Regeneration Before Faith

Well said. My guess is that winman will ignore 90% of this and return to some sort of straw man.

 

Sorry to hear you died. I did not say everything God did is effectual, I said God's word is always quick and powerful, but only effectual to those that believe.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

This verse tells us that God's word is quick and powerful. Notice there are no loopholes or exceptions in this verse.

1 Thes 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Notice here that the word of God only effectually works in those that believe.

And I showed you that Jesus could not perform any great works because of unbelief.

Matt 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Notice carefully in Mark 6:5 that it says Jesus could do no mighty work there, and Matthew 13:58 (which is the same account) shows it was because of the people's unbelief.

It doesn't say Jesus wouldn't do mighty works there, it says he couldn't.

There are not two callings, the general and effectual call, there is one call, one gospel, it is the same for all men, but is only effectual and profits those that believe.

Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Does this verse in any way imply there are two different kinds of gospel, one general and one effectual? No. All men hear the same gospel, but the gospel only profits those and effectually works in those that believe.

And go back to Mark 6:6. Why would Jesus marvel at these persons unbelief if God is the one who gives a person faith? What? Was Jesus unaware that these men were unelect and that his Father had not chosen to regenerate these men and give them faith?

That is ridiculous, because the scriptures show Jesus knew in advance who would believe, and who would believe not.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

No, Jesus marvelled because these persons had been presented with tremendous evidence that he was the Son of God and still did not believe.

But if a man can only have faith if God gives it to a man, Jesus would never be surprised or marvel at unbelief. He would already know who would believe and who would not.

Calvinism cannot explain verses like Mark 6:6.

 

And to live to tell about it...oops!

So God's call isn't always effectual. thanks for admitting that! God calls everybody, but it isn't always an effectual call.

I never have denied God's power.

Yep, it is effectual on those it is effectual on....and you accuse me of circular reasoning? :) I never denied that it is effectual on those that believe.

Yes, God chooses not to do great works because of the unbelief. I hope you don't think man is more powerful than God?

So there is a general call that is to everybody"same for all men" and effectual "to those that believe." You like to speak out of both sides of your mouth don't you?

Who said there were two gospels?

Non sequitur. Of course Jesus knew.

Who has denied this?

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

No, Jesus marvelled because these persons had been presented with tremendous evidence that he was the Son of God and still did not believe.[/quote]Yep, so does everybody else.

No, you just like straw men arguments. You like to run around and now answer refutations to your arguments. You only answer about 10% of what I write. (speaking about debate...)

also, there is a difference in "can not" and "may not" People cannot because they will not.

 

EXCELLENT points, Dr. Walter. Thank you for these.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Mark 6:4-6 and Mat.8:10 use the word "marvel" in a negative and then a positive sense. He marveled at the unbelief in home town folks and marveled at the faith of the Roman centurian' faith.

Your argument is the same argument used by Unitarians to prove that Jesus is not God the Son. They say how could He be God and yet "marvel' at anything since he is omnicient. How does it feel to take up the objection of unitarians???

What you and unitarians forget is that Christ is still a man and he grew in wisdom and knowledge and he is not speaking here as God or in the capacity of divinity but as a man.

To "marvel" is to be amazed at something. The depth of depravity expressed by those who were eye witness of the power of God is amazing to any man, even Jesus. I have been amazed at the depth of hatred of the human heart by things I have witnessed even though I believe and teach total depravity. Human hatred for God never ceases to amaze me in the depth it can go.

Of couse, the word of God is effectual in them that believe (1 Thes. 2:13). He is not talking to people who were in the process of being converted to the gospel but to those who had been saved for some time. The point of faith or conversion is BY THE WORD (Rom. 10:17; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; 2 Cor. 4:6) and there the word is empowered by God to produce faith in the elect. Look at the Greek term translated "word" in Romans 10:17 (Gr. Rhema) or the command of God. The same command described in 2 Cor. 4:6. The same command that comes in "power and in the Spirit" and not merely "in word only" in 1 Thes. 1:4-5.

You are simply not being honest with scripture or the context of the scriptures you are using.


