You must be born again

The heart must first be opened for the sinner to respond (Acts 16:14). Good going, Amy. :thumbs:

 

Its all good.

Hey, I noticed you are from Bellevue. this has nothing to do with anything on here, but I scanned your Churches budget some time back and noticed the inordinately high cost of "administration." My church is no different, with 55% to human resources alone. Then take out building/grounds and you haveless than 40% to do "ministry." In the stae conventions, Missouri and TN both send less than 40% of CP dollars to the SBC.

Have we lost it? Your thoughts? (if you are interested maybe we could start a new thread.) I just found your churh's budget interesting because it is larger then the entire MBC budget.

k

 

Hey, ~k,

We just joined Mobberly Baptist in Longview, TX -- our new home in our retirement. But you have a good point. Churches now are SO self-indulgent!

What really irks me is the "love offering." When Paul raised one, it was for the suffering church at Jerusalem (or Macedonia). Not today! Today we raise the money for our OWN WEALTHY church and whatever program "the commitee" tells us is OUR "need!" And last year they even cancelled that program!

I am sick of it all! What does the Spirit say to give to. That's my heart now. Who is really spreading the word effectively.

skypair

 

They are apart of the same act but not the same thing.

I'm not the one who is equating the story of Moses lifting up the serpent and Christ being lifted up, Jesus is. Go back and read the story of Moses lifting up the serpent and you will see repentence and belief.

Secondly, I have never disagreed that repentence comes as a result of a changed heart but what I have contended and has been contended nigh 1500 years (or longer) is the age old argument of being regenerate before salvation.

A sinner left to himself to find God will never have any desire to repent because he has no desire for God in that he doesn't even realize there is a need for God. But what you and your new theology leave out is what happens if God decides to reveal truth to that unregenerate sinner of which he would have never come to truth of his own. Man will not choose anything other than what his nature has allowed him to know, so when God bypasses the sinful nature to put truth into the heart of man you have man for the first time in his life having a choice. Man can not live out that truth in his sinfilled nature but that does not mean his spirit does not acknowledge that truth. It is what man does WITH that truth that is the issue, whether accept it or reject and change it to their own passions. If unregenerate man can know what truth IS, (Rom 1:18-33, 1 Thes 2:10-12, Prov 1:18 -) then that man has the ability to believe or not.

ABout the whole "of their own power' thing. The main problem with this, is you have no scriptural support for this view in regard to man believing due to revelation of truth. The only thing scripture speaks to is man in his sinfilled nature will not seek after God of his own and therefore will not repent or do anything spiritual because he can not know it (as in learn it himself without the aide of God). Scripture says NOTHING about mans inability to choose once God comes to man and reveals truth to that man. In fact it says the OPPOSITE because you always find God revealing and then saying to choose, unless God lies?

But if you would like to discuss this more, I ask that you come to my thread on Regeneration. Unfortunately I can't get anyone to really talk it from the Cals side. Only one person 'finally' gave me a couple of sentenses which were a quote from another historic Cal but beyone that, there was no real interaction (with the exception of about 3 pages of examining the Perfect tense in Present force)
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=43205
Hope to see you there

Anyway, that is the extent I'm going to go into here. It could be debated over and over, while the end results are the same it is the mechanics which are seen differently. Enjoy.

 

You are totally missing the point. The Bible has one word for faith: pisteuo. It is translated "faith as a noun and "believe" as a verb. There is no distinction between the two. The "lively hope" argument is not a biblical one. False faith or vain faith is faith that has no commitment behind it.

There is no risk of you being overly technical here.

This is why I say that you do not rightly represent us. This is what is so frustrating and infuriating about your comments. You just don't get it. Calvinists do not "basically believe on an omnipotent "Tinkerbell" who sprinkled you with "pixie salvation."" That is out and out dishonesty. You have been told many times what we believe and this is not it. You know better. You do not have to agree with what we believe, but it is dishonest and unethical for you to say what you have said about it.

