Two Views of Foreknowledge

Regeneration Precedes Faith

RC Sproul on regeneration preceding faith

These giants of Christian history derived their view from Holy Scripture. The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.

This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself.

 

Mixed bag with Sproul. Held some good views, some not so good, including some back and forth compromising on Genesis. But I'm interested in your arguments from Scripture. So far you have none.

 

In John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

That word 'see' does not mean enter, it means to perceive, have an understanding, look it up yourself.
If a man can not perceive or understand Christ, who He is, then He can not possibly be saved. And as Paul says, it will all be foolish nonsense to the man,
G1492 - eidō - Strong's Greek Lexicon (KJV)
G1492 'see' means this here

1. to see
   1. to perceive with the eyes
      
      
   2. to perceive by any of the senses
      
      
   3. to perceive, notice, discern, discover
      
      
   4. to see
      1. i.e. to turn the eyes, the mind, the attention to anything
         
         
      2. to pay attention, observe
         
         
      3. to see about something
         1. i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it
      4. to inspect, examine
         
         
      5. to look at, behold
   5. to experience any state or condition
      
      
   6. to see i.e. have an interview with, to visit
2. to know
   1. to know of anything
      
      
   2. to know, i.e. get knowledge of, understand, perceive
      1. of any fact
         
         
      2. the force and meaning of something which has definite meaning
         
         
      3. to know how, to be skilled in
   3. to have regard for one, cherish, pay attention to (1Th. 5:12)

 

You're headed into a strawman argument. I did not say "obligated" but scripturally demonstrated that His ways are judgment. This does not conflict with that "God deserves 100% credit for the save, and 0% credit for the lost." but rather agrees with it while maintaining LFW. And I have no problem with divine foreknowledge meaning God knows all things but I do not put His knowledge into a box dependent on His pre-determining man's outcome apart from His judgment and man's responsibilities.

 

I take it then that you deny total depravity, and also Federal headship of Adam and Jesus over us?

 

Did God not get it right the first time and have to re-create man to not have the attribute of human volition after Adam - during the fall? Hmm, and here I thought God all he created was good, err, "very good" the way He did it.

 

Your arguments are getting worse by the moment. This passages does not even mention faith. It's a passage that is compatible with all arminian and calvinist systems.

Yes, virtually everyone believes one must be born again to enter the kingdom. Arminians believe faith precedes this birth, some calvinists do not.

I don't think you're understanding exactly what you're debating.

 

God did not re create mankind, as he already had placed into effect that when Adam sinned, the fall would wreck real free will going forward for us!

 

Interesting non-answer. Closet Pelagian? Why not just answer the question?

 

I deny your strict Determinist view which is logically necessary for you to ever draw a true conclusion per your Calvinist doctrines. I won't be chasing down your entire theological system and addressing strawman arguments to make a simple point knowing you have issues about sticking to a premise(s).

 

Does regeneration precede faith or does faith precede regeneration? | CARM.org

The logical necessity that regeneration must precede faith.

I know that many people hold to one thing or another, even so they are not both true. However scripture is saying exactly what I am saying.
Another proof that regeneration comes first, is the gift of faith, New wine can not be poured into old wine skins. God wont give the gift of faith to the unregenerate as they can not hold it, (Him the Spirit), they would be destroyed.

Matthew 9:16-18 New King James Version (NKJV)
16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for [a]the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. 17 Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

Romans 12:3
For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.

 

I cannot see how a "strict determinist view" even makes sense here, as just because mankind no longer has full free will and are slaves to sin and their sin natures mean God "forced" that on them!

 

Friend, you didn't answer my questions (about judgment and human volition) and instead went toward a strawman arguments. Your "closet Pelegian" comment is immature and displays your ignorance of the views from both sides, I have no interest having to pin you down to get you to stick to the premises at hand.

 

Are we already condemned and judged as being guilty before God due to us being sinners found in Adam?

 

Translation: Yes, I deny original sin, but don't want to say it out loud.

As if original sin and the sin nature are exclusive doctrines of calvinism. Oy! The things I hear on forums.

 

The subject of the thread is/was how divine foreknowledge (omniscience) can interact with human volition and reflect a relationship (here, now) between man and His Creator. I demonstrated support for HeirofSalvation’s explanatory view that accounts for both divine foreknowledge and LFW. I did not come into this to chase down and address your entire Determinist systematic theology of Total Depravity and doctrines of “Original Guilt” and the other 4 TULIPs that has been pre-programmed into your Calvinist/Determinist’s brains while you resort to these smokescreen fallacies to avoid that explanation.

Edit: ..and/or ignorant Pelagianism accusations...

 

Many people believe in the heresy of Pelagianism, and semi Pelagianism today.

Pelagianism’s underlying fault is its reliance on human freedom and willpower instead of the grace of God. In saying that we all possess an inherent power to choose holiness for ourselves, Pelagius made the grace of God of no effect. The Bible says that, before the grace of God saves us, we are “dead” in our sins (Ephesians 2:1); Pelagianism says it’s not so bad as all that. We can choose to obey God’s commands, and, if we only knew our true nature, we could please God and save ourselves.

Pelagius and his false doctrine were fought by Augustine and condemned by the Council of Carthage in AD 418, the same year that Pelagius was excommunicated. The doctrine did not disappear, however, and had to be condemned again by the Council of Ephesus (431) and later church councils. Pelagianism survives to this day and shows up in any teaching that says following Christ is primarily a choice we make apart from any supernatural intervention of God’s grace. In any age and in any form, Pelagianism is unscriptural and should be rejected.

What is Pelagianism? | GotQuestions.org

 

Benjamin, denying the fall has nothing to do with determinist systematic theology. Arminians don't deny the fall. Arminius fought Pelagianism. You just don't know what you're talking about, and unfortunately are so defensive, you likely won't any time soon.

And BTW, I don't believe most molinist deny the fall. Does WLC? The issue of middle knowledge is not relevant either.

 

It is you that don't what you're talking about, I don't deny the fall the man, I deny your your view of of Total Depravity regarding it ...and I'm certainly not alone in that view. You don't seem to even realize there are other views of the fall...question beggar.