Hebrews 4:12 like 1 Pet. 1:25 refers to the Incarnate Word of God not to the written Word of God - look at the context that follows it:

Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

 

You are starting to catch on, but not quite. There are not two different callings, there is one, but whether or not it is effectual is conditioned and dependent upon whether the hearer accepts it by faith, or rejects it in unbelief. The fault lies with man.

An example. You are in a crowded theater. A fire breaks out and a person shouts "Fire, fire! everybody get out quickly!". Those that believe this warning will immediately get up and leave and be effectually saved. But those who do not believe and remain in their seats are quickly engulfed in the fire and perish. They heard the same message, but it was not effectual to save them because of their unbelief.

Jesus always has power to save, and he always has power to heal, but it is conditioned and dependent upon the faith of the hearer. If you do not have faith in him, you are calling him a liar (impossible to please God without faith), and he will not pour his grace upon you.

This is why Jesus told the man with the possessed son that if he could believe, all things were possible.

Mark 9:22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

This man had to believe before Jesus could cast out this evil spirit. And that is confirmed by Jesus himself. When the disciples asked Jesus why they could not cast out this spirit, Jesus told them it was because of their unbelief.

Matt 17:19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

This is the same account in Matthew. Jesus had given the disciples power to cast out unclean spirits and devils. But they could not cast this particular spirit out. When they asked Jesus why, he told them plainly that is was because of their unbelief.

So, God's word always has power, but it is conditioned and dependent upon belief. If you do not believe God's word, it will not effectually work in you, but if you do believe it, it will.

So, the fault is with man, not God. God is not sending out two different kinds of calling, only one. It is effectual to those who believe, ineffectual to those who do not.

And notice back in Mark 9:23 that Jesus said, "If thou canst believe". Why would Jesus ever say such a thing if God regenerates a man to believe? If God regenerates a man he will always have faith, and if God does not regenerate a man it is impossible to have faith. There is no "if" in Calvinsim, you either have faith or not. So it would be absurd for Jesus to make this statement if Calvinism were true.

 

I really don't care what the Unitarians believe. The fact is, we know from scripture that Jesus knew in advance who would believe and who would not.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

For non-Cals, this verse fits very nicely with 1 Peter 1:2 that says we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. I believe that God saw into the future those that would accept and believe the gospel and chose or elected them. Calvinists do not have a clue why they are elected.

John 6:64 says Jesus "knew from the beginning". I believe this to mean before the foundation of the world, although it is not clearly specified. At other times when Jesus spoke of "the beginning" he spoke of the creation, so it is very probable that is what he meant here as well.

If Calvinsim were true, Jesus would never marvel at either faith or unbelief. However, if unregenerated man has the ability to believe, then there is a reason to marvel at both. The centurion was not a Jew, he did not have the promises the Jews had and yet he believed. Those others whom Jesus marvelled at their unbelief had tremendous evidence that he was the Son of God, so he marvelled at how they could be so obstinate and wilfully blind.

Calvinist nonsense. The scriptures say faith comes by hearing the word of God, not by being regenerated to have faith. It is ridiculous to believe Paul would omit that a person must be regenerated by the Spirit to have faith in this verse, and to imply a person must simply hear God's word. But to believe Calvinism, you are forced to believe Paul made this omission here. In fact, you must believe he was negligent to show it anywhere in scriptures as there is not one verse in all the scriptures that says this.

I have shown you numerous times in the scriptures where men believed who had not even received the Spirit yet, but you cling to your false doctrine.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

This question of Paul's would be ridiculous if Calvinism were true. I guess you Calvinists understand the word of God better than Paul?

No, you are blinded by your doctrine and cannot accept plain evidence before your eyes.

 

Your argument doesn't follow. You keep arguing against "may not have faith" instead of "cannot have faith." You might want to update your grammar. The problem is that nobody will believe without the regenerating power of God. YOou were dead in your trespasses, but God made you alive. You didn't give yourself your own faith, it came from God. Otherwise, you have yourself to thank for your salvation.

No, I was just using your words against you. I was showing how your argument as non sequitur. I was also showing that you were being inconsistent in your argumentation. You said "whether or not it is effectual is conditioned and dependent upon whether the hearer accepts it by faith," but then you said, "God does not ever speak ineffectual, powerless words."

