You keep saying this....
So, the text says "for the Holy Ghost was not yet given..." But what does that mean? Does it mean "regeneration" as you insist is must? Do we see the Holy Spirit working in a regenerative way (among other ways) in the Old Testament? Of course we do.
Why, then MUST this statement mean "regeneration?"
The Archangel
Regeneration w/o Living Water?
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by steaver, Apr 11, 2015.
Page 4 of 4
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
-
-
-
robustheologian Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
It depends how you define free will. As a Christian I am free to obey God, something I could not do prior to being freed from my bondage to sin. -
-
-
-
The Apostle John, who penned the Gospel of John on behalf of the Holy Spirit concerning this being born from above, declared this Spirit regeneration spoken of was not yet given. And you declare that it was. Now you want me to believe you over John.
Was the Spirit/Living Water given before Jesus Christ was glorified? Yes or No? Will you listen to John on this matter, or continue the drum beat for regeneration coming before then?
Now your turn....Was the Spirit/Living Water given before Jesus Christ was glorified? Yes or No? (You may refer to John chapter 7 verses 37-39) -
The living water Jesus said He would give IS the Holy Ghost, John is crystal clear this was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Go back to chapter 4 where Jesus proclaimed this living water is eternal life.
So far this is irrefutable, I don't know how you could possibly disagree.
This may be where we part ways, but I then go back to chapter 3 and keeping with Jesus' message of being born of water and spirit, I conclude regeneration/born again is the receiving of the Holy Ghost living water/eternal life.
The NT is the beginning of the preaching of the kingdom of God coming to earth spiritually.
If you still believe regeneration happens without the giving of the Spirit living water/ eternal life, I would like you to explain how you come to this conclusion WHILE NOT ignoring John 7:37-39. -
John Calvin on John 7:39....
Adam Clarke....
Albert Barnes....
I am quite sure you won't accept their teachings, but that is what the text means... -
-
-
-
This passage is detrimental to the doctrine of Calvinism. As brother convicted demonstrated, even commentarians have to pull stuff out of thin air in order to attempt an understanding of the clear teaching that the living water was not yet given. Here is a fresh idea! How about we except what APOSTLE John said, even if that goes against Mr Calvin?
Page 4 of 4