Order of salvation...

Hello Havensdad,

Thank you for your comments and push back. I hope you do not mind if I, too, push back a little. :thumbs:

I certainly do make many common mistakes. In this case, you say that I am confusing the act of God giving someone faith with the outworking of that faith, which is believing. Before I get into this, I want to clear something up. Our discussion is *not* a discussion between the act of God giving someone faith, and the act of someone believing. Rather, our discussion is between the object of what God gives (i.e., faith), and the act of our believing. I think this is what you meant, but I wanted to be clear.

What is the distinction you are making in the above quote? If the faith that has been given to someone by God is qualitatively different than the act of that someone believing, what is it that has been given? When God gives the gift of faith He gives a heart that believes. In other words, the referent of the noun 'faith' is the very act of believing. My believing and the gift God has given me are the very same thing. Since you say they are not the same thing, then please tell me the difference.

Are you saying that the substance of what God has given is a part of speech? :confused: I am not trying to be flippant here; so, please do not take it that way. When the Bible speaks of us being justified by faith, 'faith' simply means we are trusting in the work of Christ alone for our justification. The gift of faith is the gift of trusting in Christ. There is no distinction to be had here.

This is not true. Romans 10:10 is one example and there are others as well.

You quoted Romans 3:28 and 5:1 showing how we have been justified by faith. Great passages, and all I can say is "Amen!" You did not quote Romans 4:3. It says, "Abraham belived God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Notice, Abrahams act of believing was counted to him as righteousness. So, when one considers these three passages it is clear that Abraham's God given faith and Abraham's act of believing are the very same thing.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

Darren,

I'll admit the "smoking gun" of regeneration is not plainly in the text. My whole problem with your approach is that you seem to discount the ability (and sometimes the intention) of the New Testament to inform our understanding of the Old Testament.

Many places in the New Testament clearly shed light on our understanding of the Old Testament (such as the entire book of Hebrews).

If we look at certain facts, we can see that God certainly intervened in a miraculous way in the lives of people:

Abraham--when God chose Abraham, Abraham was an idol worshiper. Now, of course there is a corporate aspect to Abraham's election, but there is an individual element too.

If it is the case that Abraham was an idol worshiper, which Joshua 24 clearly says, why and how did God choose him? Since he was an idol worshiper, it is safe to say that Abraham didn't do anything to attract God's favor.

7,000 in Israel--When Ahab and Jezebel ruled Israel, almost everyone was a Baal worshiper. So much so that Elijah thought he was the only Yahweh-follower left in the entire land. God's response comes to him in 1 Kings 19:18 and God says that He has kept 7,000 people who have not worshiped Baal.

The Hebrew construction shows this to be reflexive. In other words, God is saying that He has kept for Himself 7,000 people. Certainly that shows some divine intervention to keep for Himself what others have rightly called "a faithful remnant."

So, as these two examples show, there certainly can be and there certainly is divine interference on the part of God to bring people to Himself.

Also, as to the whole corporate election thing, the keeping of the 7,000 shows that there is both a corporate and individual electing purpose. Not to mention that the New Testament tells us that only true believers in Yahweh were considered true Israel. In other words, "doing" the sacrifices didn't amount to a hill of beans unless you believed in God and took Him at His word.

So, while there is no smoking gun, it is clear that something very similar to what the New Testament calls regeneration is going on.

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. Your location says SW Sydney...is that Sydney, Australia?

 

Thank you for the kind words brother and I hope you know I appreciate your attitude and that your posts being kind also deal with the scriptures and not an opinion of others views. And for that reason - express away :thumbs:

Here is something I would like to hear your thoughts on.
At the fall, did we obtain a completely new nature in which our other one was removed and replaced or did our nature become fallen/corrupt (regardless of the extent - though I agree with you on it). And when we get a 'new' nature, it is 'new' as in the other is removed from us and new one is given in it's place or is it 'new' in the sense of having been 'renewed', cleansed, washed, or brought back to the state in which our nature was originally created to be as. Since old and new only are referenced to the believer and speak to who they were before and after.

IOW - taking that which was old and making it to become 'new'.

 

Well, that's just the point. Nicodemus didn't believe precisely because he was not born again.

The Greek for "born again" is passive, meaning it must be done to him by an outside force. The "born again" can also be translated "born from above" (which shows the passive voice). A better understanding of the passage would be "unless you are born(ed) again from above..."

Now, after Nicodemus shows his non-understanding, Jesus chastises him for "being the teacher of Israel and not knowing these things." These things refers to being born of water and the spirit. Being born of water is a clear reference to Ezekiel 36 where God tells the people that He will sprinkle clean water on them in order to make them clean. After that, God will replace a heart of stone with a heart of flesh and "cause" the regenerate to walk in His ways.

We know Jesus' reference cannot be a reference to natural human birth--the amniotic fluid. Why? Because Jesus didn't chastise Nicodemus for not being the doctor of Israel. Jesus clearly thinks Nicodemus has an Old Testament misunderstanding, not a medical misunderstanding.

The picture of water in the Old Testament, referenced in Ezekiel 36, is one of cleansing or purification. In the Law, especially concerning sacrifices, water is always present as an element of cleansing and purification. The metaphor holds in Ezekiel. But in Ezekiel, it is clear that God Himself is doing the action.

But, back to the original point, the being born again of which Jesus speaks in John 3:3 is only something that can be done to someone by an outside source--namely God. Also, it is interesting that it would seem that Nicodemus did become a believer (see John 19).

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I'll comment on the rest later but the fact remains we have 2 things, God's interference or intervention AND mans response. Bottom line.

Yep. We live right in the SW region about 50km from the Sydney CBD, in what used to be classed as semi country as of 20 years ago.

Darren

 

That's a really good question!

Ultimately, I am Augustinian on this.

Pre-Fall: Able to sin and able not to sin

Post-Fall: Not able not to sin

After Conversion: Able to sin and able not to sin

Eternal State: Not able to sin

I think the answer to your question may be a both/and, not either/or.

Certainly at the fall our nature was hopelessly damaged. I don't know that I would say our nature was "replaced," however. Genesis 9 is clear that we still function as image bearers. So, even though that--I think--is primarily a functional aspect, I don't think it allows us to say that the pre-fall nature is replaced with a post-fall nature.

Having said that the pre-fall nature is hopelessly marred and is, possibly, unrecognizable--like someone who has been horribly mangled and disfigured in an auto accident. Perhaps not every part is as damaged as it could be but every part is, in some way, damaged. What is more, the more severely damaged parts undoubtedly effect the less severely damaged parts so that the whole nature is woefully damaged.

The new nature (regardless of when it comes--post conversion or pre conversion), I think, is a restoration of the fallen nature. The Augustinian model suggests that the state of a person is the same in pre-fall and post-conversion. So, I think there is a cleansing restoration of the fallen nature.

However, when we enter into Christ's presence, I think there is a replacement of nature. In the eternal kingdom there will be no sin and I agree with Augustine that this would require us to not be able to sin. I think that requires a new (as opposed to cleansed/restored) nature.

Anyway, that's how I see it on August 18, 2009 at 1:35 AM EST.

Many Blessings!

The Archangel

 

Cool, and interesting :)
I'll have to get back with you since I'm at work and have some duties to attend to.

May God richly bless you and the ministry He has given you for His glory.
Allan

 

Well...I've got to admit the whole Sydney thing is pretty cool! I've only seen pictures and that has been enough to whet my appetite. I'd love to visit, although I'm not crazy about the VERY long plane ride from the Washington DC area.

I would whole-heartedly agree that man must respond. As I've stated in the past (although it may have been to someone else), I have no problem with the Arminian insistence on man having to respond to God. My problem is that the typical Arminian position has God responding to man's initiating action. The biblical model is that man responds to God's initiating action.

The biblical model always presents God as the initator and man as the responder.

Blessings!

The Archangel

 

Sydney = overrated!! Although I admit that the Opera House and Harbor Bridge and Darling Harbor and other sites are quite nice to visit for a family day out. Sydney is such a pain to travel to these days, it is impossible to go in there by car and only accessible by train for the average person. I haven't been in there for years, I hate traffic, traffic jams and all the tollways, one way streets..etc I'm too much of a country guy. :)

This is what I don't get. God is the initiator man responds, that is exactly as I see it. The Calvinist interpretation adds a side element that man cannot respond and says God's intervention IS regeneration. An illustration would be the gospel is preached to a crowd of 500 unsaved people, only those regenerated can respond. YET preaching the gospel is God's drawing and intervention; the Calvinist would say no, preaching just brings out the elect from the crowds, God's drawing and intervention is the unmerited, merciful regeneration of that unsaved person - To me there is no reason to believe that, since the gospel and the Word of God (scripture) are spirit and life to all whom would believe.

Now to make my point further, God intervened in the OT and we know men whom believed; God used prophets, God used Himself as the Angel of the Lord, God used the testimony and admonition of the saints; yet for all that we see, men were ABLE to respond and did respond. They were NOT regenerated and there is no reason to think they were, however the OT saints demonstrated, relationship with God, personal knowledge, belief, trust, love; they were sinners yes but through faith in God they were able to be called righteous by God Himself. This brings out my point that man has always been able to either positively respond to God or to the negative and rebel or disbelieve. As long as God intervenes (not regeneration) man can and is able to respond.

The difference is for the New Covenant God indwelt believers (immediately) and thus made it far easier to obey Him; by regenerating and making old flesh men new creations they are able to serve and love God in a way not previously experienced in Old Testament times. BUT the path to believing is similar on man's side of things from the OT to the NT. That's the way I see it.

Darren

 

Your analogy has shown just the opposite. A cat doesn't come out meowing or a dog barking. After they are a month or so old, they begin to do so. We can agree they are still cats and dogs, and it is in their nature to meow and bark, but they are not born as "meowers" or "barkers" :) In the same light, as humans we will inevitably sin, since it is in our nature to do just that, but, like the dog and cat, we are not born sinners. Words have meanings, and a sinner by definition is one who sins.

 

Sorry I have been away. I need to not start these threads if I can't post. I'll try to address some other matters later this week.

But I need to post one one some thing. The "crux" from above.

How do those that deny TD deal with the guilt found in this verse...

Even if we were to obey the law of God fully, we are still guilt. Because to obey Gods Law is our duty and does not mean with no sin expression on our part leads to reward.

I'll check back later this week.

James

 

Darren,

I grew up in the Washington DC area traffic. I hate traffic too, but I can't imagine anywhere having worse traffic than DC...with the possible exception of Virginia's peninsula (around Busch Gardens). With the Navy bases and Army bases and two-lane highways and bridges--it can become a HUGE mess. Now I live in the mountains of Western Maryland (close to West Virginia and Pennsylvania) where it is mostly "country." I'll agree with you that I greatly prefer the country.

Now, on to your post! You wrote:

Certainly I will agree with you that preaching the Gospel is a means of drawing and intervention. If you read the Puritans, you will see their "idea" of conversion. The Puritans argued that conversion could be a process--involving the repeated preaching of the Gospel. If you read the biography of Jonathan Edwards by Marsden, you see Edwards' father was still unconvinced of Edwards conversion, even into Edwards' college career and early pastorates.

It would seem that Scripture supports a progression in some cases--someone plants a seed, someone else waters, someone else harvests.

So, I think conversion can happen in a flash (like the Apostle Paul) or it can be a process driven by the preaching of the Gospel. Yet, a person still has to be given eyes to see and ears to hear and that will inevitably lead to salvation, but that salvation will not necessarily be instantaneous.

You continue:

Again, I think you are missing the point of the entirety of the Old Testament. One of the major themes in the Old Testament is man's inability to respond properly to God. Even the Israelites eventually began to worship the Law rather than the God who gave the Law. So, there are special cases of God's intervention to keep people faithful--Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, etc. While this is not usually understood in the same way as New Testament regeneration, the fingerprint is certainly the same.

You add:

The New Testament certainly does not agree. Matthew 13:10-17 speaks of having eyes to see and ears to hear the "secrets" of the kingdom. John 3 speaks of a regenerating work. Acts 13 shows a special intervention--those appointed to eternal life believed. Romans 8:29-30 shows God's choosing of a person resulting in conforming to Christ's image, justification, sanctification, and glorification. Not to mention we are told in Ephesians 2 that we are, by nature, children of wrath who follow the lusts of our flesh and who are sons of disobedience.

The key question is why would anyone turn from their own pleasurable lusts (self-idolatry, if you will) to God who places restrictions on them (and outlaws those sinful pleasures)? The biblical reason can only be that God has awakened them to a new reality (regeneration) and the sinner values Christ more than himself or his lusts. That is not something that happens by the will of man, it happens by the will of God. (John 1)

I believe many Arminians miss a huge point in Scripture: We are all rebels against the King of the Universe and that rebellion is, essentially, cosmic treason which demands death (Romans 6:23). The difference is that God has chosen to pardon some of the rebels and adopt them as His children. So Christians, then, are pardoned rebels.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

You have misapplied my analogy. The point of my analogy was not to state what happens immediately after birth. Rather, my point is to say that cats don't have to be taught to meow and dogs don't have to be taught to bark. To make these characteristic sounds is in their nature. In other words it is the fruit of their nature. Cats, for example, don't need to be taught to wash themselves; it is in their nature to do so.

Humans don't have to be taught to rebel and sin; it is in their nature and we will do it naturally.

I never knew you were a Pelagian. Ephesians 2 shows that we are, by nature, children of wrath. It is not what we do; it is who we are.

A sinner is someone who sins for that is the fruit of his or her nature. But what makes them sin? It is their fallen nature.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I'm not a pelagian, so for the last time I would appreciate it if you cal's would stop referring to me as such. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1443270&postcount=28 Having a sin nature does not make one a sinner, it means they will sin as it is in their nature to do so.

Also, it was your analogy that claims they are born barking and meowing. As I showed, that is not the case. They wouldn't be classified as such until they can actually do it.

In addition, you use the Ephesians 2 out of it's proper context.

 

What can I say?

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1443270&postcount=28

Curious, do you participate in your topics, or do you only troll?

 

Let it be known now that I don't feel all non-Calvinist are Pelagian.

However, going by the post of some it is clear that Pelagian views are alive and "well".

Its also clear I'm not the only one that sees it. It can also be shown that I don't call all non-Calvinist Pelagianist.

As to the topic...I believe I may have more post on this topic than you. You will need to count....I'm not going to.

It is alos clear you did not address what I asked. You deny TD as seen by Calvinist, so maybe you would like to address it.

 

Well, I stand corrected. You do have in interesting accumulation of belief. What you stated in your post was this: "We are not born sinners." Historically speaking that seems quite Pelagian. Thank you for setting me straight on your beliefs. I'm also sorry that I didn't see the post you linked to, that would have answered many questions...and raised a few more.

As I stated in that post (here), the analogy is not perfect. Analogies rarely, if ever, are perfect. However, I never stated that cats are "born" meowing or that dogs are "born" barking. In fact, I never speak of them being birthed at all. So, you are reading into the original analogy something that is not there in the first place.

What I was saying is that a cat meows because it is, by nature, a cat and a dog barks because it is, by nature, a dog.

How so?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Yeh, I'm bias because I'm a country guy.

I simply can't passed over this. Your objection is unwarranted. Man could respond to God in the OT and that is what the facts turned out to be. The issue was they had trouble as "believers" because they lacked the indwelling Holy Spirit, a new and better covenant and way to serve and know and love God. It was external BUT Hebrews ch11 shows a great picture of how OT saints could demonstrate faith in God even though they were NOT regenerate. To introduce regeneration as a necessary MEANS for an unsaved sinner to believe in God is not founded upon the truths of the OT.

When God intervenes, man can respond, no regeneration needed or has ever been used by God and that is the true principle the bible teaches from the time of Adam's fall to 2009 A.D... Simple as that. The new covenant the the means God uses for true and powerful change in the life of that NEW BELIEVER (not an unbeliever).

Darren

 

Darren,

Perhaps I have not written as clearly as I think I have--that is always a possibility with me.

You wrote:

There are two challenges to your presuppositions:

1. Everyone who demonstrated faith (Abraham, Moses, David, etc.) had been specially chosen by God. It is clear that God's choosing has a regenerative factor in it in that He is the One that keeps His chosen. This is clearly demonstrated in 1 Kings 19 where God says that He has kept--for Himself--7,000 that have not worshiped Baal.

2. The New Testament does inform our understanding of the Old Testament because the New Testament is the fullest disclosure of God, His character, etc. The Bible, both testaments, are a unit; they are not in opposition.

Furthermore, God works in an electing way in the Old Testament, both with individuals and the Nation of Israel. You could not be considered "saved" unless you were a part of Israel. Now, there are certain rare exceptions where people from other nations come into Israel--Uriah the Hittite; Rahab, etc. However, they come into Israel because of something God did. This is shown in that they came into Israel.

With your presuppositions, how do you speak to the Egyptians or the Philistines? They are not chosen, and apart from something miraculous of God's doing they would be eternally outside of Israel.

Even further--when you get to the New Testament, how do you interpret Jesus' words in Matthew 13 when He tells His disciples "to you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom..." This stands in direct opposition to the scribes and Pharisees who were not given eyes to see or ears to hear.

So, to me, your position does not answer as many questions as it raises. But that certainly does not mean that you are not a Christian. As I've said--I am a Calvinist, but I am not a Calviniser.

Blessings,

The Archangel