Jesus always has power to save, and he always has power to heal, but it is conditioned and dependent upon the faith of the hearer. If you do not have faith in him, you are calling him a liar (impossible to please God without faith), and he will not pour his grace upon you. [/quote]Yes, Jesus only saves those that have faith. (this was of course the choice of God meaning that He won't save everyone.)

The general call is made to everyone.

 

then he wasn't DRAWN to you. Go get a dictionary and prove me wrong, but you won't be able to. Also, you chaged the word "to" to "toward" which changes the meaning again. You really are bad at this.

Similar as to how you draw someone. But you only use "draw" when it has happened. You almost persuade someone, but you didn't persuade them. You almost draw them, but you don't draw them.

Doesn't say he was drawn. Drawn by definition means that it happened, not almost happened.

Drawn and enticed are not perfect synonyms.

Straw man, never argued against this.

Calvinism teaches that unregenerate man will always be in absolute unwillingness and opposition to God, and that God must regenerate the man to make him willing to accept Christ, but this is not what the scriptures show. The scriptures show that a man is "persuaded". The word persuade necessarily proves that unregenrate men have a free will. Persuade does not mean coerced, compelled, or imposed upon. No, a man is persuaded or convinced to believe the word of God of his own free will. [/quote]You might want to re-read that. Unregenerate man will always be unwilling to come, or otherwise he would be regenerate. Man is persuaded by the power of God.

So if a person doesn't come to Christ, was he persuaded? or was he ALMOST persuaded, just as he was ALMOST drawn but not drawn?---I WANT THIS ONE ANSWERED PLEASE!!!

 

Winman be careful around fire with all your straw men you keep building. You say you don't care what unitarians believe because you use the same arguments they use, so you want to ignore it because it kills your position. NOBODY, I repeat NOBODY has said that God didn't know who would believe.

For non-Cals, this verse fits very nicely with 1 Peter 1:2 that says we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. I believe that God saw into the future those that would accept and believe the gospel and chose or elected them. Calvinists do not have a clue why they are elected.[/quote]Your position is unbiblical. I Peter doesn't say that foreknowledge was God looking ahead and seeing who would believe. This is unbiblical adding to God's word. The Bible doesn't say that God chose because man chose. This was be circular. God chose because man chose God because God chose man because man chose God because God chose man..........

before the foundation of the world. God always knew.

argument already refuted and dishonestly repeated.

Paul didn't omit anything here. God uses his Word, nobody denied that. Nice straw man again.

are you saying a person gets saved without the Holy Spirit?

Fix it for ya.

 

My friend, you jerk texts out of context and redfine them to suit your fancy. Why not interpret John 6:64 by John 6:65 which in turn interprets Jn. 6:44-45???? John 6:65 tells you why those in John 6:64 did not believe because the ability to believe was not "given unto them of the Father." Jn. 6:65 summarizs John 6:44-45 in that one CONTEXTUAL defined statement:

Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

"Therefore I said unto you"??? When? Where? ANSWER: John 6:44-45. However, note the replacement "given" instead of "draw"! Hence to be drawn by the Father means there is something "GIVEN UNTO HIM of the Fahter." What in this context needs to be "given unto him"???? Look at verse 64 and see what they were missing:

who they were that believed not,

The missing element was BELIEF and that is the root cause for Judas betraying him. Therefore to be dawn in verse 44 is to be given something opposite to "beleived not". The answer is the ability to believe or faith and that is precisely why John 6:29 says that to believe in God is "the work of God."

1 Pet 1:2 does say elect according to the Foreknowledge of God but Romans 8:28 reveals that God's Purpose precedes the working out of that purpose in verse 29-30. God foreknows (v. 29) because God purposed (v. 28) to save the elect. Just like a builder of a house. The builder foreknows where every room is in the house because He has already purposed it and it can be seen in the blue prints. This purpose in verse 28 is effectual to all "whom" he did foreknow, predestinate, call, justified and glorified because all of "whom" are the subjects of these things are also all "them he also" are the "called according to His purpose." Sorry, but your theory simply perverts the Biblical context and quite badly perverts it.

