Isaiah55:6
Active Member
To a false convert yes it's a license to sin. But someone who is born again, they will desire to glorify God. Misrepresenting Calvinism.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To a false convert yes it's a license to sin. But someone who is born again, they will desire to glorify God. Misrepresenting Calvinism.Eternal security is false and is heresy.It gives license for immorality and makes people think and believe that they can claim to be Christians ,live like the devil and still be saved.For more info:
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/eternal-security.htm
We're not that far apart, then.
How do you define free will?
Being made alive means giving life to someone who was dead. Or, alternately, it means creating something new which contains life.Then please explain what "made alive" means, and why the parenthesis (by grace you have been saved) doesn't relate to being made alive. Simply claiming they are not equated doesn't explain the verse. My explanation is that they ARE equated. Prove why they aren't.
Uh, he mentioned being made alive and being saved, all in the same breath. Why are you ignoring that?
Dead men cannot understand the gospel rightly - let alone respond in a God pleasing manner without being first made alive. Jesus and Paul both tell us that.So then, if Paul didn't equate being made alive with being saved, then it should follow that one can exist without the other. is that your view? Can one be saved who isn't regenerated, or can one be regenerated without being saved?
My view is simple: Paul equated the 2 phrases./QUOTE]
Your view is simply wrong. Paul praises God for the grace that He extends to undeserving sinners by making them alive and able to respond and be saved through faith. But He does not "equate" regeneration with faith. The two are related, in that saving faith cannot occur without regeneration. But they are not "equated" by Paul.
But God created man with a conscience with which to know right from wrong (Rom 2). So unsaved, unregenerate man CAN be moral even when unsaved.I define free will as we have the ability to make choices. However in our sinful nature before we are regenerated we will always choose sin. We cannot understand spiritual things.
OK. Is one saved when one is regenerated?Being made alive means giving life to someone who was dead. Or, alternately, it means creating something new which contains life.
I never said the "same thing". I said they were equated by Paul. By that, I mean they go together. Can you have one without the other?Note the two words that I highlighted in your post above. They are not the same thing. You switch from one word to the other as if they were the same thing. You are wrong.
Relation and equation are on the same thing. I am related to my mother. I should not be equated by you to my mother. While it is true that I would not be sitting here without the existence of my Mother. We are not the same thing.
Why is it "not logical"??Your explanation that they are "equated" is simply not logically true. The fact that they are mentioned "in the same breath", as you say, has nothing to do with them being equated or not.
Do they go together or not?Making one alive does not "equate" to salvation.
Please note in Eph 1:4 that those who were chosen are in the group called 'believers'. I know that because Paul defined who the "us" are from 1:4 in 1:19.But what I could not live with is your "equating" my being elected to my being saved. This is done quite often here in the forum by those opposing so called Calvinism. They are wrong in doing so. The two words and concepts are "related". But they are not the same. I was, as I see it, elected from before the foundation of the world.
When were you regenerated?But I was not saved until I accepted Christ and was justified in the presence of God because of that faith.
That sounds like regeneration can be quite some time before one comes to faith. Do you agree with that? That one can be regenerated way before they believe? I don't.Most Calvinists would be quick to point out that God would not likely give spiritual life to someone who will not eventually be saved. I agree with that notion.
Most pelagians and semi-pelagians on the other hand would take exception to that - believing, as they apparently do, that fallen man is either spiritually alive in the first place or that God gives prevenient grace to all sinners thereby allowing them to understand and respond to the gospel in all cases. (Jesus and Paul said otherwise as I read it.)
I don't pay any attention to the "pelicans")) and their beliefs. Fallen man is not spiritually alive. But the facts are clear; unbelievers can and do understand the gospel. Even though rejecting it.
Yes, quite off the wall. You were probably saved by boat.Let me give you an admittedly totally off the wall example of the type of illogical reasoning you are employing.
John gave me the last ration of food on the island we were stranded on - thus allowing me to live until I was saved. (By grace I was saved.)
No, I don't think that is good logic. Paul spoke of being made alive, which isn't even close to "allowing me to live". To be made alive is far different than to stay alive. I thought that would be obvious. And I think Paul added the phrase in the parenthesis to explain, clarify, or indicate what he meant by being made alive. I find nothing in Scripture to suggest that they don't go together.You apparently believe that it is good logic to "equate" being saved to a box of food rations. I do not.
Well, the rations kept you alive (you were already alive in the first place). So in that sense, the rations saved you from dying. And the boat (which you forgot to note) saved you from having to stay on the island.The box of rations played such a pivotal part in my being saved that I ecstatically acknowledged John's grace in the telling of the story of my being saved. But my being saved doesn't "equate" to a box of food rations.
Sure, the pilot of the boat, and the boat.I would not have lived until being saved without the food. But much more went into my delivery than that box of food.
Unless there is Scripture to indicate that one can be regenerated without being saved, or saved without being regenerated, my logic is SOLID.You are saying (erroneously) that being regenerated "equates" to being saved. You are simply wrong in your logic.
I've seen no verses about God's grace in regeneration. I do see verses about God's grace in salvation.Being regenerated played such a pivotal in the salvation process that it caused Paul to give credit where credit is due (God's grace in regeneration).
I believe God's creation of the conscience in mankind is an act of grace, whereby mankind can know right from wrong.Without that totally unmerited act of grace we could not have even understood the gospel let alone respond to it favorably.
I never said that. I said they go together. That's what I mean by being equated. They cannot be separated.But one is not "saved" by being regenerated.
I'm well aware of the differences. And the fact that they always go together.One is justified and allowed to come into God's presence only because of faith not regeneration. They are not the same theological concept - as you should and probably do know.
