have yet to answer me on what you think "the kingdom of God" is in light of Luke, and why it should be considered physical. It fits just as well that one must be born again to be able to "perceive" the things which allow him to "enter" into the Kingdom of God (salvation). Nowhere does the context disable that view and in fact, they support it. YOUR view doesn't make sense Ben. If the kingdom of God is not physical then there is nothing to behold. Sorry, it just can't make sense.​

As I said, the NASV cross-reference on "kingdom of God", in both verses (Jn3:3 & 6), link to Matt19:24, Mt21:31, Mk9:47, Mk10:14. All of these refer to a physical place.

Quote:
Look, there is not one translation out there that has the translation "perceive".​

That should be significant...

Quote:
But how many other verses are there that have been falsely, or let's say "not totally accurately" translated? Just because the scholars don't see the context doesn't mean they are right. Some of the Greek scholars interpret solely on etymology and their biased opinions. The fact is that context cannot be reconciled with your opinion. Once you understand just what "the kingdom of God" is, you cannot possibly understand idein to mean "physically behold", because there is nothing to physically behold. The Kingdom of God is internal, inside of you. You can't see it; it is neither here nor there, yet you do not respond to that. I think you don't have an answer...​

I still see no reason to disconnect verse 3, from verse 5.

Quote:
And? I "entered" into the kingdom of God and so did you Ben... when we became justified by faith we became a part of it. Enter doesn't necessitate physical action. You can "enter" into a covenant with someone just the same, can't you? That's not something physical. Your argument is weak.​

No, Matt21:31 and Mk9:47 especially say "GET there".

Quote:
You need to prove that the kingdom of God is a physical place, otherwise I have the stronger argument.​

It's a physical place in Matt21:31 and Mk9:47 especially.

But perhaps the resolution of our discussion, is in Jn3:19-21. Do men avoid the light because they love evil, or because they have not been renewed --- and conversely do men COME to the light because they've been renewed, or because they love truth? If "see" means "perceive", then consistency requires the connected perception of "coming/avoiding light, because of renewal/non-renewal".

I don't see that; I see "avoid the light BECAUSE they love evil, and enter the light BECAUSE they love truth".

Make sense?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
One tell-tale thing he does is to disappear when he's cornered. I know his methods well. I can always tell when I've cornered him, because suddenly he won't answer my questions, and/or stops posting in the thread. Just in several of the threads recently, I have asked pointed questions, and he has yet to answer any of them.​

If I reply to arguments, I generally reply point by point; comprehensively answering every assertion.

...and then get charged with "you admit you don't really READ all of other people's posts".

AND get charged with "burying the discussion under multiple verses".

If something happens in the "real world" --- say I have to work late, or attend my aging parents or siblings --- I get charged with "running away" --- even though I've always come BACK and ANSWERED questions.

Please, tell me --- where is the "WIN" for me? There is none. Whatever I do, I'm condemned.

 

[nobdysfool]

Please, tell me --- where is the "WIN" for me? There is none. Whatever I do, I'm condemned.

Now you know how some of us feel.....

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Now you know how some of us feel.....​

I don't understand that --- where have I made you feel like that? I strive very hard to be respectful, kind and loving. You know that the charges against me ("not-reading", "burying", and "running-away"), have really been made.

Quote:
Just in several of the threads recently, I have asked pointed questions, and he has yet to answer any of them.
​

In between working, running errands, working staff stuff (generally from the library), and "real world", there are posts that I intend to respond to but they get lost from me. Link me or re-ask, and I'll answer, if I haven't.

 

[frumanchu]

...and then get charged with "you admit you don't really READ all of other people's posts".

Just for clarification, that is more or less a direct quote. You did actually say during one of these threads way back that you don't always read through posts, particularly long ones.

Just wanted to clarify that because I know it's come up several times.

 

[moonbeam]

Just for clarification, that is more or less a direct quote. You did actually say during one of these threads way back that you don't always read through posts, particularly long ones.

Just wanted to clarify that because I know it's come up several times.

