Gospel regeneration, is it biblical? Yes? No?

The Mormon's formula for eternal life is defective. That's what you're saying.

Not required for eternal life, but it will be manifested because of the new nature given through the birth from above.

 

So your interpretation is that Timothy could save himself? And his hearers?

This verse isn't about eternal life, which Timothy already had. It's about not falling prey to deceitful spirits and believing or teaching false things.

This has nothing to do with being saved from eternal death.

 

Yes. The Buddists are defective as well. So What's your point?

Not according to Jesus and Paul

Luke 8:12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

What is their word? The GOSPEL!


John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


We are saved through faith. You will die in your sins apart from faith in the work of Christ.

 

Absolutely! The passage clearly implies that.

Good deduction.

Healthful teaching will indeed deliver from such things as that.

AMEN!

Now extrapolate on that reasoning to apply to the majority of the use of sozo in the scriptures.

 

How about you do the extrapolating since I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

The problem is your notions that that being saved is synonymous with the acquisition of eternal life, i.e. regeneration. It is not.

 

I'm suprised at some people's seeming indignation at this subject. It has been discussed may times on BB. I guess I'v been around here longer than some.

 

gl, as I recall you are reformed, right? check out this from Ligonier:

(thank you kyredneck for showing us this some time ago)

 

The gospel to you is essentially a formula that must impart the correct head knowledge for one to acquire immortality.

So the devil was able to pluck them out of His hand?

And, again, show that eternal consequences is the intent of the word saved here.

Yea, and a little later on in this discourse He tells them that they CANNOT believe because they were not of God, i.e. had not been born from above.

He's also speaking to national Israel here, 'dying in your sins' could well mean the wrath that was to come on that generation in this instance.

(And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. Acts 2:40)

And this shows gospel regeneration how?

Yes! Lay hold on [the quality of] eternal life! The believer has the potential to have an abundant life of joy, peace and righteousness in the Holy Spirit! But, before one can enter into, or even see this, one must first be born from above.

Yes, we are delivered by our faith which comes from the nature given us by the birth from above. It is the gift of God.

who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1:13

Once again, show how you derive eternal consequences from the word 'saved' here.

 

The baby cries out for all to hear indicating it is alive.

But that is not when the baby was conceived.

It is the same with the "new birth."

All children demonstrate there is development activity by "kicking" and pushing against the confines of the mother. The same occurs in the regeneration process with such items as conviction and the realization of the need to be born.

Saul was "kicking against the pricks" for some time before the new birth.

Until one is regenerated, they have no power to express Godly sorrow unto salvation.

 

Willis this is nothing new to you, and you act as if you've never heard of it.

There has to be a clear distinction made between regeneration and salvation, or the effectual call and the gospel call, or the birth from above and conversion.

 

Well, I was surprised at the way the OP opened up; it gave me the impression that this was a new and srange thing that he had just become aware of. I know better.

 

Thanks for the last para., ole kentucky. Now I know what you were trying to say.

 

Is this related to that "time salvation" versus "eternal salvation" novelty?

 

I'm curious, what did I write that had you confused or wonderin'? My emphasis on disconnecting 'eternal consequences' from saved (sozo)?

I believe that by far most of the time 'saved' in the scriptures is meant in the conversion, or timely sense, and not eternally. In that sense, a believer can lose his salvation in this time world, but never eternally (see 1 Cor 5:5).

 

There are those that express it in those terms.