Receiving the gift of conception

[Skala]

How can we receive the gift of conception?

I mean, we haven't even been conceived yet, so how can we do anything to either assist or deny the gift of being conceived by our parents?

Yet this is how certain soteriologies on these forums think salvation works.

 

[FreeGrace2]

How can we receive the gift of conception?

I mean, we haven't even been conceived yet, so how can we do anything to either assist or deny the gift of being conceived by our parents?

Yet this is how certain soteriologies on these forums think salvation works.

First, the notion that conception is some kind of gift is off base. Where does that come from?

Conception is the joining of a sperm and egg, with the resultant proliferation of cells that develop into a human body. Where's the gift, specifically?

And, more importantly, why would anyone call that joining a gift?

So, to the first question, it is bogus. No one receives the gift of conception.

Second, why would anyone compare the creation of a human life with salvation, which leads to regeneration, or spiritual life? What verse or passage supports such a comparison?

Regeneration isn't a gift, which is missed by the OP. It's an action of God whereby the human spirit is regenerated in order for the Holy Spirit to have a dwelling place in the believer, and allows the believer proper worship (Jn 4:24) of God. Those without a human spirit cannot worship God properly. And there is no place for the Holy Spirit to reside apart from a human spirit.

Can anyone imagine the Holy Spirit residing in a garbage dump? Or cess pool?

No, that's why God regenerates the dead (Eph 2:1) human spirit.

Finally, the OP's last statement is also false, by equating regeneration with salvation. They aren't the same. They occur together, but are different concepts.

 

[bling]

How can we receive the gift of conception?

I mean, we haven't even been conceived yet, so how can we do anything to either assist or deny the gift of being conceived by our parents?

Yet this is how certain soteriologies on these forums think salvation works.

No one believes you have to receive “the gift of conception” to complete the transaction, so is that a “straw man” you created?
We do understand how you must humbly accept God’s charity prior to the gift being received or the transaction is not complete, but do you say: “After the gift is “given and received” you can humbly accept it”?
That sounds more like the analogy of humbly accepting conception you are presenting?

 

[Skala]

First, the notion that conception is some kind of gift is off base. Where does that come from?

Conception is the joining of a sperm and egg, with the resultant proliferation of cells that develop into a human body. Where's the gift, specifically?

And, more importantly, why would anyone call that joining a gift?

So, to the first question, it is bogus. No one receives the gift of conception.

Second, why would anyone compare the creation of a human life with salvation, which leads to regeneration, or spiritual life? What verse or passage supports such a comparison?

Regeneration isn't a gift, which is missed by the OP. It's an action of God whereby the human spirit is regenerated in order for the Holy Spirit to have a dwelling place in the believer, and allows the believer proper worship (Jn 4:24) of God. Those without a human spirit cannot worship God properly. And there is no place for the Holy Spirit to reside apart from a human spirit.

Can anyone imagine the Holy Spirit residing in a garbage dump? Or cess pool?

No, that's why God regenerates the dead (Eph 2:1) human spirit.

Finally, the OP's last statement is also false, by equating regeneration with salvation. They aren't the same. They occur together, but are different concepts.

Well, the Bible describes spiritual life as a gift. If you aren't spiritually alive, how can you do something to accept the gift of spiritual life?

If you aren't physically alive, how can you do something to accept the gift of physical life?

My point is, the Bible uses the analogy of "death and life" (and not sickness and medicine) for a reason.

Being made alive is something God must do, not something we help ourselves do. To say the latter is to destroy the meaning of the Apostle's analogy. (and Christ's analogy of birth in John 3)

 

[stenerson]

Being made alive is something God must do, not something we help ourselves do. To say the latter is to destroy the meaning of the Apostle's analogy. (and Christ's analogy of birth in John 3)

It couldn't be any clearer. That's the language that Christ Himself used.
Nicodemus was confused and offended by this analogy. Most people are.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Well, the Bible describes spiritual life as a gift. If you aren't spiritually alive, how can you do something to accept the gift of spiritual life?

Well, if it does, what verse says so? The Bible describes eternal life as a gift, which is received by faith in Christ.

If you aren't physically alive, how can you do something to accept the gift of physical life?

Nonsensical and irrelevant question.

Being made alive is something God must do, not something we help ourselves do.

This isn't in dispute. God saves, God regenerates. Man does neither. But man must believe.

 

[Skala]

Nonsensical and irrelevant question.

It's not irrelevant. The analogy of "spiritual death and life" has no meaning unless you first consider what it means to be physically dead and alive. The bible authors chose the theme of "Death and life" for a reason.

This isn't in dispute. God saves, God regenerates. Man does neither. But man must believe.

Yes, man must. It is man's responsibility to believe.
But no where does it say you are born again by your act of believing. Again....don't ignore the "death/life" theme.

The question we must ask is "What activities can physically dead men do?" Can they do anything physical?

Then we must ask "What activities can spiritually dead men do?" Can they do anything spiritual?

If you answer "yes" to this second question, then you have destroyed the analogy of death that the author specifically chose. "Spiritual death" literally has no important meaning or implications if you just ignore the fact that it is a type of death.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yes, man must. It is man's responsibility to believe.
But no where does it say you are born again by your act of believing.

Since I never said that anyone is either saved or born again by one's act of believing, all this is irrelevant.

The question we must ask is "What activities can physically dead men do?" Can they do anything physical?

Nothing, obviously.

Then we must ask "What activities can spiritually dead men do?" Can they do anything spiritual?

Great question. Jesus answered that Himself:

John 5:25
“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Spiritually dead men can hear the voice of the Son of God, and by hearing, will live.

[QUOE]If you answer "yes" to this second question, then you have destroyed the analogy of death that the author specifically chose.[/QUOTE]
Really? Well, tell that to the Lord. I just quoted Him.

"Spiritual death" literally has no important meaning or implications if you just ignore the fact that it is a type of death.

The problem is in the failure to understand what the Bible means by "dead" in general. As in physical death, the soul has separated from the body (James 2:26), so in spiritual death, the person is separated from God.

Problems arise when one tries to put a functional meaning to a concept that is about position, not function.

 

[Skala]

The problem is in the failure to understand what the Bible means by "dead" in general. As in physical death, the soul has separated from the body (James 2:26), so in spiritual death, the person is separated from God.

Problems arise when one tries to put a functional meaning to a concept that is about position, not function.

I never said spiritually dead people don't have cochlea.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I never said spiritually dead people don't have cochlea.

You most certainly implied exactly that by your trying to force "dead" in functional terms, which was my point.

Now, please deal with my point. "Spiritual death" is used in Scripture in a positional sense, not a functional sense.