That is absolutely not true. Jesus Himself refuted that idea in Jn 5:24 where He said that "the dead will hear…and live". Note the order. It's not the ones "made alive" that will hear, but the DEAD.Dead men cannot understand the gospel rightly
Please cite the verses where they told us that. I don't believe they did say that.- let alone respond in a God pleasing manner without being first made alive. Jesus and Paul both tell us that.
That's not being "made alive" at all. Quite different. In fact, all souls are eternal already. We know that because at death our souls leave our dead bodies and our souls remain conscious for eternity.As to whether people who are made alive can remain in that state without eventually being saved - the Bible tells us that all men, including the reprobate, will be made alive and face God directly some day. Not all will be saved.
Unless one can show that opening a heart is regeneration, one does not have a point.But - more directly related to what you are asking - the scriptures say that God opened Lydia's heart to receive the gospel. But Lydia was not saved until receiving the gospel. The sentence structure definitely indicates a sequential series of events. God acted so that she could respond to the gospel. She heard the gospel. She responded to the gospel and was saved.
this is my last post on this subject. You are up to your old shameful tricks again.OK. Is one saved when one is regenerated?
I never said the "same thing". I said they were equated by Paul. By that, I mean they go together. Can you have one without the other?
Why is it "not logical"??
Do they go together or not?
Please note in Eph 1:4 that those who were chosen are in the group called 'believers'. I know that because Paul defined who the "us" are from 1:4 in 1:19.
When were you regenerated?
That sounds like regeneration can be quite some time before one comes to faith. Do you agree with that? That one can be regenerated way before they believe? I don't.
All I saw was questions not being answered in a way that actually addressed the earlier question.
But basically if salvation and regeneration are two separate things, do they have the same causation? Meaning does whatever causes one to be saved, also case regeneration? Because something can be equal, and not be the same thing...a pound of lead is equal to a pound of feathers. Going together implies a link which I believe is what FG was trying to get to, is there a link between the two so that one causes the other, or is there a third situation here that causes both?
Salvation is the sum total of all that God does for a sinner to be fit for Heaven. Regeneration -- the New Birth -- is the first essential component of salvation, but salvation includes many other things as well (Tit 3:4-8). As you will note the "causation" is ultimately the grace of God, which includes the kindness,the love, and the mercy of God:But basically if salvation and regeneration are two separate things, do they have the same causation? Meaning does whatever causes one to be saved, also case regeneration
Yes, even in our depraved state we can be moral. Even atheists have morals. But even the good and moral things we do in the unregenerate state are filthy rags before God because they are done without faith.But God created man with a conscience with which to know right from wrong (Rom 2). So unsaved, unregenerate man CAN be moral even when unsaved.
you mentioned this before and it did catch my interest but when I asked where I can find this you never gave it to me.And both Cornelius and Lydia worshiped God before they came to faith in Christ and were saved. So they weren't "wild sinners" in any sense.
Isaiah
Acts 10:1-2 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Cohort, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.
Hope that helps.
There is a link between salvation and regeneration. But they are not the same thing.All I saw was questions not being answered in a way that actually addressed the earlier question.
But basically if salvation and regeneration are two separate things, do they have the same causation? Meaning does whatever causes one to be saved, also case regeneration? Because something can be equal, and not be the same thing...a pound of lead is equal to a pound of feathers. Going together implies a link which I believe is what FG was trying to get to, is there a link between the two so that one causes the other, or is there a third situation here that causes both?
I have not said that. I have pointed out that since they occur at the same time, and faith precedes salvation, faith also precedes regeneration.this is my last post on this subject. You are up to your old shameful tricks again.
Here is the logic you were presenting and why it is wrong.
You say that we are saved through faith. I totally agree with that statement. The scriptures say as much.
You say that, if regeneration is the same as being saved, then regeneration is through faith as well. I totally agree with that statement. It is absolutely logical to say that.
You then say that, therefore, regeneration is through faith.
I've only pointed the obvious. Salvation and regeration occur together.HOWEVER
Regeneration and being saved are not the same thing.
THEREFORE
You cannot logically make the connection that regeneration is through faith as you have tried to do with this passage.
Oh, come on. I am clarifying my earlier statements, since you've shown a misunderstanding of them. Salvation and regneration occur together. Period. That is the point. Since they do, both are preceded by faith. Period. That is the point.NOW
You are trying to change things by saying that you did not say that regeneration and salvation are the same. You now say that you said that they merely "go together".
The point is that unbelievers (the unregenerate) can and do know right from wrong. And they can and do understand the gospel message.Yes, even in our depraved state we can be moral. Even atheists have morals. But even the good and moral things we do in the unregenerate state are filthy rags before God because they are done without faith.
Cornelius is in Acts 10 and Lydia is in Acts 16.you mentioned this before and it did catch my interest but when I asked where I can find this you never gave it to me.
I have clarified my points.There is a link between salvation and regeneration. But they are not the same thing.
This has not been proven from Scripture.Salvation includes regeneration as a necessary component. Regeneration does not include salvation - even though salvation is the logical conclusion of the series of events of which regeneration is one.
I've shown that the point is that they occur together, proving that regeneration is preceded by faith.Salvation is by grace and one of it's components - regeneration - is also by grace. But that doesn't make them the same thing.
The point we were arguing is whether, because salvation is "through faith", regeneration must be "through faith" as well.
This has not been proven from Scripture.
There are many verses and you've been showed them many times. You just don't want to believe what they say so you just cast them aside and then claim again no one can show you scripture. We keep going around and around in circles. Let's take a different approach; regeneration precedes salvation is arrived at systematically also. This is where irresistible grace comes in.
Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.
“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out," (John 6:37).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?