Again, Acts 19:2 is jerked out of the immediate and overall context. The overall context is the visible manifestations of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and afterwards. The very reason Paul asked this question because there were no such visible manifestations present in the lives of these disciples. These manifestations of the Spirit is what Peter promised and what the prophet Joel prophesied about in Acts 2. It was promised to those who received the gospel and were baptized (Acts 2:38-39). They were received through the laying on of the apostles hands to those who believed and were baptized (Acts 8:14-19). These "disciples" did not manifest those sign gifts of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because they were still without scriptural baptism. They supposed they had submitted to the baptism of John but they had not for they were ignorant of the Spirit and John had preached the baptism in the Spirit to those he baptized with water (Mt. 3:11). They were ignorant that Jesus was the Christ but John had preached to those he baptized they should believe upon Jesus as the Christ (Acts 19:4). Their purpose for baptism was wrong because their administrator was not qualified or authorized to administer baptism due to the same ignorance. However, look at Acts 19:5-6 and you will see after baptism and laying on of the apostles hands they received the Spirit in the sense of outward manifest sign gifts. Those in Acts 8:14-19 hadn't received the Holy Spirit either in this same sense but they were born again before they received the Spirit in this sense.

Every text your hands touch you jerk out of context, misinterpret and just pervert just as the Scriptures predicted of your sort (2 Pet. 3:15-17).




Now, look at verse 6 and you will see these outward manifestations of the Spirit were conveyed by the laying on of the Apostles hands.


What was not "given"? The ability to believe as previously discussed in verse 64:

 

I am saying what the Unitarians believe has nothing to do with this discussion. If I was debating a Unitarian, then I would take their beliefs into consideration. And I am not using the same arguments as the Unitarians whatsoever. It was Dr. Walters who tried to use the old guilt by association smear tactic.

When I was in High School, we studied a detailed course on false arguments. You Calvinists employ them constantly. You use circular reasoning often, he is trying to smear me by association. Both are false forms of argument.

It is true that 1 Peter 1:2 does not definitely tell us what this foreknowledge is, but there are many scriptures that show us God could see beforehand who would believe such as John 6:64, the account of Nathanael in John chapter 1, and the account of Jeremiah chapter 1. So, it is absolutely certain that God in his foreknowledge knows beforehand who will believe. So, I am not adding to God's word whatsoever.

It is Calvinism that distorts and redefines the word foreknowledge, because it contradicts your doctrine, just as Calvinism redefines many other words that present problems for you, such as the words "all" and "whosoever".

It is not a straw man or false argument. Paul (or anyone else) never once in all the scriptures says a man must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit to have the ability to believe. He said faith comes by hearing (which means actively listening to and heeding) God's word. There is not one single verse in all of scripture that supports this Calvinistic doctrine, yet it is the foundation of your whole system. Amazing.

You will believe something and argue till you are blue in the face a doctrine that you do not have even a single verse in scripture to support you.

In Old Testament times yes. No one except a few select prophets had the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. And all those who believed on Jesus such as the Samaritans in John 4 did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. No believer received the Holy Spirit until after Jesus rose from the dead and was glorified.

Even Jesus's disciples did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit until the day of Pentacost.

Why would Jesus promise to send the Holy Spirit to his disciples if they already had the Holy Spirit? Has that question ever occurred to you?

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

The disciples were believers, but they did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. You need to study the scriptures more.

 

I don't use circular reasoning. You tried to say I was using it by changing what I said to say something else to make it seem as if I was.

You are adding when you say that Election was based on this looking ahead. Of course God knows who will believe, he knows everything, this doesn't mean that his election was based on that. That btw, would be ciruclar. God chose me because I chose God because God chose me because I chose God....

I have no problem with all (within it's context, and no problem with whosoever) whosoever believes will be saved, I have never denied that and believe that 100%! And how exactly do we redefine foreknowledge?

Why must you bear false witness. I'm not a Calvinist. Regeneration happens at the same time as faith and repentance. You have to be regenerated to have faith(where do you think faith comes from) and you have to have faith to be regenerated. Two sides of he same coin. I don't believe, as I know some do, that you can be regenerated before you have faith.

now that is just a plain lie. Even you have Scripture to support you even if you misinterpret them. Lets try to be honest winman, I don't lie about you nor do I misrepresent you. I try to argue against what you believe of mis representing my opponent.

You said yes in the OT, what about the NT? Do people get saved in the NT without the Holy Spirit?