Greetings bro...good to see you back on line

You are correct in your comments above...I have seen mr johnson state the section bolded above myself...you are definately telling the truth [as is normal practice for you]

 

[Ryan897]

im prolly just thinking to simple here. but if you accept jesus. now im viewing this as a contract (crude and only usefull as a point of view). ok the deal is i accept God (jesus) and i get to go to heaven (basic out line). now OSAS meens i could go kill/rape/rob/ etc. and still go to heaven with out making or trying not to give into worldy things. but what i belive is like a legal contract if you break the terms on the contract the contract is no longer viable. and one of the terms would be to fallow jesus and his teachings and be rid of sin. (as much as humanly possable). hence forth after accepting jesus you broke the "law"/"aggrement" so you dont get to go to heaven untill you truely accept and belive in jesus. and really if in the 1st place you did truly accept and belive in jesus you shouldent have to worry about osas besause you wont sin

if none of this makes sense by all meens ignore me i tend to make things jummbled in random stuff...

 

[Ben johnson]

Hi, Ryan. I'm not aware of anyone here who thinks "one can kill/rape/rob/ect.", and still stroll through the gates of Heaven. That view IS part of "Antinomianism", but not aware of anyone here who espouses it.

There are three separate and distinct views of OSAS:
1. Antinomianism --- salvation is "relationship" but not necessarly "fellowship" with God; one can be fornicating, drunken, stealing, even murdering, but will still enter Heaven.

2. Reformed Theology (Calvinism) --- salvation is God's sovereign choice, He monergistically regenerates a person SO THAT he can THEN believe; belief flows irresistibly from God's sovereign choice --- and that regeneration inclines his heart towards righteousness, not towards willful sin. Those not "sovereignly-elected", CANNOT believe, not in a saved sense anyway.

3. Eternal Security --- salvation is man's choice, ALL men CAN be saved ("unlimited atonement"); but once "IN", either the heart is too changed to ever DIS-believe, or God dynamically interferes to PREVENT apostasy (sometimes taking the person's life).

QUote:
if none of this makes sense by all means ignore me i tend to make things jumbled in random stuff...​

You are more than welcome here, and valued.

 

[frumanchu]

2. Reformed Theology (Calvinism) --- salvation is God's sovereign choice, He monergistically regenerates a person SO THAT he can THEN believe; belief flows irresistibly from God's sovereign choice --- and that regeneration inclines his heart towards righteousness, not towards willful sin. Those not "sovereignly-elected", CANNOT believe, not in a saved sense anyway.

Actually, what you describe is more along the lines of the Reformed doctrine of Irresistible Grace. The Reformed "OSAS" view is the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints (the 'P' in the TULIP acrostic). This doctrine is thus explained in Chapter XVII of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

CHAPTER XVII.

Of The Perseverance of the Saints.

I. They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

II. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free-will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

III. Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevelancy of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their perseverance, fall into grievous sins; ad for a time continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon theselves.

In short, the doctrind of Perseverance is the logical outworking of the doctrine of election, whereby God preserves the believer in their faith, preventing them from any full or final apostasy through the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Well, the context does repeat --- "water-spirit", is repeated with "flesh-spirit". Why is it a stretch to see another "repeated narrative", between these two?
"Unless you are born-from-above, you cannot see the kingdom."
"Unless you are born ...of the Spirit, you cannot enter into the kingdom."

It is stretch because it is not emphatically stated by Jesus. In verse 6 Jesus literally spells out what he meant in verse 5-

Jhn 3:5 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.
Jhn 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

But in verse 5 he does not state that what he actually meant in verse 3 was what he said in verse 5. You can continue making that argument all you like Ben but I won't have it. They are two separate ideas. I think what is happening here is that Jesus states verse 3, and it goes way over Nicodemus' head. So Jesus "puts the cookies on the lower shelf" for him, and states something that should be much easier for him to understand. But even that goes over his head-

Jhn 3:9 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?"
Jhn 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

Jesus in a way is saying "you're the teacher of Israel and you aren't born again???"

That interpretation is supported by the next verse -

Jhn 3:11 "Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.
Jhn 3:12 "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Exactly my point - Jesus told has told him all he needs to know, yet Nicodemus does not believe. Why? Because he must be born again. How is it that you pass over this Ben? It's staring you right in the face...

It is no stretch to see equality between "born-from-above", and "born-of-the-Spirit". To perceive "perceive" (pun intended), the rest of the context would have to convey "God's sovereign choice". The context says "whoever believes in Him may have eternal life" (15, 16). Further, a distinction is made between those who love darkness/evil, and those who love truth. The phrasing does not convey "God chose who WOULD love evil and who WOULD love truth" --- rather, it reads as though the choice, is causal.

