Decisional Regeneration: Stated and Refuted

Actually, my belief fits right into your hypothesis. Instead of "decisional regeneration" I propose "decisional justification." All I'm saying is "decisional regeneration" misses a step in the salvation process.

BTW, it is "convoluted." :laugh:

skypair

 

...or how about "you stated there are two separate revelations given to man, how about providing Scripture for your view" like I did on the last page?

 

If you google the term, you'll find over 16,000 hits. It's an old term, and I've heard it for decades, but I don't know where it originated. What I do know is that it's not a theological term but a term used by what I call "popular Calvinism" as opposed to that discussed by theologians.

If you check out the websites through Google you'll find out that they usually don't define the term carefully, just as your link did not. When they do define it, it turns out to be a caricature, saying that its adherents believe that a decision saves one--which no non-Calvinist believes. Here is an example from one website: "Decisional regeneration, simply stated, is any doctrine which maintains that an individual is saved by a mere 'decision of the will.' As I believe I have demonstrated, Calvinists such as John MacArthur and you do believe that salvation is a choice, and non-Calvinists such as Jack Hyles (Billy Graham is another favorite target) still believe that it is the Holy Spirit Who regenerates, not a decision. Thus: straw man!

Now, I agree that there are mistaken methods of evangelism. But I believe they should be criticized with the term, "mistaken method of evangelism," not the bogus "decisional regeneration." :smilewinkgrin:

The comparison between baptismal regeneration and the so-called "decisional regeneration" is, again, bogus. Baptismal regeneration is a clear case of adding works to the Gospel. But even opponents of "decisional regeneration" believe that one must choose salvation. And is making a decision a work? Is it adding to the Gospel? No, and no. :type:

 

When did I say I wouldn't? Why the hard to get, pulling teeth approach? If you believe something, man, support what you believe with Scripture regardless of who or what people believe!

 

Aha! I just took a glance through my library and found a pamphlet entitled, "Decisional Regeneration" by, guess who, James Adams as per your link. In fact, the article in your link is the pamphlet I have! It's originally copyright 1973, and was a revision of an article first published in the Sword and Trowel in 1972. So, it is possible that Adams is the originator of the term. And my objections in my last post still stand.

 

Well then let us look at the defintion of the words "resposible" and "ability" so we can see better who is closer to being correct.
Dictionary.com [unabridged] states:

I believe that 1 and 4 speak to the issue we are discussing and that 4 is more applicable to this than 1. I state this because man is a moral agent who is to make a decision for which he is accountable. The illistration gives a good example regarding resposiblity in a judicial format.

Thus to be held judiciously responsible one must have the capcity to perform that which has been asked of him.

Looking at ability it states:

Also with regard to it's synonym "capcity":

Thus #1 is the most fitting as I have said but specifically with regard to capcity

So by Responsible’s very definition 'ability' (or the capcity to do something) is not only apparent in its meaning but mandated. Its’ very definition ascribes the inherent ability or capcity for the action to be taken and therefore accountable for either doing or not doing a thing.

Resposibility and ability (in any language) go hand in hand regarding legal and judicial matters. It is no different with the scriptures. Thus responsibility ALWAYS bears with it ability. To say it does not is to 're-define' the word.

And "How" is it 'Just' to command someone to do something they can not do and then punish them for not being able to do it??? Man is not damned but under condemnation for sinning, yet it for rejection of truths given by God that man is damned and judged.

It is no different than a Judge setting a glass of water in front a man under condemnation that is buried to his neck in the desert sand. And then He tell him.. If anyone will drink this water I set before them - I will save them. But whoever will not drink I will kill.

I used the analogy because it best discribes their in-ability and the fact that God must present to them the truth to be recevied. But if it is not recieved then they will be damned for not recieving it. That is in fact an unjust Judge and unrighteous Judge according to God's standards of judgment.

The common sense reading of scripture in context coupled with in the understanding of the definition of 'responsibility' neccesitates man having the capcity to believe, as I stated above that judicially the understanding of "resposibility" mandates one having the capcity to fulfill that to which he is accountable for. As well in the common sense understanding of the context, that if judicially someone is asked someone to do something they have the capcity to do it. Otherwise, agian, it would be a valid accusation of them being unjust and thus a valid charge against God.

No, my comment is that they still maintain the capcity to believe since the fall but that the ability to believe is bound by the sin nature when left to himself, until God move upon man vai the Holy Spirit through revelation and conviction that he might know the truth and believe or know the truth and reject it.

The rest of this can be seen as we examine "Regeneration"

BTW - though man could not fufill the Law without flaw in the flesh, he was able to do so by faith. So it isn't that man could not fulfill the law but that without faith he could not do it.

 

And now back to skypair's post:


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."

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 ever 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

 

Umm.. excuse me.. I never claimed anything otherwise. The only disctinction between my view and yours is that we see God's supernatural work being toward ALL men and not some bring to Himself through the calling and conviction all men of faith whom He foreknew.

The rest of that 'fluff' (as you call it) refutes your understanding of "responsibility' since the word itself necessitates the ability of capcity to do it. However it is word 'capcity' that is specific here regarding both resposibility AND ability. Capcity does not mean a person is enable now but that when that enabling comes they have the ability 'THEN' to believe.

Thus you 'can not' divorce abililty from resposibility in a judicial pr legal sense and remain "Just". Your re-defined word makes God insincere in His offer to all men to believe and be saved (which even most Reformers held regarding God's offer to the un-elect with the exception of the hypers).

Do you believe like the majority of Reformers (with the exception of those with Hyper tendencies) that God offers salvation to the un-elect as well as the elect?

For example like J.I. Packer:

Or the Westminister Standards on the gospel offer..

Is it not unjust to sincerely give the gospel to the un-elect that if they would believe they might be saved and turn around and judge them eternally for not being able to believe because God didn't want them to?

Just how sincere was God in offering them salvation via the gospel knowing they will not beleive because He will not allow it?

It is (IMO) double talk and a great deal of dancing to say -
God is sincere in His gospel offer to the non-elect but in the same breath state that God will not allow them grace to believe His gospel offer. (it makes God a liar)
Just as it is to say a man is resposible to believe the gospel offer which He sincerely gives to the non-elect to be saved by faith and them damn them eternally because God did not desire them to believe. (it makes God unjust and unrighteous)

Call it fluff all you like but it is still a fact and it stands against what you are claiming regarding what 'responsibility' actaully means/entails.

I would still be interested to know what your answer is to this question I possed:

HOWEVER, personally I would like to get back to the threads OP - about Regeneration

 

See RB, it is for this reason I wanted to talk about regeneration. Once it is dealt with the vast majority of the other arguments fall into place on one side or the other.

I can not convince you of what responsibility entails (even with definitions) unless you see regeneration the way I believe scripture specifically declares it - to be salvation/born-again/new creation/born..

It is for this reason I would seek to continue on Regeneration and not argue about if man can or can't believe at God's supernaturally moving upon all men everywhere or if it is only the elect that God reveals things to.

The issue of regeneration settles the issue in the vast majority of arguments here.

 

I disagree but that is no matter

Which is why getting back to regeneration will clear this up a great deal and we don't even have to get back into it

Let's get back to dealing with that :thumbs:

 

You're to cool .. :thumbs: :laugh: