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.
You quoted a comment that I made to ToBeLoved about how she must have been offended by your opinion about my writing.To say that I have no idea what you are talking about it is an understatement.
Get us to the point quicker? I didn't realize that you were part of the conversation between FreeGrace2 and I.Why do you not just explain what you believe exists and occurs during salvation? That sounds much simpler and will get us to the point quicker.
No - regeneration is a different word and concept entirely in scripture.Do you regenerated as your word instead of born-again? Born-again is biblical, so why make it so confusing.
I disagree as would most theologians.Diagree.
To be spiritually alive is to have your sins forgiven by Jesus Christ and His justification and righteousness.
Of course.The Holy Spirit is given to us for many reasons, one being that our spirit TESTIFIES WITH the Holy Spirit that we are the children of God.
And I'm sure there are theologians who disagree with those theologians.I disagree as would most theologians.
One who has been made spiritually alive would indeed have his sins forgiven. But that is not the definition of being spiritually alive.
.
That is your freedom.I don't consider anything that you have to say regarding scripture any more.
I completely understand. No hard feelings.It makes no sense to me.
I think your "recaller" needs a tuneup.It wasn't too long ago as I recall that you said that mercy and compassion were included in salvation and then completely ignored Paul's reference to both in election in Romans 9.
Of course He does. I even noted that. Maybe you missed my point, which is why my post hasn't made sense. He chooses to save believers, which is what 1 Cor 1:21 says. Which I quoted.God DOES choose whom He will to save. Period.
I agree. God did all the work. Man can only receive the benefit of God's work.It's not based on human will or exertion - Rom 9:16.
Except there is nothing in that passage (or any other passage) that teaches that regeneration comes first. In fact, Eph 2:5 and 8 teach the exact opposite. That being "made alive" (born again or regenerated) occurs WHEN one is saved per v.5 and v.8 gives us the order of occurrence for salvation and faith. We are saved through faith, demonstrating that faith precedes salvation.Regeneration comes first - John 3:6-8.
It is NOT, and that is no lie.The Calvinist logic is based on scripture. To say otherwise is a lie.
It seems to me that you are playing a word game. Because "to have a real being" and "to come into existence" certainly can be seen as being the same thing. Maybe you just don't want to admit that.They exist at the same time.
That is not the same as saying that they "occur" at the same time.
I'm using the two words in the way shown below.
"exist" = to have real being whether material or spiritual
"occur" = to come into existence : to happen
You are using the two words in quite another way. One that is not warranted by the grammar of the passage in 1 John 5:1. You seem to do that sort of thing a lot here.
The Greek word means a partner. So a "partner of Christ" certainly is a partner with Christ. And it's about fellowship with Christ. We can't have fellowship with Him unless we partner with Him. Or abide in Him (Jn 15).FG...just as a note on both of these. When they mention "partakers" or use 'metachoi' the "partnership" is not with Christ, it is with other partakers.
Hebrews 3:1 "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus...." The partaking is not done with God in this verse, it is done with brethren.
Hebrews 3:14 "For we have become partakers of Christ..." Again this is not partaking with Christ, but of Christ...so the partakers...or partners are you and I.
Why not just define the difference between regeneration and being born again then????No - regeneration is a different word and concept entirely in scripture.
Regeneration is biblical as well as "born-again" of course. - both in concept theologically and in the actual English translation of the word as used in many or even most translations.
Perhaps it is confusing to you because you don't understand how different theologians use the term.
Judas did no seek Jesus. Jesus chose him.Now this I have a bit of a difference of opinion on. For only natural men can come to know Jesus, those that are spiritual already know Jesus. It is only a natural man who seeks God for salvation, because someone who is saved is already saved.
Until you have the indwelling of the Spirit, you are a natural man. There is no third category of people that are almost spiritual, or that are natural men but have spiritual knowledge. The Bible never declares anything like that. There were all sorts of examples of natural men who sought Jesus; Judas Iscariot for one, the rich young ruler for another, all natural men who sought salvation, who wanted a savior, but when one was presented to them they rejected Him. The Gospel is a message for everyone and everyone can understand it, accepting it or rejecting it is entirely up to that person to do so.
