Decisional Regeneration: Stated and Refuted

Apparently you need to re-read Duet..

Just because a person was a jew did not make them believers.
They were not 'believers' because God told them to choose between Him and pagan gods.

It was time for them to choose whom they would serve just as those prior this new generation had done.

Notice here as well:

You see it was this that Paul was referencing when stating that the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth:

The NLT puts verse 11 this way:

NASB

 

No problem.

Well then, if people do have a free will (so to speak), and choice is involved in the process, then I still have to ask, what is decisional regeneration? The article didn't give a solid definition. And why do you disagree with it if you believe choice is involved in salvation?

And I agree with all of this. But what does it have to do with "decisional regeneration"?

Well, I don't really think that whether or not God's will can be frustrated is part of the decisional regeneration discussion, unless I'm missing something. (But if I must answer you in this matter to satisfy your OP, look at Luke 7:30 and examine the Greek word for counsel there).

If Bro. A. and Bro. B. both agree that choice is involved, and that the Holy Spirit is the One Who regenerates, but Bro. A. emphasizes man's part more and Bro. B. emphasizes God's part more, why does Bro. B. (the OP article) accuse Bro. A. of believing in "decisional regeneration"?

Actually, the term was not invented by the author of the article (unless you just forgot the "not"), but has been around a long time. It didn't make sense the first time I heard it and still doesn't.

But what you are describing doesn't describe what I do anyway. I may tell someone they have to decide about Jesus Christ, but I don't believe that regenerates them (and again, show me someone who believes that, or I'll continue to believe it is a straw man), and after they pray (if I ask them to pray) I carefully examine them as to whether or not they were sincere and the Holy Spirit was working.

And I agree with this paragraph as far as it goes (Except that Jack Hyles was quoted negatively. But let it be.), except that I don't believe in irresistable grace. But technically, that is not really part of the OP!

 

Most non cal's who aren't arminian believe just this. Count me in. All men are presented with Truth, and that truth can only come through God's revelation to mankind. The response to that truth, and who can respond is where we part ways.

 

I'm sure Allan will answer this, but choice by defnition means to have the option not to. The only presupposition is the actual definition of what it means to choose. It takes a greater presuppostion on the reformers part to come to the opposite conclusion, that when told to choose by someone who has the power to grant that choice, the choice is not possible.

 

Yeah, that is what I meant :laugh:

Since the order is primarily a 'logical one' regarding your theology, it begins with researching and examining not only what it does but also HOW it does this without making a person justified, sanctified, filled with Holy Spirit.. They are alive and are In Christ. But scripture states that one is only 'in Christ" at salvation and therefore one can only be spiritually alive if one is saved.

I wrote out a whole page on scriptures that show faith precedes regeneration..
But I figured if you took all the passages you understand about regeneration 'in your view' and substituted salvation for it, you can't help but see it. It is the misunderstanding of 'born', 'born-agian', and of couse regeneration that criples the common sense of the context.

I'll pose this question to you if I may..

From what are you saved if you are regenerate?



Subquestions that will shed more light to the above question:

If you are regenerate - are you not a new creation and thus no sin nature (old things are passed away - no more)?

If you are regenerate - are you not spiritually alive?

If you are regenerate - are you not 'in Christ'?

If you are regenerate - can one walk/live in righteous God honoring faith now if there was say a possibility of a 10 year span before salvation? (I know of some Calvinst who do believe in prolonged regeneration)

If you are regenerate - does one believe apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit since they are new creation and spiritually alive?

If you are regenerate - are you not in a reconciled relationship with God?

So in light of the above, if one is already regenerate but not yet saved (regardless of time between) - from what is one now needing to be saved?? Or better - What is the need for repentence and faith if one is already regenerate? What does salvation do that regeneration has not already done?

That person is already justified and sanctified before God.

This is why I ask the 'How does it work" question regarding regeneration due to the regenerating work of God.


..........

Additionally, you can not have resposibility without abilty unless you are speaking of injustice. It goes against the nature and meaning of the word "resposibility". God is just and all that He has stated about justice comes from His very being. Thus He can not go against Himself. To remove ability but make one responsible is unjust in accordance with God's own standard and very nature.

 

You misunderstand. The law never saves. What I would say is true in both Old and New Testaments is "decisional JUSTIFICATION," not "decisional regeneration" in either. In the NT, regeneration is given according to God's promise 1) AFTER one believes unto justification and 2) simultaneous with the gifts SANCTIFICATION including faith, indwelling Spirit, new birth, resurrection, etc.

Do you think you can follow that one? If I may revert to a previous argument I have made, your soul has to be JUSTIFIED -- reconciled to God -- decisionally BEFORE your spirit can begin to be sanctified by the indwelling Spirit of the "new creation."

Well, then, you ought to listen all the more closely and make sure that you don't believe it also. Were the OT saints indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Was He even 'given' before Christ arose? Was it ever said of them that they were "new creatures?" "born again?" given "gifts of the Spirit as was prophesied in Joel 2:28?" Was it ever said that they had the "washing of regeneration?" Or that they would be raptured rather than resurrected back to the earth as Job 19:25-28, Psa 50:3-5, Dan 12:2, etal. suggest?

The answer to all those is "no." There is not even a hint of such "mysteries" being revealed as to what they mean nor occurring in the OT.

Ergo, decisional JUSTIFICATION and sovereign SANCTIFICATION. Soul, then spirit, then body till we are "wholly blameless unto the coming of our Lord." 1Thes 5:23

Different in OPERATION, yes. They had no Jesus Christ --- only the promise of His coming, and that as KING to His KINGDOM. That is why the OT gospel was the "gospel of the kingdom." But they did have to be justified with/reconciled to God for salvation through faith, same as us. When they are resurrected, they will be sanctified by the indwelling Spirit. In fact, they will be "born again" much as Jesus was born as a baby -- of the Spirit and their, let's say, "buried DNA" literally!

But it is SO easy to see it that way! You have a god like the Greeks who does all according to his own will with no regard or respect of man. Some Greeks, without any choice on their part, were even "revealed" to be the sons or daughters of male and female gods. Hopefully not to get carried away but how many of y'all have I heard who seem to think they were "born again" that way -- "born from above." Instead of agreeing that the "died in Christ" in order to be reconciled to God, it's as if they were "born of God" right from the get-go -- sons by birth, just like the Greeks (so many as were so said to be born anyway). Not decisional at all but merely "fate."

Then it presupposes something that isn't in scripture.

If that is the case, then there is a God higher than your God Who was omniscient in the real sense of knowing so that the decrees would all be in synch with the myriad of people and decisions that would be made by "natural men." Or else you would be saying that your God positively decrees in evil, even specific sin, to accomplish His purposes.

skypair

 

And you realize that believing that man is UNABLE as you so blinds you to free will, even if that is the truth given us in scripture, right?

You are relying on an interpretation that really is a) strongly contradicted elsewhere in scripture and b) makes the gospel "inoperative" as a vehicle for reconciling folks to God.

skypair

 

Thank you. I can see it is also less of a threat to the foundations of your belief. I think, in the end, it is going to come down to dealing with soul and spirit as if they could be "divided asunder" and dealt with separately in salvation.

skypair

 

You have Scripture for natural revelation vs. special revelation? The Bible states that the truth is known to all, that is not natural revelation only. Romans 10:18 alone refutes these separate revelations.

 

So I take it you have none? That would have been easier to say, no?

 

I doubt it refutes Romans 10:18 which is as plain as day.
You made the claim of two separate revelations, and I called you out on it. Provide it.