Sanctification & Calvinism

[Mark Quayle]

I'll still leave you and @John Mullally and/or @fhansen to your discussions and will leave any overall views and philosophies about any isms to you and whoever would like to discuss them.

I'm OK with using the terminology, but I'd first want to ensure an agreed upon definition of terms. I can see what the words mean to the discussion and why they're being used. I know what the mon[o] and sun (syn is a transliteration) prefixes mean and I know they are taking the first 3 letters of the Greek word for "work" - ergon.

Then, within the concept of ergon I'd want to delve into Philippians 2:12-13 and ask whether 2:13 is speaking about God doing the work, or God providing the energy for us to do the work or both God and us working or???. This is what I meant by wanting to immediately discuss the energy & work terminology spoken of in the article I posted for you. So, we'd have to do a little work in Greek words first.

Also, we'd have to make certain we see Salvation in the same way. If anyone I'm discussing this M&S concept with is stuck on the concept of Salvation > Sanctification > Glorification, IOW "salvation" only applies to our initial justification in the Text, then we're not going to get very far in the M&S discussion.

If we agreed to simply focus on M&S in our initial justification, then we might be able to have that discussion, but we may end up with side debates about what some verses speaking of salvation have to do with.

In the end, for me, the discussion has to be about Scriptures - one or a few at a time and not some laundry list. IOW, I've found too many who are versed in some systematic theology represented in some ism, but less who are able to work through the Scriptures and simply want to rest upon others' work. With due respect to the founders of the isms, we're still debating what they were debating, and the Word needs to be the final arbiter. It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree on Scripture other than I know what the disagreement is about and it's not about me being of one ism or another.

I've dealt with @John Mullally and @fhansen so many times, for so long, at such volume, that I tire easily from it. I will give them both credit, they have backed off considerably from their earlier vituperations (and granted, I am not without fault, too), and it is easier to take them seriously now, but still.... there's just too much repetition, too much round and round and around we go. Been there. Done that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And can you admit that God is so far above His creation that he can accomplish His ends by allowing His creation to do as it wills without overtly or completely changing its inclinations? Isn't it obvious that hell could not exist unless for God allowing creation to oppose His own will, hell being the eternal absence of God? Hell is for those who refuse to do His will because they had the choice to do it but refused even as He beckoned and graced and drew and appealed to them. And heaven is for those who say yes, again, without being totally changed in inclination beforehand.

Notice how you speak here in Generalities. God is specific. He chose certain ones. The general fact of depravity and condemnation is not even all on an even level but each according to their works. You speak of "God "allowing" his creation to do..." What really is your problem with God 'causing', as you seemed to admit below is true concerning evil? And I am agreed. To cause that evil come to pass is not the same as to create evil. I do not say he creates evil, in the sense of sin or wrongdoing.

God as the first cause means that, yes, no evil would ever exist if He'd refrained from creating. But that doesn't mean that he created the evil itself but only that He granted the free will which, if freely abused, could result in that evil. He created the playing field. We decide whether or not we'll play by His rules as time, experience, revelation, and grace hopefully sway us to see the superiority of His rules. Otherwise we're back to saying that God is too small to make a truly morally accountable beng; our decisions are meaningless, without moral force; He must pull all the strings instead.

God would only create a world where evil could enter if, at the end of the day, He could bring about an even greater good from that evil which He foreknew and allowed to have its way, for a time determined by Him.

The fact that he caused that there be evil does not imply freewill. If libertarian free will, as I understand it, "uncaused choice", is what you mean by freewill, it is self-contradictory to say that God granted freewill. Not only that, but it is a construction you find necessary to explain choice, because you think choice is not real if it is not uncaused. Or do you have another narrative I have not heard from you?

I completely agree with your last statement, though I would add, that if you were to get an honest answer from Satan, God not only 'allowed' evil to have its way —he caused it to have its way, and that, for God's own purposes. Yeah, Satan isn't a happy camper. EVERY move that Satan does contrary [by way of hate and attempted obstruction] to God's purposes, serves God's purposes. And because of his hatred, Satan can't stop or change his ways. Gotta be frustrating!