We believe in an omnipotent, gracious God who saves people who have no hope in themselves, and he saves us by faith alone through what Jesus did on the cross for us.

Do not continue to misrepresent it.

Nope, not at all.

You have a false faith, or a habit of dishonesty. If you understand it and say what you do, you are dishonest. If you say what you say because you actually believe you are correct, then you have a misunderstanding. Your words above reveal one or the other. I don't think you are dishonest, so I think you don't understand. But given the number of times it has been explained to you, it is increasingly hard for me to hold that position.

I understand perfectly what you are saying. That's why I think it is wrong.

I am "indignant" to some degreee because you keep misrepresenting what we believe. I am not stumbling in the least. I know what the Bible says. I have seen this stuff you are saying before and it is clearly answered by Scripture.

As I have said before, feel free to believe what you want. Do not continue to feel free to misrepresent us.

I think it may be time for you to take a break from the board while you decide how you are going to continue. There is no place on the BB for the kind of arguments you make where you knowingly misrepresent what people believe. I don't care what side you are on; that is completely unacceptable. You need to change or leave.

 

Larry,

Here are the alternate meanings for "believe" abridged from blueletterbible.com to show you that that same Greek word, while being the same, has difference applications per the context.

"1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul

2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith

3) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith"

You're wrong on this, Larry. I pray to God you weren't regenerated/born again before you converted/believed and repented. There is a chronological and logical order to these events. They are not "spontaneous" nor "instantaneous" such that you have to waffle and posit your own doubts every time the "ordo salutis" comes up.

By way of my "Tinkerbell" alusion (sorry you can't grasp the comparisons), many of your ilk claim that infant baptism regenerated them, for instance. I don't know when you think you were regenerated before faith and repentance but it is wrong. Did you marry your wife before you knew her, too?

All you are doing is denying the method by which God worked in you to save you and thereby destroying the hopes of the lost and the assurance of the saints. On the one hand, you are never married to one YOU didn't choose and on the other, having not chosen/decided yourself, how do you know you are committed at all in your heart?

And as to "taking a break" --- not till you get it right. Again, did you marry your wife before you knew her? Did you "repent" from all other women and "repent" from living unto self alone when you said, "I do?"

Perhaps you, TCGreek, and I could study this "great mystery" (Eph 5:32) together and see that marriage and salvation are very comparable in the manner by which they are entered into. And if you are not married, I'll give you some pointers. :laugh:

skypair

 

Do you really not realize how insulting you are to others?

Phrases like "your ilk" are insulting and disrespectful and similar insults are in most of your posts.


From what I understand from my reading of scripture, the church is the bride of Christ. I am not His bride. I am His child. God is my Father, not my husband. That is the relationship I have with Him, not one of a wife. He chose me and adopted me as His child. And yes, I chose Him also, but not until He enabled me to do so.
Referring to God as my husband sounds Catholic to me. Should I start wearing a wedding band like the nuns do? My husband might not appreciate that.

I don't know much about Calvinism, but I know enough to see that you do not represent an accurate view.

 

You are quite correct in this, but notice that believe is to have faith. They are the same thing. One is the noun and the other is the verb. Your own definition (#2, and #3) says it. So you quote something that agrees with me, and then say that I am wrong. How does that work?

Here again is just out and out dishonesty. No one of my ilk believes that infant baptism regenerates them, and you know that. Baptismal regeneration is heresy, and my ilk all say that.

Your continued and unabashed dishonesty disqualifies you from further participation in this board.

I don't need any pointers from you because if your marriage advice is like your theology, it is unbiblical and abominable, not to mention probably dishonest. And you just don't get it. I am married, and I married a woman I chose, whom God chose for me long before I knew her. He planted in me the desire to marry her. So there are many similarities to salvation, but not in the way you think.

You seriously should quit posting until you decide to be honest. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. You are more than welcome to. I have a serious problem with your being dishonest about what I believe.

It is long past time for you to change.

 

That is an excellent picture of marriage and salvation. I have never heard it put that way, but it is a good point to remember for teaching.

