Explain This:

This is not what we non-cals (or whatever you want to call us) believe.


No man is standing with his arms open waiting for God to give him a gift.

God reveals Himself to man, offers the gift of life and then man can either stretch out his arms to receive it or he can reject it.

 

The passage states: "which were born....of God. It speaks of the new birth, the same one that Christ elaborated on in John chapter 3. How does this new birth come? "Even to them that believe on his name"
It comes by faith. Salvation is always by faith. "By grace are ye saved through faith." "Therefore being justified by faith."
We see that through this passage (John 1:12,13) and many others, that salvation is not only all of God, but it is also by faith. Faith is required. Faith is not a work, but it is a requirement of God on man's part in order to be saved. Without faith no man can be saved.

Leave the peripherals alone. If a man is standing on his head and by faith trusts in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, then that person (according to the Scriptures) is saved. Salvation comes by faith. That faith comes from the heart. It is a heart belief. Faith always has an object. The object of our faith must be Christ.

God in his sovereign will and grace has given every man a choice--a free will. He may already know the outcome. He doesn't force people to make a decision, but he knows what that decision is. Man is not a robot. He decides whether or not to reject or accept Christ. God Himself set those parameters according to His sovereign will. It is man's choice. Without it we would all be robots.

You mean without your instruction we wouldn't be correctly instructed. Correct?

If that is a slam against Godly believing Baptists on this board, then I take it as a personal insult, and give it as a warning to you not to post such.

Are you saying that Baptists who differ from your theology are not saved and never can be?

Again, Godly believers that disagree with your theology are probably not saved until they agree with your theology. If they don't agree with you the have a false philosophy that will eventually get exposed. Isn't this an arrogant position to hold?

 

Only if you don't read v. 13: who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Also...the verb here "who were born" is obviously referring to the ones receiving, the ones believing in His name in v. 12. The verb "who were born" in v. 13 is passive, meaning the subject (those receiving) were acted upon.

So, you are wrong on two counts--the Greek stands against you and even in English, v. 13 stands against you.

This is what happens when you look only at one verse and divorce it from its context.

The Archangel

 

You do not understand my position at all, when have I ever even hinted that man can come to God of himself? Never! What I have always said is that God has revealed himself to us through his word and that we can then respond in faith. I have said dozens of times that you cannot believe on Jesus if you have never heard of him. But once you have heard of Jesus and the gospel, at this point you can believe. But you are not regenerated to believe, you cannot have spiritual life until after you believe, all scripture supports this.

 

DHK, good post.

 

A lot of it has to do with how calvinistic they are. In my experience, those that are in the supralaparianism camp would tend to have an issue with this. I personally have no issue at all. We do receive Christ as our Savior. Many reject it.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
(John 1:12-13 ESV)

John 1:12 does say to "all who did receive him(Christ)." So if the Scriptures say "receive" then I shouldn't have any probably with it. Receive is tied together with "believe." It says, "all who did receive him, who believed in his name." After this the Bible says he gave the right(power in the KJV) to become children of God." The word "right" or "power" means that we have the authority or privilege to be children of God. (The Greek is exousia not dunamis)

So when we receive Christ by believing in him, we now have the authority to be children of God.

 

I appreciate that, but I'm waiting for Winman to answer. He keeps on refusing.

 

First, you are really twisting on a rope right now.

Second, prove it.

I gave you articles of Arminian faith that you have not responded to that suggest other than your own position. Are you Pelagian?

I gave you an example based on what you said, you respond in a different direction.

Which is it?

 

Ok, first of all, I do not know or care what Pelagians or Arminians believe, I base my beliefs on what I read in the scriptures. If that doesn't satisfy you I am sorry. I do know this though, there is not one single verse in all the Bible that says you can have life until you first believe, if you have one I would love to see it. Therefore, you cannot be regenerated until you first believe. Now you put up and show me even one verse that says you can have life before you believe.

 

Nope, this verse does not mention faith or believeing whatsoever.

 

I'm guilty:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1623648#post1623648

But in all honesty I was not 'on the offensive'. But the post was intended as a tongue in cheek gouge to my synergistic brethren [and sistren ]. As you can tell by their responses on this thread, they know the score. I've posted before using the terms synergism and monergism:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

....and I also brought that up again with tongue in cheek because those of the Sovereign Grace, Reformed, Calvinist, Monergistic, DoG, Particular Atonement persuasion generally have no problem with being labeled as 'Monergistic'. But those of the Free Will, Arminian, NonCal, Synergistic, General Atonement persuasion generally will not commit to the term Synergistic. You didn't have a problem with Monergism.

Just for fun why don't you start a thread and ask them why they have a problem with 'Synergism'. (it'll be like trying to nail jello to the wall, as someone has described it)

.....and in the next verse these are described as being born of God WITH the threefold denial not of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh; just as reiterated in Jn 3:21. It's regeneration first, then belief.

 

Sorry Annsni, I dont get that from Ephesians 2:5. But I so see something of God's great Love for us, which was hotly debated on earlier threads, but not by you if my memory is correct.

 

It is based in the verb "Made us alive together," which is God's action, occurring when we "were dead in our trespasses."

What is it that you get from this?

The Archangel

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1619153#post1619153 and the following post.

The Old Baptists routinely refer to the Effectual Call and Conversion as Eternal Salvation and Gospel Salvation.

 

Still dont get it Archangel.

 

Ephesians 2:4-5

But because of his great love for us, God who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in our transgressions, it is by grace that you have been saved.

How does this affirm that regeneration occurs prior to faith and belief in Christ?

 

No, I want a verse that specifically mentions faith or believeing AND life and says that a person can have life before they believe. I can show you many verses that say you must first believe to have life, John 3:16 being one of those verses.

 

What I get from this is simply the following:

1. God loves us profoundly
2. God is rich in mercy
3. God made us alive in Christ, ....we passed from death unto life by an act and the grace of God.

 

I think this is absolutely on the right track. The question, though, is this: When did God make us alive in Christ?

The Archangel