The choice is causal. You are stating the average view of Calvinism from an outsider's point of view. The choice is causal within the decree, but not apart from the decree.

Honestly I think your point is getting off topic. Unless the verse specifically pertains to verse 3 or 5 then I am not going to answer it. We are not talking about election or causality but regeneration. Yes of course they are all interwoven, which is why I want to stay focused.

You are on the right track though, that if see means perceive, then all of Calvinism is basically proven, because if regeneration must precede justification then election is true. It's good that you realize that, since that is partially why I chose this verse. I find it somewhat humorous that you state as a reason for not accepting the interpretation "perceive" is that it proves election. lol. Maybe instead of arguing against it you can try to accept it? If I can prove that is what this passage teaches, will you just turn your head and continue in error?

"Those who do evil hate the light, and do not come to the light lest their evil deeds be exposed. But he who practices truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be shown wrought in God."

Under the concept of "Sovereign-regeneration", both perception AND desire change; thus, desire to come into the light is consequential. And desire for sin, ALSO is consequential to God's sovereign choice, even if only subordinate to God's NEGLECT (not sovereignly electing and monergistically regenerating).

Verses 19-21 do not read as "consequential", but rather "causal". Do you agree that "see-PERCEIVE" necessitates alignment with "those who have not been renewed will hate the light, those who have been renewed will naturally seek the light"? So when we read "those who love evil avoid the exposure of light, those who love truth eagerly come to the light", it supports "see-ENTER".

No, no, no. You forget that God is outside of time, Ben. Is God not great enough, that when He spoke here in 19-21 that those who spoke would be swooned by the Spirit, that the words would move them and He would regenerate them and they would respond irresistably in faith? The thing you're not seeing is that in the moment, when you place faith in God, you obviously aren't aware of the regeneration or work of the Spirit. It seems like something you have done on your own. Jesus calls people to be saved, but needs not to mention that they must be regenerated. Why? Because they have no causality in their regeneration! Those who are regenerated will understand the words of Jesus. Your claim represents a misunderstanding of God and Calvinism. The verse assumes regeneration. In fact, the entire bible assumes depravity and regeneration, much like it's own authority and authenticity.

Once again, may I say that you are getting off topic. Quoting verses that seem to promote the causal power of the human are not a proof for your view and you know it. Calvinists can easily explain away such a claim. What I specifically want to stick to is:

1. What is the kingdom of heaven?
2. Why does see mean perceive vs. enter

I gave you A.T.Robertson (linked again on request) --- can you give me any Greek commentary that supports "perceive"?

Yes, as I already have, I can give you proof that the word "idein" can mean mental or spiritual perception. However, I cannot provide a greek commentary which supports "perceive" in John 3:3. While on the surface this may make my view look bad, it actually doesn't matter. I have already mentioned this; as long as the word can possibly mean "perceive", then the context can be the decider. I have already shown how context necessitates it. I think the reason why most commentators gloss over "see" is because they don't realize the importance in what Jesus is saying, and at first glance, it seems to make sense to translate it "see". This is why in most of the greek commentaries I have read, including the one you quoted, they seem to just gloss over the verse, as though "see" is a given. It shows their lack of understanding for context and their concern for etymology only.

As I said before, if I can prove that "the kingdom of God" is not a physical place, then I have proven the point. It doesn't matter what any greek scholar says about the word, the context necessitates it.

As I said, the NASV cross-reference on "kingdom of God", in both verses (Jn3:3 & 6), link to Matt19:24, Mt21:31, Mk9:47, Mk10:14. All of these refer to a physical place.

Wrong.

Mat 19:24 "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Mat 19:25 When the disciples heard {this,} they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?"

Mat 21:31 "Which of the two did the will of his father?" They *said, "The first." Jesus *said to them, "Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you.