I don't know if you heard me describe one time, how a chess game one of my brothers told me about, resembles what happens with Satan. Satan's very nature is what causes him to do what he does, and, I believe, in every specific way and thing he does:

The chess game began simply enough. But at some point very near the beginning, the one player puts a valuable piece out 'foolishly', and after considering all the implications of doing so, the opponent captured it. Then the first player set another out, and the opponent realized that not only was it a good idea to capture this one too, as it, too, was a very valuable piece, but that if he did not take it he would be in check-mate with the next move —he HAD to capture it, or lose the game. This was repeated over and over; his greed at the beginning having set into motion a whole chain of events that by all appearances was ruining the one player's chances of winning, as he was losing players left and right. But, as you might guess, eventually it became plain that the board was not after all entirely controlled by the greedy one, but had come about by the repeated sacrifices of the one player, because the greedy one could not stop doing what he was compelled to do. At the end, the last sacrifice was proffered, and captured, and then the one player moved in with the check-mate, because of the precise arrangement of the few remaining pieces; and the whole time the greedy one never saw that check-mate coming, though he had become aware that he was not after all so in charge of where the game was going as he had thought at first.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God has shown man what is good; God has given that truth to us, within us, from the beginning, along with His own image and likeness that He created us after. So it's not as if we have no direction, no moral compass to begin with. Augustine put it this way, "God wrote on tablets of stone that which man failed to read in his heart".

Man is able to obey, but he will not obey until he freely chooses to do so, and he will not freely choose to obey until he loves: God and neighbor. That's the "goal"; that's where man's purpose, perfection and righteousness lie, which is why the greatest commandments are what they are, incidentally. And that love necessarily, in order to be love, is a choice. Man is obligated to love. And the only way man can do that is to recognize his need, his lack, his sinfulness, and turn to God, in faith-a work of grace and yet a work we can resist and refuse. But as we accept, however weakly that may be at first, God can begin to do His work in us.

This world, this life, is a giant schoolhouse, not a puppet show but the beginning of a journey, a journey to become who God created us to be if we get on board with Him, and remain there. It's a journey towards becoming increasingly like Him, as we will, as we draw nearer and nearer to Him. This is all impossible without grace, and yet He doesn't totally overwhelm us with grace. He coaxes us, not because He has to but because He wants us to "own" our right choices to the extent possible, as any good parent does.

You operate as independent from God, trying to live up to him, with his help, no doubt, but no notion of "for me to live is Christ". That is what I see. Self-determination.

 

[John Mullally]

You don't address the first half of post 107, which I think was the best part of my post. It lays out why pre-faith regeneration is not necessary given that man can repent without having his nature changed (established from Ezekiel 18:30-32) and Peter promises salvation to those who repent in response to the Gospel message (Acts 2:36-41).

Don't underestimate the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8) or the power of the Gospel. If Romans 8:6-8 is indicating that men are so evil that they require pre-faith regeneration, why didn’t Paul say that? Why don't any NT writiers say that regeneration is pre-faith?

He did. We've already been through this. No doubt the fact you can't see it is because you don't inflict your extra-Biblical constructions on Scripture.

I rephased that a couple hours before your post (as shown above) - I was hoping you would quote that revision. Although the unregenerated man cannot please God, the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Gospel are powerful in transformational agents.

1. Sometimes I can get Calvinists to agree that "God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)", but then Calvin asserts that God predestines many to hell from before birth.
2. Calvin says God decrees every man's action, including sin, but only man, not God, is accountable for the action.

And if you really want dissension start talking about free-will with a Calvinist.

1. Why pit one Calvinist against another then claim they are therefore [both] being inconsistent?
2. Been through this with you too, but somehow you can't see it.

At the gut level, those are the two biggest problems I see in Calvinism. And I think they are enough to scare away the vast majority of Calvinist converts if they knew about them from the start.

1. Calvin has God decreeing many to an eternity in hell from before birth - the fact they have no opportunity to escape a future of eternal torment is immensely unjust. This doctrine from Calvin is in conflict with the plain reading of 1 Timothy 2:4 which says that God desires all men be saved. And I don't find anything in the surrounding text that alters that. Some leading Calvinist (MacArthur, Piper, and especially Spurgeon) accept the plain reading of 1 Timothy 2:4 even though it hurts their arguments. I acknowledge those who willingly reject Christ will go to hell.
2. Ask any non-Calvinist if they are OK with God decreeing every sin they will ever commit from before their birth? Can you predict the response?

I avoided answering the beginning of your post for the exasperation I felt. I don't want to be accused of flaming. Just know, John, that I do think that God has your heart in his hands, in spite of your theology, and you are my true brother in Christ. God bless you, but I need a recess.