 

That's ridiculous, 1 Peter 1:2 says we are elect "according" to the foreknowledge of God the Father.

According means;

1) down from, through out
2) according to, toward, along

And foreknowledge is the Greek word prognosis (our English spelling) which we still use today, which is defined as:

1.Medicine/Medical. a forecasting of the probable course and outcome of a disease, esp. of the chances of recovery.
2.a forecast or prognostication.

Of course, Calvinists try to redefine this word because it contradicts their doctine. If that's what you wish to do, I can't stop you.

When the scriptures say "whosoever will" as in Rev 22:17, it means that any man at any time, that is, 100% of all men can freely accept the water of life if they desire to do so. Calvinism redefines this with pure circular reasoning to say this means whosoever wills, wills. Well of course whosoever wills wills, that is circular reasoning and says nothing. That is like saying everyone who eats eats.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Calvinism insists that only those whom God regenerates can take this water of life, but the scriptures show all men have this ability if they so chose to use it. Calvinism uses circular reasoning to twist and distort this verse and many others. Someday you will realize this is circular reasoning, and then you will be angry at those who taught and fooled you with this false form of argument. And you will be embarrassed that you fell for this deceptive form of argument.

Non-Cals have been asking Calvinists for over 400 years to provide even one verse of scripture to support their doctrine that a man must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit to believe, and to this day no Calvinist has been able to answer this question. So, this is a doctrine with not one shred of support from scripture, yet many swear by it.

Wow, you try to change the subject. I just showed you from scripture that believers in the OT did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. This absolutely disproves your doctrine, and yet you skip over it quickly and try to change the subject.

What do you have to say? Why did Jesus promise his disciples the Holy Spirit if they were already regenerated by the Holy Spirit according to your doctrine?

We know the Samaritans believed on Jesus, and the scriptures even tell why they believed, not from being regenerated by the Holy Spirit, but by hearing the testimony of the woman from the well, and then later by hearing the words of Jesus himself. This is exactly what Romans 10:17 says, faith comes by hearing the word of God.

John 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.

How do you explain John 4:39 which says these Samaritans believed on Jesus because of the saying of the woman?

Does it say they were regenerated by the Holy Spirit to believe?

Did they have the indwelling Holy Spirit? No, because we are told three chapters later that the Holy Spirit was not given to believers yet.

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

So, we have many examples of people who believed on Jesus before he was crucified, rose from the dead, and was glorified. But the Holy Spirit was not yet given, the scriptures verify this.

How do you explain this?

 

Ephesians 1:4-5 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"

Also, I like how you used the definition of according, but that isn't all of them.

It can also mean to be in agreement, harmony with something. In other words, you could say in agreement with the foreknowledge of God. You are making "according to" be interpreted "because of."

Also, it doesn't say what this foreknowledge is of. You assume it is speaking about foreknowledge of faith, but that isn't in the text. Other places we see, those whom he foreknew. Saying that God choose because man chose him would contradict Scripture.

What does whosoever will mean? it means that whosoever wants to be saved can be saved. It isn't circular, you might want to refresh your memory on what circular reasoning is. Anybody that wants to be saved can be saved. "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. I have only met 1 Calvinist that didn't agree with that.

Also, you said "100% of all men can freely accept the water of life if they desire to do so." i don't know of any Calvinist(other than that one I mentioned) that would disagree with this. They key part of the phrase is "if they desire to do so." God will reject no one that wants to come to him. No Calvinist would disagree with this

Again, I'm not a Calvinist. Why must you insist on misrepresenting me?

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

I have no problem with that verse and do not twist that verse at all. For you to continue to say that I do is to misrepresent me.

There is a reason this is called systematic theology. It comes from a study of man and his nature before Salvation. I don't believe man becomes regenerate before he is saved. Regeneration happens at Salvation just as faith happens at salvation and repentance happens at salvation. You are asking for one verse and it goes to much more than just being able to have a proof text. One of the closes passages I can give you would be Ephesians 2:5 "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened(made us alive) us together with Christ, --by grace ye are saved;"

I didn't change the subject. I asked you a simple question. You answered and said no for the OT, so I asked about the NT. How is that changing the subject? It was my question to begin with. You are really quick to accuse aren't you?