Mar 9:47 "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell,

Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

You are reading into the passages, Ben. Because the word "enter" is used does not mean that "the kingdom of God" is physical. As I have already stated, the greek word for "enter" does not necessitate a physical entrance. It may also be added that Jesus spoke in many parables; if He did portray the kingdom of God as physical, then He was doing so that the people would understand (putting the cookies on the lower shelf). But I think His statement in Luke is pretty precise on what He actually taught the Kingdom of God is:

Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

within you, gr. entos humon

entos-
1) within, inside
a) within you i.e. in the midst of you
b) within you i.e. your soul

humon-
1) of yours

Here we have an emphatic statement of Christ, stating "behold, the kingdom of God is within you". If you wish to use parables and lessons of Jesus to support your view of "the kingdom of God" instead of an emphatic statement He made about it, then that is your business, but I clearly have the stronger argument and stronger support with this verse.

I still see no reason to disconnect verse 3, from verse 5.

Because two different words are used. See cannot equal enter, because that is not what "idein" means. You can say that all you like but you can't change that the word used is "idein".

Further, even if "see" should be "enter", it STILL proves my point. You believe regeneration is a result of justification. Yet we have Jesus saying that it is prior -

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see/enter the kingdom of God."

If Kingdom of God is equated with salvation (as it should be), then one must be born again before he enters, correct? The word "unless" shows that entrance into the kingdom is conditional upon your being born again. This means that one must be born again before he can be justified and be saved. So your argument for see=enter does nothing for you either.

No, Matt21:31 and Mk9:47 especially say "GET there".

It's a physical place in Matt21:31 and Mk9:47 especially.

Jesus may be referring to it as an actual place so that they may understand... but Nicodemus proved that he, being a "master of Israel" didn't understand the concept, and therefore, who else would? Jesus is speaking that they may understand, and "portraying" the kingdom as a place. But He definitely is not making an emphatic statement on what the Kingdom of God is in those verses. I believe Luke 17 is the end-all on what Jesus taught the Kingdom of God actually was.

But perhaps the resolution of our discussion, is in Jn3:19-21. Do men avoid the light because they love evil, or because they have not been renewed --- and conversely do men COME to the light because they've been renewed, or because they love truth? If "see" means "perceive", then consistency requires the connected perception of "coming/avoiding light, because of renewal/non-renewal".

I don't see that; I see "avoid the light BECAUSE they love evil, and enter the light BECAUSE they love truth".

Make sense?

Yes, but either one works for my cause; if you say they avoid the light because the love evil then I will agree. If you say enter the light because they love the truth then I will agree. But I must say that no one avoids the light who is truly saved, and no one comes to the light who is evil, due to the condition of their heart and mind. It is not something that can changed by themselves-

Eph 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins...

that is, dead before they came to know the Lord. How did they come to know the Lord?

Eph 2:4-5 But God... even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ...

If that doesn't sound like an act of God, then I don't know what else to tell you Ben. Those who avoid the light are "by nature children of wrath", and those who enter the light are those who were made alive together with Christ when they were dead in their transgressions. One MUST be regenerated before he can enter into the light, that is, "the kingdom of God".

I believe I have nailed this point down so far that it has simply been proven and there is no pulling the nail back up. Any rejection is simply a dodging of the argument in order to continue in error. This is is what I wasnt a specific response to:

1. What Jesus meant in Luke 17, and how it relates to John 3
2. What you believe the "kingdom of God" is in light of scripture (Luke 17)
3. According to what the "kingdom of God" is, how this effects your view of regeneration in John 3.

 

[Ryan897]

ok i talkied to my pastor and this was his view

he belives that once you take jesuse into your heart unless you denounce him that he is forever in your heart. but that does not meen your going to heaven. if you sin after you take jesus into your heart then sin as you must repent and truly meen it.

this kinda makes sense but idk if it helps any..

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

ok i talkied to my pastor and this was his view

he belives that once you take jesuse into your heart unless you denounce him that he is forever in your heart. but that does not meen your going to heaven. if you sin after you take jesus into your heart then sin as you must repent and truly meen it.

this kinda makes sense but idk if it helps any..

Well, you may wish to ask your pastor a few questions. Like how does sin condemn us who are in Christ?

Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us ALL our transgressions,

that is, past/present/future-

Col 2:14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

We have no debt to pay. There is no charge against us. Christ took our sin and nailed it to the cross, and now we how are Christians can no longer be condemned for that sin-

Rom 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

We who are saved are God's elect, and-

Rom 8:33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect?