Recess. I will refrain from addressing you for a month if you will do the same. Sorry GDL. God Bless you too.

 

[GDL]

Yes, to both. . .rebirth before belief (Jn 3:3-8).

I'll take the other side.

John3:3-8 say rebirth before seeing & entering the KOG. Where do they say rebirth before belief? Seems like eisegesis.

 

[Clare73]

I'll take the other side.

John3:3-8 say rebirth before seeing & entering the KOG. Where do they say rebirth before belief? Seems like eisegesis.

Is it not the necessary conclusion?
How can one believe when, without the Holy Spirit, they are powerless to anything spiritual (Ro 5:6), bound up with death, hostility to God, rebellion, unacceptability to God (Ro 8:6-8), and can't even see (Jn 3:3-8) the things of God, which to them are just foolishness anyway
(1 Co 2:14)?

Who chooses faith in that condition, when his disposition abhors the things of faith?

 

[fhansen]

You operate as independent from God, trying to live up to him, with his help, no doubt, but no notion of "for me to live is Christ". That is what I see. Self-determination.

My own justice or righteousness is intrinsically tied to my wanting it, to wanting Christ to live in and through me. That's why all the centuries of drama in this life: that choice, between good and evil, is being worked out before our eyes and within each of us. The "God option" is the most basic right choice for man, a choice which isn't even accessbile to him unless God reveals and offers it and yet a choice that God does not outright cause to happen. Not self-determination but a joint effort, according to God's wisdom. There is absolutely no reason to think that He cannot steer His creation in this manner, ultimately bringing about the greatest good by foreknowing the choices that will be made in this particular world which He created.

Either way I've known far too many people who believe this way who've given their whole lives over to Christ. And that brings me to a previous point. I'll quote myself for another post below and submit that this is the way most Christians, regardless of theolgolical background actually, intuitively, live their lives:

"The Christian way has been more balanced, however. We find ourselves, as far as a human can know, believing in, hoping in, and loving God-and then growing stronger yet in those virtues. We also produce fruit: turning from sin, helping others, serving God in one way or another the best we can, loving more than before. But also being challenged as we struggle with sin, sometimes failing, returning to Him if we've turned away in a serious manner. And we say, 'I don't know if I'll necessarily persevere, if I'm one of those whom Jesus doesn't lose, but I sure believe so today, based on what I know about myself, my life, and His mercy, forgiveness and love. And that's enough, no reason to go further, or second-guess. We can leave it all up to Him to judge at the end of the day knowing He'll do the right thing in any case, and we just strive to do the right thing as well, now with the help of His grace made possible by the work of His Son.. I may be repeating myself here but this doesn't change one iota under the new covenant:

"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8"

As the church continues to teach: "At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

 

[GDL]

Is it not the necessary conclusion?

It is not the necessary conclusion.

First work should be remaining in GJohn. Surrounding context first:

• 1:7 Belief through John's witness - no regeneration mentioned
• 1:11-13 Regeneration mentioned:
  • Jesus came > some received Him parallel with they believed in His name
  • He gave the ones who received Him / who believed in His name the authority to become God's Children - those born from God
    • This seems clearly to be belief before regeneration
    • Was there regeneration before Jesus' resurrection?
  • 1:1-18 In the verses John has stated Jesus to be (this is the One that people are to receive / to believe in - no mention of regeration to believe but carrying forth belief before regneration):
  • The Logos
  • Diety
  • Creator
  • Life that is the Light of men that darkness does not comprehend is in Him
  • The true Light that gives light to every man coming into the world
  • The one who gives to people the right to become God's Children
  • The Logos that became flesh
  • The glorious only begotten Son of the Father
  • Jesus Christ
• 1:19-36 John the Baptist's testimony (1:7 testimony > belief) about Jesus with all of the above in GJohn context so far - no regeneration before belief mentioned - but carrying forth belief before regneration:
  • Quotes Isaiah to say he is there to make straight the way of the Lord
  • Jesus is above John
  • Identifies Jesus as the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world
  • John came to reveal Jesus - the Lord - the Lamb of God to Israel
  • John sees the Spirit descending and remaining on Jesus as witness that Jesus is the One who baptizes in Holy Spirit
  • John gives legal testimony that he has seen Jesus is the Son of God
    • Legal testimony from God's Prophet - no regeneration needed to believe legal testimony
• 1:37-42
  • Two disciples who heard John speak (legal testimony) follow Jesus
  • One tells his brother they have found Messiah/Christ (1:7 testimony > belief)
    • This is based upon hearing legal testimony - no regeneration mentioned before belief
• 1:43-51
  • Philip tells Nathaniel they've found Jesus of Nazareth whom Moses wrote about - no reason to think especially with previous context that Philip was regenerate before belief
  • Nathaniel identifies Jesus as the Son of God, King of Israel
  • Jesus identifies Nathaniel's belief
  • Jesus identifies Himself as the Son of Man
• 2:1-11
  • Jesus does His first miracle manifesting His glory
  • His disciples believe in Him - no regeneration before belief - signs > belief
• 2:12-22
  • Jesus' disciples identify Him with OC Scripture
  • Jesus speaks of the destruction of His Body and raising it in 3 days
  • Jesus disciples recall this and believe after His resurrection - Word > belief - no regeneration before belief mentioned
• 2:23-25 Signs > many believed - no regeneration before belief mentioned
• 3:1-10
  • Jesus is dealing with a Pharisee - a teacher of Israel - who Jesus holds responsible to understand the testimony being given, the signs taking place, etc. - Nicodemus should know and recognize all that is taking place in Israel - its Messiah/King is there
  • Jesus speaks to Nic in an ABAB chiasm - which parallels seeing and entering and says regeneration is required to see/enter the KOG - and Jesus takes him back to Ez36 at minimum re: the foretold rebirth of God's people:
    • A - Born from above/again
      • B - See the KOG
    • A - Born of water & Spirit
      • B - Enter the KOG
  • Jesus says "we" know and testify what we have seen (we who - He and others like John - or He and the Prophets - or)
    • He says Nic does not receive the legal testimony being presented in Israel - Jesus parallels this receipt with belief
  • Jesus then goes into 9 verses of instruction about who He is, what will happen to Him, belief for eternal life & salvation from judgment, He reiterates the Son of God and Light testimony that was being given, and He identifies men's problem of not coming to the Light because of their sin. He contrasts this with men who come to the Light because they're doing the truth and the Light will show their deeds as done in God.

So:

• This is all about belief from legal testimony, signs, etc.
• Some men's problem is liking the darkness to hide their sin - others don't have this problem - some received/believed - others didn't - seems the problem is men's will and desire to remain in sin
• 1:11-13 identify belief > regeneration
• The message to Nic is that he is not receiving the legal testimony & does not know his Scriptures
  • Since Nic is not believing - Nic will have to see & come to understand what will soon take place - the crucifixion, burial, resurrection of Israel's Messiah - then through belief become regenerate so he can see and enter the KOG with and like the rest of us.
• It really seems forced to use 3:3 as proof of regeneration > belief - especially in the light of all the context & especially in the context of 1:11-13.
• It seems the context is belief > regeneration > see/enter the KOG
• Also, once again, was there any regeneration before the first resurrection? Isn't this what Jesus is setting Nicodemus up for - post resurrection belief > regeneration?

 

[GDL]

Who chooses faith in that condition? His disposition abhors it.

John 3:19-21

 

[GDL]

@Clare73
It's a conclusion consistent with Ro 5:6, Ro 8:7-8,1 Co 2:14 as well as Jn 3:3-8, which Jn 1:7-3:10 neither resolves nor addresses.

The questions of post #126 are still not resolved.

@GDL Answer:

It's a wrong conclusion very likely consistent with your other wrong conclusions. We've already dealt with 2 of the 5 sections of Scripture you list. Why don't you take a shot at exegeting and explaining the other verses you're bringing in. One at a time is fine, actually the best process. We're 40% done already!

RE: #126: From what I've seen so far in 1Cor and GJohn you're eisegeting your bias and ignoring an awful lot of context that disproves your theory.

No thoughts on John1:11-13 where regeneration is actually discussed and not being eisegeted? Take a shot at analyzing it & we'll go through the verb structures and logic of the wording. As always, I'm not opposed to being proven wrong. The point is for us to learn the Truth.