Was a person regenerated before the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost? I'm not asking before they get saved, but once they are saved? Remember, I don't believe a person is regenerated BEFORE they are saved. But I'm guessing this goes on deaf ears again. You seem more concerned on arguing against your straw man Calvinist than me.

 

How does this verse negate 1 Peter 1:2? It starts with saying we are chosen before the foundation of the world. But 1 Peter 1:2 starts even before that and says we are elected according to his foreknowledge.

We who believe were chosen before the foundation of the world according to his foreknowledge. And he has determined we shall be holy and without blame before him, and he has predestinated we shall be adopted as children.

John 1:12 shows you must first believe to become a son of God.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Oh, I know what you will say, you will falsely say verse 13 says we are born of God to believe. But if you stop and think for even one second you will see that is impossible, because you are saying a person is born of God so that they have the ability to believe so that they may become a son of God.

So, that is saying you have to be born of God to later become a son of God.

Do you see now why verse 13 cannot possibly be interpreted the way Calvinism interprets it? Think about it and you will.

No, John 1:12 easily teaches that you must first believe to "become" a son of God, so you cannot have possibly be born again before you believed. Verse 13 actually refutes and disproves Calvinism, not supports it.

Unless you believe a person can be born of God and not be a son of God. Is that what you believe? That would be absurd.

Fine, show me examples of God's foreknowledge that is not dealing with faith, because I have already given you three examples that do.

You are still playing word games. Saying whosoever is willing is willing is circular reasong. This is how Calvinism defines "whosoever will". That is not what the scriptures are saying at all. No Calvinist will say that all men have the ability to believe, but I do believe all men have this ability.

You do not believe that an unregenerate man can do any good or believe, but the scriptures show the unregenerate man can do both. I have shown you numerous times that God himself confirmed Cain could have done good.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Cain was not utterly enslaved to sin or his own nature, God himself said he could do well, and God said Cain would rule over sin. Total Depravity as Calvinism teaches is false as shown by this passage and many others.

And the scriptures show unregenrate man can believe or have faith.

John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Jesus here didn't say the regenerate or living shall hear his voice and live (which would be absurd to begin with), he said the dead (unregenerate) shall hear. And those that hear (this means to believe) shall live.

Once again you revert to circular reasoning. Saying those that desire will desire is saying nothing.

No, the unregenerate can desire God as shown by the young rich ruler. He was sincere, he wanted to be saved, but was not willing to give up his wealth. That does not mean he did not sincerely desire God, the scriptures clearly show he did, this is why it says he went away very sorrowful.

The Philipian jailer wanted to be saved and he was unregenerate, else why would Paul tell him he needed to believe on Jesus?

No, Calvinism teaches circular reasoning, saying whosoever is willing is willing, and whosoever desires desires. You obviously still do not understand or recognize circular reasoning.

 

Before I respond, will you please get this through your thick head that I'm not a Calvinist. You don't even have a clue to what Calvinism teaches much less what I believe. You misrepresent too many times. If you are truly a Christian, you need to act like it by not misrepresenting your opponents in debate. I don't misrepresent you and your beliefs. Have you ever heard me do that? No, and if I did, I would apologize and take it back. you on the other hand just repeat it again.

Also, please respond to EVERYTHING and stop you picking and choosing because you realize you have no answer to what I said.

Read the rest of the verse. It says we were chosen "according to the good pleasure of his will."

You really don't know how to be honest do you, or are you getting me confused with somebody else?

What about the way I interpret. I'm not concerned with how the Calvinist interprets it.

What Calvinist denies that? you really have no clue as to what a Calvinist believes. I don't know of any one that would deny that you have to believe to become a child of God.

Nope, one born of God is a son of God. As I said before, regeneration and justification and faith and repentance all happen at the same time.

How is this even a response? It is up to you to prove it is speaking of foreseen faith.

No, you need to learn what logical fallacies are before you try to blame others with them. If I said they are willing BECAUSE they are willing, that would be circular. Saying the willing are willing is just an overstatement. I say they are willing BECAUSE God changes their heart. Now, why don't you answer why they are willing. I'll be waiting for the circular answer that you like to Give. I chose God because God chose me because I chose God because God chose me....