Further, we who have been saved have been justified as righteous. Romans says this -

Rom 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

We who have been saved, have positionally been glorified. In the greek, it is spoken of as a past act, portraying something that is certain to happen. If this is the case, then anyone who has been justified as righteous (saved) will be glorified and and enter into the kingdom of heaven for eternity.

You can be sure of your salvation! Others may tell you otherwise, that you must live in fear, but the bible teaches that once you place true saving, work-producing faith in Christ, you are His forever. And He doesn't lose those who are His-

Jhn 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
Jhn 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
Jhn 6:39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
Jhn 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Those who come to Jesus are the ones given by the father. It is the will of the Father that Jesus lose none that were given to Him. Jesus comes to do the will of the father and promises the ones who were given to Him will be raised up on the last day.

If you believe that those who come to Jesus can eventually be lost, then you are denying Christ's ability to do the will of the Father, to "keep all that has been given" to Him.

I believe your pastor is wrong. You may want to reevaluate His guidance.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Ryan897:
ok i talked to my pastor and this was his view

he believes that once you take Jesus into your heart unless you denounce Him that He is forever in your heart. but that does not meen you're going to heaven. if you sin after you take Jesus into your heart then ...you must repent and truly mean it.

this kinda makes sense but idk if it helps any..​

Hi, "Ryan". I mostly agree with you --- as Jesus said, "Unless you REPENT, you will perish!" Lk13:3 (5)

...but there's a much deeper understanding...


Repentance is absolutely necessary; we perish without it. But what if there is ONE sin, that you FORGET about? Do you think you'll stand before Jesus one day, and He will slam a "WRONG-BUZZER", saying: "OH too bad, you forgot one; you're OUTTA HERE!"?

He will not.

This is the deeper understanding:

Salvation is not a belief.
It is not a work.
It is not a doctrine.
It is not a dogma.
It is not a list of Do's, and don'ts.

It is not WHAT you know; it is WHO you know.

A person does far more than just "believe in Jesus" --- as James says, "Even DEMONS believe, and tremble" (James2:19). Salvation begins with belief; but a believer invites the real person of Jesus into his heart. AND the real person of the Holy Spirit.

It's a real communion between Creator, and creature (you and me!). What happens when the Spirit enters a person's heart? He regenerates that person. No longer do we walk in sin, but by His power IN us, we walk in righteousness.

This is the essence of salvation; we do not struggle to make ourselves "good enough for God" (righteous) --- we realize that He DIED for us, YOU and ME --- just as we were. Sinful, rotten, worthless. Then, HE brings CHANGE.

Most of life's battles (and all spiritual ones) are won, by filling ourselves full of Him, claiming the victory that was already won long ago, atop the Cross.

As James says in ch4, "Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you. Submit yourselves therefore to God; resist the devil and he will flee from you; draw near to God and He will draw near to you!"

"Repentance", is not an ACT, nor a NUMBER of acts. It is an ATTITUDE. We do not so much repent of SINS, but of SIN. Thus, there is no "forgotten sin that will destroy us." The essence of salvation, is communion with God; a true indwelt fellowship of love.

This is why the veil tore, the moment He died; behind the veil is the very presence of ALMIGHTY GOD. Now --- washed pure by His blood, YOU are invited THERE, behind the veil! He delights in your company, Ryan; He enjoys you. His thoughts of you number more than the grains of sand!

Him-in-your-heart --- that's what eternity is. "Love", is a PERSON (see 1Jn4:16). The greatest commandment is to love Him with all that we are. Then, He becomes our righteousness in us. We are repentant because He is IN us!

Does that make sense? So many people never KNOW Him; prayer is our "knowing" --- but they only pray "pettition". That is one facet of prayer, but it is last and least. Prayer should be:

1. Praise/worship; He inhabits praise --- when we praise Him He inhabits us. Lift His name above all, exalt Him -- He is WORTHY!

2. Thanksgiving. Both James and Peter say "humble yourselves, and He will exalt you." When we are thankful, it is impossible not to be humble. I really think the root of sin is "unthankfullness". What do you have, that was not given you by Him? You were born with nothing, you will die with nothing; all you have, is a blessing.

3. Repentance -- God has a flaw; He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent --- He is PERFECT. Except in one way. When He forgives your sin, He has a bad memory; He forgets you ever sinned. We ask forgiveness for the wrong we've done, even if only because He says it's wrong. And we ask with the certainty that He FORGIVES us. See 1Jn1:7-8!