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73
It's a conclusion consistent with Ro 5:6, Ro 8:7-8,1 Co 2:14 as well as Jn 3:3-8, which Jn 1:7-3:10 neither resolves nor addresses.
The questions of post #126 are still not resolved.
@GDL Answer:
It's a wrong conclusion very likely consistent with your other wrong conclusions. We've already dealt with 2 of the 5 sections of Scripture you list. Why don't you take a shot at exegeting and explaining the other verses you're bringing in. One at a time is fine, actually the best process. We're 40% done already!
RE: #126: From what I've seen so far in 1Cor and GJohn you're eisegeting your bias and ignoring an awful lot of context that disproves your theory.

No thoughts on John1:11-13 where regeneration is actually discussed and not being eisegeted? Take a shot at analyzing it & we'll go through the verb structures and logic of the wording. As always, I'm not opposed to being proven wrong. The point is for us to learn the Truth.

Thanks for the gracious offer, which I will think on, and add a comment:
God had a people in the OT, whose situation was different from that of the (NT) Gentiles.
The OT saints were saved by faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ).
That is not the situation of (NT) Gentiles, though the same spiritual principles operate in both situations.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@GDL said, quoting @John Mullally
"GDL
"Although the unregenerated man cannot please God, the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Gospel are powerful in transformational agents." - Seems pretty Biblical to me."

Yes, it is very biblical. It is called, being born again. It is where faith is produced, generated by the Spirit of God.

 

[GDL]

@GDL said, quoting @John Mullally
"GDL
"Although the unregenerated man cannot please God, the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Gospel are powerful in transformational agents." - Seems pretty Biblical to me."

Yes, it is very biblical. It is called, being born again. It is where faith is produced, generated by the Spirit of God.

Convicting ministry of the Spirit is not regeneration. From what I've seen you're using some parts of Scripture out of context to support the regen > belief theory. Philippians 2:12-13 for example.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Convicting ministry of the Spirit is not regeneration. From what I've seen you're using some parts of Scripture out of context to support the regen > belief theory. Philippians 2:12-13 for example.

Regeneration includes all that and more. The use of the Gospel, the ability to understand it, the conviction of sin and its opposition to God, the whole thing. It produces all that is necessary for salvific faith and the effects of salvific faith. Obviously the conviction of sin continues after regeneration has occurred, if a timeline analysis is necessary, and so do the other effects.

You used it as if the conviction by the Spirit of God was, with the preaching of the Gospel, and perhaps with a few peripherals, enough to give people the ability to produce, of themselves, true repentance etc leading to salvation by grace through faith, and somewhere along that line they are reborn. The notion isn't even cogent. If the conviction by the Spirit of God, etc, (as is described by Arminians), is sufficient for salvific faith, it IS regeneration.

 

[fhansen]

Regeneration includes all that and more. The use of the Gospel, the ability to understand it, the conviction of sin and its opposition to God, the whole thing. It produces all that is necessary for salvific faith and the effects of salvific faith. Obviously the conviction of sin continues after regeneration has occurred, if a timeline analysis is necessary, and so do the other effects.

You used it as if the conviction by the Spirit of God was, with the preaching of the Gospel, and perhaps with a few peripherals, enough to give people the ability to produce, of themselves, true repentance etc leading to salvation by grace through faith, and somewhere along that line they are reborn. The notion isn't even cogent. If the conviction by the Spirit of God, etc, (as is described by Arminians), is sufficient for salvific faith, it IS regeneration.

And the difference in the theologies involve whether or not grace is resistible, whether or not, at the end of the day, man can refuse to be convicted, can still say "no", as he orignally did in Eden. Our justice begins to take root and flow as we say "yes". That's faith, a joint effort intiated and enabled by God. And we can say no later as well, returning to the flesh, dying again as we re-alienate ourselves from God, failing to persevere IOW.

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73
It's a conclusion consistent with Ro 5:6, Ro 8:7-8,1 Co 2:14 as well as Jn 3:3-8, which Jn 1:7-3:10 neither resolves nor addresses.
The questions of post #126 are still not resolved.
@GDL Answer:
No thoughts on John1:11-13 where regeneration is actually discussed and not being eisegeted? Take a shot at analyzing it & we'll go through the verb structures and logic of the wording. As always, I'm not opposed to being proven wrong. The point is for us to learn the Truth.