Ability in and of themselves, or ability of God. No man can come unless drawn of the father. This means that until they are drawn, they do not have the ability to come. However, this has nothing to do with whosoever. Whosoever means that anybody that wants to come to Christ can come to Christ. I believe it was YOU that said.

hmmmm so is this circular or not?

No, you don't understand the doctrine of total depravity. Unregenerate people can do good things. Unregenerate people can love their wives, be nice... Total depravity doesn't mean that a person is as evil as they can be. By total, we mean that the all of the person has some affect of sin.

So, you show Scripture to disprove a doctrine that I don't believe anyway.

well duh! the regenerate is already saved. Do you read what I write, or do you just like straw man?

I quoted you, I guess you were being "circular" also, as I said before, I didn't say they are willing because they are willing. You are the one that is misusing the term "whosoever will." Whoever does this will be saved. Who is this whoever, the ones that "does this." If I say whoever gives me $10 will get a steak. Does this mean that everybody has the ability to give me $10? No, that isn't what I'm saying at all and neither is the Scripture.

There is a difference in wanting to be saved from hell and wanting to come to Christ. He didn't want to come to Christ.

And what did this desire to come to Christ come from?

No, you have no clue as to what circular reasoning is. A Circular argument is where you use your conclusion as your premise. It is not just restating the obvious. If I say the willing are willing because they are willing, that would be circular. When I say that the whosoever wills are the ones that are the willing, I'm only stating the obvious anybody with an elementary education should get...you see why I have to say it. also, I quoted you on this...

 

Abraham Lincoln once asked, "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" He answered, "Four, just because you call a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it so."

You hold the doctrines of Calvinism, why don't you just call yourself a Calvinist? Nearly all of your answers are common answers given by Calvinists word for word.

Didn't take long to prove what I said, Calvinists constantly say non-Cals do not understand Calvinism and misrepresent it. Truth is, most Calvinists cannot seem to agree with each other and do not seem sure what they believe.

OK, so how does that negate that we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father? Can't we be elect according to God's foreknowledge and the pleasure of his good will at the same time? Does one rule out the other?

How do you interpret John 1:13? You conveniently forgot to say.

Faith must precede regeneration. You cannot "become" a son of God unless you first receive and believe on Jesus Christ John 1:12. You are not born again to be enabled to have faith so that you can then place faith in Jesus and become a son of God.

Calvinist view:

Born again -----> Enabled to have faith -----> Trust in Christ and become son of God

Non- Cal view:

Believe on Jesus -----> God gives power to become a son of God and a person is born again.

Calvinists believe a person is born again (regenerated) to have faith to become a son of God. Why do you think threads have been started asking which comes first, regeneration or faith?

I have. John 6:64 clearly says Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe not and who would betray him. If Jesus knows who will not believe, then of course he also knows who will believe.

The story of Nathanael shows foreknowledge. Even before his brother called him Jesus said he saw him.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

Verse 45 shows that both Philip and Nathanael were believers, they believed Moses and the prophets. Then notice Nathanael asks Jesus, "Whence knowest thou me?". And notice Jesus said he saw (foreknowledge) Nathanael, even before he was called.

God also said he knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the belly. You have two choices here, either Jeremiah existed before the foundation of the world, or God could see that Jeremiah would believe in advance. Take your pick.

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

It is Calvinists who cannot explain foreknowledge.

It is Calvinists who say they chose God because God chose them. I believe God elected me because in his foreknowledge he could see I would accept Christ after that he revealed Christ to me and drew me to him.

I don't disagree with you that all who come were drawn, I agree with you 100%. But John 6:44 does not say that all who are drawn come.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

You can insist all day that this verse says all that are drawn will come, it does not say that. It says all that come were drawn. Those are two altogether different things you do not obviously have the discernment to understand.

Jesus said he would draw all men to himself in John 12:32. Well, even you know that not all men come to Christ. But instead of rightly understanding that not all that are drawn will come, you twist and distort the word "all" and say that it does not mean all.

You have to change the definition of the simple word "all" in John 12:32 to make your doctrine work. I don't have to do that.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Sorry, just had to check again. Yep, this verse still says Jesus will draw all men unto himself. Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away, but his words will never pass away, so you better get used to this verse.