4. Intercession. The opposite of Christianity, is selfishness. When we're praying our hearts out for our friends, loved-ones, and ENEMIES, it is impossible to be selfish. And ironically, usually when we pray for others, we're really asking God "Change ME, into whatever I need to be to share You with them."

5. Prayer of fellowship --- delight in His presence, as He delights in yours. God has a GREAT sense of humor; He laughs at us all the time. Just enjoy His company, and look forward to when Jesus will be here PHYSICALLY.

6. "Waiting on God" --- still your heart mind and soul, and listen for His voice. He rarely talks with words; but seek his guidance, and your soul will feel His presence, and His direction. His answers are "yes", "no", and sometimes "wait" --- but trust Him. WORRY is nothing but lack-of-faith.

7. Last, and least --- pettition. In James4, "You have not, because you do not ask; or you ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly to spend it on your passions." Once again, pettition should be an ASPECT of seeking Him with all that we are. Read Psalm37:4 --- "delight yourselves in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart."

The secret to that, is if we're delighting in Him, His desires will be ours.

THAT is "Christianity"; not what you know, but WHO you know.

It is not a life-long struggle for repentance and works; but rather, growing close to Him, that repentance comes as the CONSEQUENCE.

Read Lk10:17-19; we have power over all the evil ones; yet, that's nothing --- the key is in verse 20. Not gonna tell you what it says, you hafta look it up!

So many people never know God, and sadly therefore He never knows them. As Paul said, "I am crucified with Christ, no longer I who live but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the One who LOVED me and delivered Himself up for me." Gal2:20

Jesus is not our "co-pilot"; He is our Lord, Master, "driver"; and we are willing slaves to His love and joy. It is not a life promised free from trials --- to the contrary, we are promised we will HAVE persecution. But to those who know Him, eternity has already begun in their hearts.

Make sense?

 

[moonbeam]

You are on the right track though, that if see means perceive, then all of Calvinism is basically proven, because if regeneration must precede justification then election is true. It's good that you realize that, since that is partially why I chose this verse. I find it somewhat humorous that you state as a reason for not accepting the interpretation "perceive" is that it proves election. lol. Maybe instead of arguing against it you can try to accept it? If I can prove that is what this passage teaches, will you just turn your head and continue in error?

You are doing an excellent job of de-constructing mr johnsons fallacious arguments and mis-interpretations of scripture....however....this last portion of your comment above will be the end result [as others have warned you of in PM] and is indicative of the methodologies and intent employed by our mutual enemy [you know who I mean]..as I have explained elsewhere.

will you just turn your head and continue in error?

I do believe it is about "now" that you are beginning to realize that your above comment is "being" answered in the affirmative...as will be further established in mr johnsons next post.

As I said before, if I can prove that "the kingdom of God" is not a physical place, then I have proven the point. It doesn't matter what any greek scholar says about the word, the context necessitates it.

To continue with the above theme....What the context necessitates is that mr johnson continue to deny the obvious truth revealed by it...as you are beginning to realize yourself.

Here we have an emphatic statement of Christ, stating "behold, the kingdom of God is within you". If you wish to use parables and lessons of Jesus to support your view of "the kingdom of God" instead of an emphatic statement He made about it, then that is your business, but I clearly have the stronger argument and stronger support with this verse.

You certainly do have the stronger argument and stronger support for this verse..this is the natural consequence and inherent benefit that the truth provides...however...that is now, and allways has been in the past...insufficient reason for mr johnson to desist from propogating his errors...that for reasons I have previously explained [you know what I mean]

I believe I have nailed this point down so far that it has simply been proven and there is no pulling the nail back up. Any rejection is simply a dodging of the argument in order to continue in error.

Correct again...this last portion of your above statement is quite accurate..Any rejection is simply a dodging of the argument in order to continue in error.

