You must be born again

That's what his side of the debate sounds like to me. What's your problem?

 

It sounds to me like you have the problem. If you cannot see the personal attacks and name calling on each side from an objective angle, perhaps you are blinded by whatever position you take on the question.

 

I don't see any personal attacks or name calling. I see PL saying the obvious. SP makes up his own version of Calvinism and attacks it. He misrepresents Calvinism, and continually refuses to be corrected. I don't know why Pastor Larry even bothers, since reasonable debate with SP is hopeless.

 

I do, and encourage others to. Sometimes the problem is that people are not well enough versed in the issues of a debate to actually recognize what the issues are and what is pertinent to the debate.

For instance, when someone suggests that regeneration=salvation, and that regeneration prior to faith means that people are saved without faith, it is clear that they do not really understand what the debate is about. And that type of argument needs to be rejected completely by all sides.

I do recognize that there is name calling on both sides of the debate. That is why a while back I recommended closing the CvA forum. I have recommended a total ban on these discussions because I don't think they are helpful and they bring out the worst in people.

But I have studiously and conscientiously tried to avoid name calling and making it about individuals. I have continually tried (when I participate) to steer the conversation back to actual issues, rather than allowing arguments about misconceptions. Let's face it ... there are some people who simply do not know enough about the issue to recognize what someone else's position actually is. They simply keep repeating the same false arguments time and time again. And me (or someone else) pointing that out is not name calling or attacking someone. It is not second grade or third grade behavior. It is necessary to call the debate back to actual issues. As a teacher (which I am currently doing), I cannot allow a student to maintain a false conception about a theological position. They can certainly conclude differently than I do, but they must be aware of the issues. I just got done telling my current class that they are free to disagree with me about a particular issue, but they need to know the questions that must be asked of the text and answered cogently.

In a similar way, here on the board, it is necessary that we point out false conceptions and straw men. When someone does not know the issues, they need to be told that, and then they need to learn.

 

Can a regenerated person go to hell? Can a regenerated person not be saved?

It can be said that faith is still a requirement for the regeneration precedes faith side, but it is only lip service. If I have passed from death to life, there is no way I can ever die spiritually again. I can die without faith and still be saved. This position lacks any kind of common sense, even basic common sense.

 

I don't think it's a lack of understanding. I think it's simply disingenuous. It would be like Calvinists claiming that free-willers believe that choice=salvation, and therefore free-willers claim that we have no need of Christ, since it is choice that saves. To make the parallel complete, free-willers could correct us on this misrepresentation, yet we'd repeat it ad-nauseum anyway.

Any fool can make up their own version of Calvinism and argue against it. It takes some integrity to argue without misrepresenting the other side.

 

Well stated. For one to say you have passed from death to life is EXACTLY what salvation is. And for a person to say one has passed from death to life and then believes afterward is contradicting "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". The only thing left for them to do once they are caught in their contradiction is just as you stated, to "pay lip service" to the truth their conscience knows is right and continue in the arrogance with their wrong doctrine.

 

No. And a regenerated person can not not have faith.

No it's not. Faith is a requirement for salvation; it is not lip service in any way. Again, if you would take time to actually study what is being argued for, it would help you to understand what the issues are.

How can you have passed from death to life without faith? Most calvinists believe that that is impossible. I say "most" only because I do not know them all. The Calvinists I know and have read would say that it is impossible to pass from death to life without having faith. So if you have passed from death into life, you cannot die without faith.

It also lacks being true. I don't know of any Calvinist who believes that position, and if there are some, I will join you in arguing against them. This is what I mean when I say you are arguing against something that Calvinism does not even believe anyway.

 

Well, no not really as you can see from the rebuttal I already offered.

Yes indeed.

But this is not what is being said.

Talk about personal attacks, you have labeled those who disagree with you as arrogant. That's unacceptable. It should not be tolerated.

If you think that the Calvinist position on salvation contradicts Acts 16:31, it can only be because you do not understand what Calvinism teaches. Unfortunately, you and others have made up your mind about what Calvinism believes and refuse to recognize the truth about it.

Again I say, feel free to disagree with what we believe, but at least disagree with what we believe. Don't make something up about us and then disagree with that. That doesn't further than conversation.

 

I have chosen to give them the benefit of the doubt. It could well be disingenuous. After all, there is no one here who has participated in these discussions before who can legitimately say they have not been told what we actually believe. But it's possible that they honestly just don't understand it.

I agree. Unfortunately, that is all too often lacking.

 

Says who? Not Scripture.

I agree it's a requirement. Unfortunately, your view doesn't make it a requirement, if regeneration precedes faith. Thats another gospel.

You can't! That's the point. If you are regenerated prior to faith...that's just what is happening sans faith!