Let's start with the "mysteries" (secrets) revealed in the NT, keeping in mind that "mystery" in the NT does not mean "unable to comprehend," but "never before revealed" (secret); e.g.,
the incarnation (1Ti 3:16),
the death of Christ (1Co 2:1,7),
the gospel (Ro 16:25),
right to sonship (Jn 1:12-13),
God's purpose to sum up all things in Christ (Eph 1:9),
the inclusion of both Gentiles and Jews in the NT church (Eph 3:3-6),
the plan of God by which both Jew and Gentile will be included in his kingdom (Ro 11:25),
the change that will take place at the resurrection (1Co 15:51).

So, the NT reveals things that are decreed from before the foundations of the world, but have never before been revealed until now.

EDIT: Following is factual, but irrelevant:
The NT gospel was first presented by Jesus to Israel; i.e., regenerated believers, as well as those who were not.
Their regeneration (cleansing/new birth) had been figuratively and prophetically revealed in the OT (Nu 19:13, Nu 19:20; Dt 30:6; Eze 18:31, Eze 36:25-27, Eze 37:1-14), although evidently not very well understood (Jn 3:10).
In Jn 1:12-13, we have not only former revelation that those who believed in the Promise (Jesus Christ) were, as well as those who currently believe in Jesus Christ (the Promise) are, spiritually regenerated/cleansed, but also
new revelation that the regenerated are given the right to sonship. . .for by the cross, Christ has procured that right for the regenerated. . .staggering!

EDIT to:
The NT gospel was first presented by Jesus to Israel; i.e., regenerated believers, as well as those who were not.
Those who believed in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) were saved (regenerated).
Their regeneration (cleansing/new birth) had been figuratively and prophetically revealed in the OT (Nu 19:13, Nu 19:20; Dt 30:6;
Eze 18:31, Eze 36:25-27, Eze 37:1-14), although evidently not very well understood (Jn 3:10).
In Jn 1:12-13, we have new revelation that the regenerated are given the right to sonship. . .for by the cross, Christ has procured that right for the regenerated. . .staggering!

The new revelation in Jn 1:12-13 (as in those listed above) is the right to sonship, for both the OT and the NT saints.

So, Jn 1:12-13 is not about faith before regeneration, it is about regeneration giving the right to sonship.
Not to mention the text reads: "to all who received him, (rebirth, followed by faith-->) to those who believed in his name, he gave the right. . ."

It is Jn 3:3, Ro 5:6, Ro 8:7-8,1 Co 2:14 that give us to understand we are spiritually powerless to believe before our sovereign regeneration (Jn 3:5-8).

 

[GDL]

Regeneration includes all that and more. The use of the Gospel, the ability to understand it, the conviction of sin and its opposition to God, the whole thing. It produces all that is necessary for salvific faith and the effects of salvific faith. Obviously the conviction of sin continues after regeneration has occurred, if a timeline analysis is necessary, and so do the other effects.

You used it as if the conviction by the Spirit of God was, with the preaching of the Gospel, and perhaps with a few peripherals, enough to give people the ability to produce, of themselves, true repentance etc leading to salvation by grace through faith, and somewhere along that line they are reborn. The notion isn't even cogent. If the conviction by the Spirit of God, etc, (as is described by Arminians), is sufficient for salvific faith, it IS regeneration.

No matter how much peripheral language you put forth claiming something to be "cogent" or not, none of us override Scripture. So, let's see your Scripture and we'll pick it apart as extensively as we need to, one section at a time.

I saw you using Philippians2:12-13 several times. Would you like to begin there? Let's see what we can do to pick apart these theories.

The difference between the 2 theories is seemingly simple: Rebirth > Faith vs. Faith > Rebirth. I'd begin in John 1 or anywhere Rebirth is actually mentioned vs. inserting into places it is not.

 

[GDL]

Let's start with the "mysteries" (secrets) revealed in the NT, keeping in mind that "mystery" in the NT does not mean "unable to comprehend," but "never before revealed" (secret); e.g.,
the incarnation (1Ti 3:16),
the death of Christ (1Co 2:1,7),
the gospel (Ro 16:25),
sonship (Jn 1:12-13),
God's purpose to sum up all things in Christ (Eph 1:9),
the inclusion of both Gentiles and Jews in the NT church (Eph 3:3-6),
the plan of God by which both Jew and Gentile will be included in his kingdom (Ro 11:25),
the change that will take place at the resurrection (1Co 15:51).

So, the NT reveals things that are decreed from before the foundations of the world, but have never before been revealed until now.