As you are realizing now...such is indeed the case...for the reasons I have previously explained...and as you have been warned of in PM [according to your own testimony]

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
It is stretch because it is not emphatically stated by Jesus. In verse 6 Jesus literally spells out what he meant in verse 5-

Jhn 3:5 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.
Jhn 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

But in verse 5 he does not state that what he actually meant in verse 3 was what he said in verse 5. You can continue making that argument all you like Ben but I won't have it. They are two separate ideas. I think what is happening here is that Jesus states verse 3, and it goes way over Nicodemus' head. So Jesus "puts the cookies on the lower shelf" for him, and states something that should be much easier for him to understand. But even that goes over his head-​

There are those who insist that "born of water", is "waterbaptism". This is divergent to the train of Jesus' thought. The idea of "perceive/born-again", rather than just repeating "enter/born-again", appears to me just as divergent.

In the 38 occurrances of "Idein", you and I agree that 37 mean "see/meet". If you had never heard of "Predestination" or "Responsible Grace", would it occur to you that "see" didn't mean "physically see"?

Quote:
Jhn 3:9 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?"
Jhn 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

Jesus in a way is saying "you're the teacher of Israel and you aren't born again???"​

No --- "born again" is the New Covenant; when Jesus spoke with Nicodemus, the Old Covenant ("Law") was still in effect.

Quote:
That interpretation is supported by the next verse -

Jhn 3:11 "Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.
Jhn 3:12 "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?​

Look at the dymanic --- it is exactly the same as in Jn5:39-47; Moses spoke of Jesus --- but if they didn't believe Moses, HOW would they believe Jesus?

Do you deny that by "Sovereign Predestination", belief is predestined, and consequential to regeneration? This is the problem with "see = perceive".

You're thinking that to UNDERSTAND Heaven, they must be ENLIGHTENED. And then you don't see the conflict when Jesus says "How can you be a teacher, and not understand these things?

AND, you don't see the conflict of Jesus rebuking Nicodemus for NOT understanding, if that understanding is ONLY by God's CHOICE!

For clarity --- why would Jesus say "You must be born again", if "born again" is fully God's SOVEREIGN CHOICE and Nicodemus had NOTHING to DO with it? Why did Jesus make the statement?

Follow my logic:
1. Jesus knew that Nicodemus had not yet been "Born again", and He said "you must be", knowing that it's up to GOD who and when to BE "born again". What was the point of the statement? If understanding is sovereignly-decreed, then the rebuke was wasted.

2. If Nick was NOT to be "born again", why would Jesus waste the words on someone who COULD NEVER understand?

The problem is that you do not take Jesus' rebukes, as literal. Look at Bethsaida, Capernaum, and Chorazin (Matt11:21-24). Jesus rebuked them for NOT believing --- saying, "If TYRE and SIDON had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED! If even SODOM had seen these miracles, Sodom would have remained 'til today. It will go better for THEM in the Judgment, than for YOU!"

Here is zero "sovereign-understanding", and 100% rebuke for NOT believing. That is, refusing to believe. And that's another (excellent) reason why the whole concept of "gifted-understanding" does not work.

Quote:
Exactly my point - Jesus told has told him all he needs to know, yet Nicodemus does not believe. Why? Because he must be born again. How is it that you pass over this Ben? It's staring you right in the face... ​

No --- Jesus rebuked him for not knowing; and that cannot fit a paradigm of "Knowing is sovereignly GIFTED".

Quote:
The choice is causal. You are stating the average view of Calvinism from an outsider's point of view. The choice is causal within the decree, but not apart from the decree. ​

Calvinists overlook certain contradictions. By thinking "a man's will CONSEQUENTS from his nature; either SINFUL will if unregenerate, or BELIEVING will if sovereignly-regenerated" --- Calvinists miss the fact that a will that ALWAYS follows God's sovereign regeneration (or NOT), is limited to God's decree, and is not free.

But that aside --- it is a against His words to think that "men come to the light BECAUSE of sovereign regeneration, and avoid the light BECAUSE of sovereign unelection", when the text plainly states "their desire decides their coming-to-light or not". "Consequential-coming" is not what He said. Look at how Acts10:34-35 fits into this idea:
"God is not partial, but he WHO fears God AND does right, is WELCOME." Clearly reverence of God and right-seeking, is acceptible to God; the opposite is "partiality that God is NOT".

What is the "opposite", Jesusfreak? It would be, by definition, God welcoming those who do NOT revere Him and do NOT seek righteousness. It is not credible to think "Oh He regenerates them and then they revere/seek and THEN He welcomes them"; "welcomes", means "receives", "accepts" --- and sovereign regeneration would make Him welcome/choose BEFORE they revered/sought.