 

Yeah, I particularly like that, too. It's also a good picture of how predestination works. It's not the same thing as forcing someone to do something (implied: against their will).

 

Yet you insist that faith comes after regeneration. How does that work unless faith means one thing before regeneration and another after???

You haven't been debating with the same people I have, Lar. Some even say they were regenerated in the womb! Like John the Baptist!!

So you are not only campaigning for a "mod" job but for God's job as well (re: "abominable")??

So God chose your wife, too. Hmmm. Do you have ANY prerogatives in life? Let me ask this --- do your mistakes belong to God, too?? How about your sin???

I am honest with what I see of the Calvinist theology. If you depart from that and still call yourself a Calvinist, it's your fault if you get "caught in the crossfire." YOU are a "false witness" against yourself if that is the case.

skypair

 

How does the regeneration of John the Baptist in the womb have any relationship whatsoever with baptismal regeneration of infants? Are you saying Calvinists claim that John the Baptist was regenerated because he was baptized in his mother's water? If you don't know the difference between baptismal regeneration and the idea that John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb, then how can you possibly argue anything with any coherency?

 

You should have heard Adrian Rogers sermon on 2Cor 1:22. The "earnest of our redemption," according to Dr Rogers, is our "engagement ring" given us each by Christ at conversion! And look at the 10 virgins (Mt 25:1-13). There you will see the same thing. Some have oil -- some none. But each is a prospective bride.

But note too that you are mixing allusions to Christ with allusions to God. Yes, God is Father -- yes, Christ is bridegroom.

But it is clear by your opening comments that you issue with me is more attitude that substance. I forgive you if you will forgive me for not always using the words you think I should.

skypair

 

Forgive me for what? I said you are disrespectful to others. That is the truth. I don't see why I need your forgiveness.

 

Cause some Calvinists think that indwelling of the "elect" can happen before birth (and as proof, they cite John). Well, indwelling IS rebirth/regeneration!

No, they claim that John was regenerated because he was "filled with the Spirit" when Mary visited and he kicked in the womb.

Hey, dude -- it ain't MY argument! It's your "feathered Calvinist friends" who claim this!!

So BTW, do you believe in baptismal regeneration??

skypair

 

Oh, that's right. Focus on the NON-issues rather than "letting it go." You ever hear the song "Would Ya Let It Ride?" Love that song. You ought to listen to the words sometime.

skypair

 

You brought up that you would forgive me IF......

 

Yes, but that too has many problems with it's concept.

Like: God put in many the desire to marry adulterers, unfaithful who's lives are shattered by that infidelity. The problem with that picture is not that God put in those who were cheated on to be married to that particular person, but that God put that same desire into the other person as well who will destroy them.

 

I am not sure what the confusion is. No matter where faith comes, it is still faith, or belief. The point is that faith and belief are not two different things. That's true whether you are Arminian or Calvinist, or some supposed place in between.

First, it doesn't matter who you are debating with. "My ilk" does not believe in baptismal regeneration. And regeneration in the womb is not the same as baptismal regeneration. They are different issues. When you said "some of [my] ilk believes in baptismal regeneration," you were dishonest.

I am already a moderator. I led the charge the shut down the CvA forum over the type of tactics that you are using here. And I am not campaiging for God's job either. God already told us how he views dishonesty.

God is sovereign over everything, and I make choices. My mistakes and sins are mine, and they are part of God's sovereign plan. I have said that many times.

Your vision is skewed if what you say here is what you see. And we keep telling you that see it wrong. Again, I don't care what you believe. But I do care that you not make stuff up about Calvinist theology.

I haven't departed from Calvinist theology. I simply know how to recognize it. When you say what you do about Calvinist theology, you are either being dishonest or you dont' understand. Which should we conclude?

 

No, it is YOUR argument. You defended your claim that Calvinists believe in baptismal regeneration by bringing up John the Baptist. The two things aren't related. You simply can't admit you were wrong, so you changed the subject.