Regeneratoin

Allan

You say, quoting Dagg

The reference to James is as follows:

James 2:17. Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

You neglect to mention the statement following the above quote. Strange!

Furthermore you completely ignore what Dagg has to say about the New Birth.

Contentious!

 

An example of 'legitimate spiritualizing'....... because I have a 'pointer' from the NT (The new is in the old concealed: The old is in the new revealed)

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life. Jn 3:14,15

From another thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1468107#post1468107

..........another example of regeneration before belief.

Fortunate indeed are those that have been made to feel the serpent's awful sting. Fortunate are those that hunger and thirst after righteousness.

 

From another thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1476951#post1476951

I'm sorry but that is just so wrong. The context in Ro. 2 is not about some sense of right or wrong in fallen man but about evidence of the Spiritual birth through their deeds:

(for when Gentiles [NON-JEWS] that have not the law do by nature the things of the law......... they show the work of the law written in their hearts [I.E. AGAPE, which is the fruit of the Spirit and which is the fulfillment of the law,] ........ Ro 2:14,15

If therefore the uncircumcision [NON JEWS] keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? Ro 2:26

but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter;..... Ro 2:29

So now the inevitable question. If all this time NON JEWS who had not the law could still be children of God.......... What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Ro 3:1

The answer:

Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God. Ro 3:2

And:

who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Ro 9:4,5

 

Nothing strange about it as it has no bearing on my point regarding his statement except to show that he is somewhat conflicted with himself on the subject. He doesn't even qualify his statement which in fact contracts his previous point that faith may precede the beginning of spiritual life. His poiont from James it appears was that faith that does nothing is not "LIVING" faith, he does not state they do not 'have faith'. James is talking about a living or active faith in contrast to a dead unmoving faith that really isn't faith at all - just an opinion. A living faith simply means if it is faith it takes action.

No, I understand fully what he says about the new birth. It is most intersting that Calvinist always think they need to 'interpret' what other Cals write, like the Charismatics with tongues that only they can understand. It is as if no Cal can wite in a simple yet educated manner that allows other to understand them. He wrote what he wrote and meant just what he said. Further more you still ignored his own statement regarding the restricted sence being the 'beginning of spiritual life and that faith precedes it, yet you catch his problematic statement of contradiction and no qualification of it, and cling to it as if it is all that he said.
I'll post it again so you can see it:

He acknowledges that faith may indeed precede the beginning of spiritual life but he can not bring himself to come straight out and specifically state it so you see him trying to rationalize the last sentence of the statement to not go to far out there. It shows that his theology and scripture are having some issues.

Not at all, just giving facts.

 

Forget it.

 

Good choice.