Quote:
Honestly I think your point is getting off topic. Unless the verse specifically pertains to verse 3 or 5 then I am not going to answer it. We are not talking about election or causality but regeneration. Yes of course they are all interwoven, which is why I want to stay focused.​

I'm simply saying there is no reason to think "see", is "perceive". Jesus would not have wasted those words on someone who needed to BE regenerated (but had not yet --- and you cannot deny the "not yet"), especially when regeneration would enlighten him to that truth, ANYWAY. What would be the point of saying what an unregenerate could never understand, and what a regenerate could not MIS-understand?

The point of a rebuke, is to turn someone. You're asserting "the turning is a sovereign, monergistic action, by God." I think you can begin to see why I find that non-Scriptural...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
You are on the right track though, that if see means perceive, then all of Calvinism is basically proven, because if regeneration must precede justification then election is true.​

The word "regeneration", is rare in Scripture; it really only appears as such, in Titus 3:5-6. And that passage establishes that regeneration is by the POURED Spirit --- and "poured" is 100% by belief.

Quote:
It's good that you realize that, since that is partially why I chose this verse. I find it somewhat humorous that you state as a reason for not accepting the interpretation "perceive" is that it proves election. lol. Maybe instead of arguing against it you can try to accept it? If I can prove that is what this passage teaches, will you just turn your head and continue in error?​

No, I didn't; in context, their "seeking", is "causal" --- not "consequential". A rebuke is a rebuke, is intented to turn.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
No, no, no. You forget that God is outside of time, Ben. Is God not great enough, that when He spoke here in 19-21 that those who spoke would be swooned by the Spirit, that the words would move them and He would regenerate them and they would respond irresistably in faith? The thing you're not seeing is that in the moment, when you place faith in God, you obviously aren't aware of the regeneration or work of the Spirit. It seems like something you have done on your own. Jesus calls people to be saved, but needs not to mention that they must be regenerated. Why? Because they have no causality in their regeneration! Those who are regenerated will understand the words of Jesus. Your claim represents a misunderstanding of God and Calvinism. The verse assumes regeneration. In fact, the entire bible assumes depravity and regeneration, much like it's own authority and authenticity.​

Each passage that's thought to assert "too depraved to believe", has been refuted in that thinking. Jer17:9 has, 1Cor2:14 has, 2Cor4:3-4 has, Mark4:11-12 has. So has Ezk36:26-27. Nowhere is "regeneration", apart from the received Spirit.

It is "belief" that receives the Spirit. And (then) His regeneration. You're right, we have nothing to do with "regeneration" --- just as we have nothing to do with "begottenness" (see Jn1:13); but we have everything to do with receiving the Spirit (and therefore His regeneration), just as we have everything to do with RECEIVING begottenness when we believe/receive Jesus. See Jn1:12.

Quote:
Once again, may I say that you are getting off topic. Quoting verses that seem to promote the causal power of the human are not a proof for your view and you know it. Calvinists can easily explain away such a claim. What I specifically want to stick to is:

1. What is the kingdom of heaven?​

I think that really, in every case Kingdom-of-God means "physical place" (Heaven, and/or where Jesus reigns). In Mk1:15 Jesus is speaking of Himself, but as the means to Heaven. In Mk9:47 it's an actual place --- contrasted with the OTHER place, the Lake of Fire. Mark14:25, Lk13:28&29.

In Lk17:21 ("the kingdom of God is within you") --- this conveys that CHRIST is in you, therefore through Him you have the kingdom. ("He who HAS the Son, HAS the eternal life!" 1Jn5:12 "The Kingdom", conveys "salvation" --- yet it is a physical place, the place WHERE he reigns.

"The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and forever." Rev11:15

Quote:
2. Why does see mean perceive vs. enter​

I've answered, but you don't like the answer; in all the other occurrances of "idein" (37 of 'em), they mean "see/greet/participate". ROBERTSON agrees --- and he taught doctoral level Greek. Your saying "one deviation is fully possible" would be more credible, if there weren't so many "see-participate" verses (and if there was even ONE "see-perceive").

Now let's speak of Luke9:27: "There are some standing here who will not taste death until they SEE the kingdom of God."

What does "see" mean in that verse? Perceive, or physically-look-at?