The NT gospel was first presented by Jesus to Israel; i.e., regenerated believers, as well as those who were not.
Their regeneration (cleansing/new birth) had been figuratively and prophetically revealed in the OT (Nu 19:13, Nu 19:20; Dt 30:6; Eze 18:31, Eze 36:25-27, Eze 37:1-14), although evidently not very well understood (Jn 3:10).
In Jn 1:12-13, we have not only former revelation that those who believed in the Promise (Jesus Christ) were, as well as those who currently believe in Jesus Christ (the Promise) are, spiritually regenerated/cleansed, but also
new revelation that they are given the right to sonship. . .for by the cross, Christ has procured that right for the regenerated. . .staggering!
The new revelation in Jn 1:12-13 (as in those above) is the right to sonship, for both the OT and the NT saints.

So, Jn 1:12-13 is not about regeneration by faith, it is about the right to sonship by regeneration.

It is Jn 3:3, Ro 5:6, Ro 8:7-8,1 Co 2:14 that give us to understand we are spiritually powerless to believe before our sovereign regeneration (Jn 3:5-8).

Until you're prepared to actually get into analysis of Scripture, these additional theories and adding of verse references to a list of unexplained Scriptures just exacerbates the problem. I am of the position you have not proven me wrong in 1Cor or GJohn yet. I've put forth some fairly extensive detail. Pick it apart if you are able.

I looked at the Scriptures early this morning in your original list once again stated at the bottom of this post and am prepared to discuss any of the 3 that we have not yet addressed whenever you're prepared to actually analyze them.

 

[Clare73]

First work should be remaining in GJohn. Surrounding context first:

• 1:7 Belief through John's witness - no regeneration mentioned
• 1:11-13 Regeneration mentioned:
  • Jesus came > some received Him parallel with they believed in His name
  • He gave the ones who received Him / who believed in His name the authority to become God's Children- those born from God
    • This seems clearly to be belief before regeneration.
    • Was there regeneration before Jesus' resurrection?

Note the order of receive him (rebirth first) and believe in (faith following) in the above.

And yes. . .there was regeneration before Jesus' resurrection, and which Nicodemus did not understand as he should have (Jn 3:10), addressed in post #136.

Until you're prepared to actually get into analysis of Scripture, these additional theories and adding of verse references to a list of unexplained Scriptures just exacerbates the problem.

"these additional theories" (right to sonship of Jn 1:12)
"and adding of verse references" (Jn 3:10)
"to a list of unexplained Scriptures" (Nu 19:13, Nu 19:20; Dt 30:6; Eze 18:31, Eze 36:25-27, Eze 37:1-14)

Am I understanding you correctly here?

I am of the position you have not proven me wrong in 1Cor or GJohn yet. I've put forth some fairly extensive detail. Pick it apart if you are able.

1) Co 2:14 - we are agreed that it refers to the unregenerate, and which was my only issue regarding it.

2) Jn 1:11-13 - presented in post #136, and has not been demonstrated to be incorrect.

I looked at the Scriptures early this morning in your original list once again stated at the bottom of this post and am prepared to discuss any of the 3 that we have not yet addressed whenever you're prepared to actually analyze them.

So, will "discuss any of the three" only. . .and no demonstration of my presentation of Jn 1:11-13 as incorrect.
Unless it can be demonstrated that my use of the above Scriptures is incorrect, we're simply talking about my "theory" vs. your "theory."

And we're back to our original problem: no Scripture can be truly understood without extensive (modern) hermeneutical analysis,
and my non-acceptance of this assumption.

So I guess that means we're done here. . .and you've been saved a lot of time and hard work, not a bad thing
Thanks anyway. . .and I still love your word studies.

 

[GDL]

GJohn 1:11-13 - presented in post #136, and has not been demonstrated to be incorrect.

Demonstrated to be incorrect by your following statement?

So, Jn 1:12-13 is not about regeneration by faith, it is about regeneration giving the right to sonship.

If so, your bar is set way too low for your me to accept your proofs. But, since you made the assertion, how would you back it up Scripturally - speaking only of John addressing sonship? Can you provide backup from John's writings that the terminology he uses in those verses ever or only refer to sonship?

I'm ignoring the rest of your posts until if and when you can address 1 referenced Scripture at a time and prove it means Rebirth > Faith. BTW, I'm have some familiarity with both sides of some of these arguments.

Thanks for your last statement. Those studies have taught me & a few others much.