Not everybody has $10. Fortunately, Jesus said whosoever will "let him" take "freely" of the water of life. He is saying any man at any time can take this water. The words "let him" shows that everyone has this ability. And luckily, we don't need any money.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

No, he didn't want to give up his wealth and position in life.

Well obviously he was influenced by Paul and the great earthquake, so he was influenced by God through Paul and the earthquake.

You don't get it, non-Cals do not believe any man can come to Christ without being influenced by the Holy Spirit. But being influenced and enlightened by the Holy Spirit is not regeneration. The scriptures clearly show a man can be enlightened by the Holy Spirit and be lost.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

Many believe this passage teaches a person can lose their salvation, but I do not believe that is what this passage is teaching. I believe it is showing that a man can be enlightened by the Holy Spirit. They have tasted, but not eaten, there is a difference. That man can be shown and understand that he is a sinner that needs to accept Christ, but can turn away in rejection. I believe this is speaking of a person who is once and for all rejecting Christ, and so God rejects him. As God expects the earth to bring forth fruit when he rains on it, when he enlightens a man to understand the gospel he expects that man to receive Christ.

You tell me, does this passage show a man can be enlightened by the Holy Spirit and be lost or not?

Calvinists do not understand the difference between being taught and enlightened by the Holy Spirit and being regenerated.

 

I lean in that direction, yes. But that doesn't make me a Calvinist. You can't even read what I write.

Let me ask you something, have you ever heard of Charles Ryrie and Warren Wiersbe? Do you think they are Calvinists?

Now Winman, I try to give credit where credit is due. You are right that Calvinist don't agree, neither do baptist or any other belief. You do misrepresent it many times in your postings. Your version of Calvinism is very similar to that of people that are not Calvinist pretending to know what Calvinist believe. When I first began to study this doctrine of Calvinism, I went to the Calvinist to see what they believed. I don't like to misrepresent others. It isn't honest to do such. Now, I have done it before not meaning too and have been called out on it. When that happens, I apologize and take back my statement and make sure I know what they believe.

Sure and we can also be elect according to the pleasure of his will which is in accordance with his foreknowledge. Now we have an interpretation issue at hand, one of which I'm fine to agree to disagree on. There is a difference of saying something is not in Scripture and saying I interpret the passage differently.


How do you interpret John 1:13? You conveniently forgot to say.[/quote]
Sorry about that, I responded and didn't use that.

John 1:12-13
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.​

We become "sons of God" through our faith "those that receive him." We are born, not of blood(not speaking about physical birth), nor of the will of the flesh, (We are not the ones cause our birth, just as we didn't cause our physical birth), but of God(Our new birth[regeneration] is of God.)

Another verse similar to this is

John 8:41-47
You are doing the works your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father--even God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

And did you see my answer? My answer was they come at the same time. If you have faith in Christ, you are a born again believer(regenerated). If you are regenerated, you have faith. I don't believe God regenerates a person and then later they have faith. I don't find that in Scripture. I know some do believe that, but I see every time regeneration is mentioned, it is speaking of a saved person. And Yes, you have to have faith to be born again.

non sequitur Yes, Jesus knew from the Beginning(otherwise he wouldn't know everything) but this doesn't mean that he based his election on that. This passage doesn't say that at all. Let's suppose I'm right for a minute. God choose without looking ahead and picking those who would pick him. Would God know who would believe and who wouldn't? Of course! So this doesn't prove that at all. The only thing this proves is that Jesus knows everything.

That isn't what the word "know" means. It doesn't say that Jesus knew that Jeremiah would believe. It says he knew Jeremiah. Do you think Joseph didn't know who Mary was?

Matthew 1:24-25
When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

to know somebody is more than just knowing their choices. It can mean knowing their existence, or an intimate knowledge of them. You like to add words to these passages that are not there. You say that before I formed thee in the belle I knew thee would believe. Hmmm. That isn't there. Look at the next phrase, and I ordained thee a prophet. Jesus knew Jeremiah and ordained(means to appoint, make) thee a prophet unto the nations" You have to add the words "would believe" to get it to work, but that isn't there.

Who has denied foreknowledge. We(those that believe in election) just say that God didn't base his election on just knowing what would happen. It doesn't mean we don't believe in foreknowledge.