There are plenty of calvinists who put regeneration prior to faith. All one has to do is read this thread, and your posts.

 

I think that is the teaching of Scripture, that regeneration and faith are inseparable. Ephesians 2 makes them inseparable, regardless of which you think comes first.

It's hard to imagine that you can seriuosly call the gospel on which the church has grown for centuries "another gospel." But if you think that that is my view, you don't understand my view, which goes back to what I have said often: You don't know what you are talking about. For some reason, you won't listen to me. Knowing Calvinism fairly well, I can say without any fear of contradiction that you are incorrect in your understanding of Calvinism.

Again, you are simply incorrect. Regeneration and faith are simulataneious. You are not regenerated without faith.

Most of them do. But so what? That wasn't the point. The false argument was your argument that one can die without faith while being regenerated, and go to hell. That is not biblical, and it not Calvinistic. You might find some isolated Calvinists who believe that, but mainstream Calvinism believes that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Again, prima facie evidence that you are not paying attention. If you read my posts, you will see no argument for regeneration preceding faith. I don't believe it does. I believe faith precedes regeneration, and that faith is preceded by the effectual call, which is the unilateral sovereign work of God that enables totally depraved humans to exercise faith that leads to life.

I have said that before, and given many arguments in favor of it.

So please, again as I have said many times, stop talking until you find out what we believe and until you are ready to rightly represent it. Take the kind advice of someone who knows what we believe and says you are misrepresenting it. If you were to tell me that I didn't understand what you believe, I would certainly be humble enough to listen and learn. Please show us the same courtesy.

 

I would enjoy a civil debate on Regeneration. I would encourage you to go to a thread started by me specifically on that topic - here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=43205

The reason I direct you there is so we don't not get this thread to far off it's intended topic (which others are doing quite well - and I'm guilty of frequently . The topic is is of the many who claim the name of Christ are not biblically/spiritually born again.

Regarding my posting in here though. Does Piper equate being born again AS salvation (which the quote I gave from his article implies) ??

Though I do appreciate your answer, but do you know if the above is true?

 

Not to be to argumentitive but... if you are not regenerated without faith how are they simulataneious??

Are you simply saying that there is not a distinguishable real time passing between the usage of faith and the regeneration of us to life? (I would agree with that statement if faith is considered first in the order)

You are the first Calvinist I have ever heard of or read that makes the above statement I have embolded.

I would like to know what Calvinists you have read who agree with you here to see their views on the subject, since it is diametrically opposed to the traditional Calvinistic view regarding 'regeneration preceding faith'. It is an interesting piece information of which I had not heard.

 

Typically, Calvinists talk in terms of logical order, not chronological. So faith comes at the exact time as regeneration. The issue is really one of causation.

So at least this far, you would agree with me. Most Calvinists do not see a "distinguishable real time passing between the usage of faith and the regeneration of us to life." They do see regeneration first in terms of logical order. This is where I depart somewhat with my Calvinist brothers and sisters though we ultimately arrive at the same place of God's unilateral sovereign enablement to believe for salvation.

There aren't many of us.

I think Lewis and Demarest argue for this. There are not many. It's been so long since I looked around to see I don't even recall who else. It is definitely a minority view among Calvinists, and some people who know me and have heard me describe my position say I really believe in regeneration preceding faith, I just call it something else. But I think faith leads to life. The only argument that has tempted me to switch is the argument about the new nature. Can a person without a new nature believe?

 

Allan, were you around the last time we (BB) got into this subject (regeneration p faith)? A guy from Detroit Theological Seminary wrote a great paper on the subject. I have it saved somewhere on my computer. I'll look for it but I don't know how to paste into a forum.

 

This is the title, you might be able to find it through google.​

​

 

IF by 'we' you mean Baptist Board group then yes I have been but we have touched on it yet never really in any depth. Mostly because the discussion degenerates to names and misrepresentations. I tried starting a thread that specifically dealt with Regeneration only and if it was a prelude to or the act of Salvation, but only three people responded. We did have a good discussion about Perfect Tense in relation to present force, but little at all on regeneration.

I'll look for it.

 

I'm guessing it must be hard for you to explain your "ordo salutis" the same way twice but that it sounds authentic if you just call it that, eh? :laugh:

So actually, you decline to disprove my assertions about your beliefs. That's fine. The work goes on.

skypair

 

What would help is if you would give your ordo salutis, dude.

Conceptually --- by being a Cavlinist who is regenerated before having faith (just like RC Sproul descibes it "Regeneration precedes faith!").

RC Sproul "converted" to Calvinism upon seeing that one quotation ("Regeneration precedes faith") written on the blackboard by his professor in seminary, Lar. Maybe it is YOU needs to know more about Calvinism before "spouting off."

skypair