I have - again and again and again and again until it is staring to get old for me and for everyone else I would think.Why not just define the difference between regeneration and being born again then????
This does nothing to advance the discussion.
Judas did no seek Jesus. Jesus chose him.
Nothing is said about the final status of the rich young ruler.
Speaking from experience - many people go away to think about things - often many times - before finally becoming a disciple.
Regarding the other things you said that you disagree with me about ---- all I know is what it says in Romans. No one seeks God.
No one can even say Jesus is Lord (from the heart at least) except by the Holy Spirit.
No one can come to Jesus unless the Father (through His Spirit I would think) draws that person.
You say that natural men cannot have spiritual knowledge. They have to be spiritual men to have spiritual knowledge. You say that the scriptures do not allow for any 3rd kind of man - only those with or those without the Spirit of God. You say that until the indwelling of the Spirit of God you are a natural man. Bingo. (Welcome to the Reformed side. Let's join forces.)
As the scriptures say:
"Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father in Heaven." and "and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."
Yes we are partners...but not partners with Christ...we are partner with other believers of Christ. Remember we are the bride...not the groom. And in matters of the spirit the groom is the head of the house. And fellowship also does not equate to equality or equal divisions, as partnership implies. As it pertains to Christ, we are partners in the salvation that Christ has provided...that is how we OF Christ.The Greek word means a partner. So a "partner of Christ" certainly is a partner with Christ. And it's about fellowship with Christ. We can't have fellowship with Him unless we partner with Him. Or abide in Him (Jn 15).
It seems to me that you are playing a word game. Because "to have a real being" and "to come into existence" certainly can be seen as being the same thing. Maybe you just don't want to admit that.
btw, haven't you noticed that your definition of "occur" which is "to come into existence" really is the same as "existing"?
So, how are they different? I don't see it at all.
If something comes into existence (it occurs), it exists.
Faith does not precede regeneration logically. If anything it is the other way around as any good systematic theology will testify.faith precedes regeneration logically. But they occur at the same time, per the grammar of 1 Jn 5:1.
Well, myself and at least one other poster think otherwise.I have - again and again and again and again until it is staring to get old for me and for everyone else I would think.
Except you're ignoring the "re-" part of the word. It's something that has occurred again.Regeneration is the generation by God Himself of spiritual life in a person where none has existed since the fall of the first Adam.
OK, now please define what "opening salvo" means. Also, you've ignored the "again" part. Again.Being born again is the opening salvo in a life lived in the Kingdom of God.
We all know that. No one gets into the kingdom unless they are born again.Unless you are born again you cannot see the Kingdom of God.
Right. And this "new creation" is what being RE-generated and born AGAIN is all about. They are the same thing.What is necessary is a new creation - one wherein dwells the Spirit of God.
Your answer here didn't help your view.Regeneration of the dead spirit of men and the birth of that man into the Kingdom of God are related concepts. But they are not the same thing.
I don't see the order of what happens here that you say that you do? I see an 'and', nothing that indicates order.Titus 3
3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.
4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared,
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Looking at the order here, salvation which is God's justifying of us, being made righteous in His sight comes AFTER our being regenerated and renewed in the Holy Spirit.
I sure am glad you said something...Cause I was just about to as well...all these verses floating around that are trying to claim some sort of an order and all I see are "AND" instead of "THEN". There is no ORDER given there is only AND statements.I don't see the order of what happens here that you say that you do? I see an 'and', nothing that indicates order.
Is there a reason that you say it indicates proof when it does not?
I just popped in here again because I wanted to be sure that I corrected the mistake that I made regarding you.To say that I have no idea what you are talking about it is an understatement.
Thanks for the kind words - I wondered whether there was some misunderstanding. I wish I could be more upbeat about this being a place where people actually move forward in understanding but I remain skeptical. I am not saying its a complete waste of time - one can hone one's communication skills and perhaps the occasional lurker reads something that causes them to actually shift their position, if only a little.I have decided to leave this thread now because I am having to repeat myself too often to make my points. Also some here seem not to want to have a really thorough dialog about these doctrines. It also appears that at least one is not equipped or is way too emotionally vested to do so.
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?