You must be born again

For salvation. And because it is what people who are alive do.

 

No it doesn't.

Calvinism is the most ego destructing, humiliating theology there is because it totally devalues the natural man. It relies totally and completely in the grace of God alone.

 

:thumbs:

As far as your just previous posts. It is exactly how I have felt with a couple of folks. They misrepresent what I believe, and then argue over and over against the misrepresentation. When you tell them that isn't what you believe, they argue that you do believe the misrepresentation, as if they know better than you what you believe in your heart.

Unless you can accurately restate your opponent's position, there can be no constructive conversation. There is no addressing scripture. There is no progress.

peace to youraying:

 

That isn't the most convincing argument I have ever read.

You are talking about one thing and I am talking about another. And I do believe many people, not just Calvinists, make the unfortunate investment of their ego in the development of their argument, regardless of how non-egotistical they claim their doctrines are.

Secondly, Calvinism isn't the only system that claims to totally and completely rely on the grace of God alone.

 

Did you miss the part about Moses and serpent:

Moses lifted up the sepent on the pole (the sepent was representive of sin) but that didn't do anything for the people to save them from death. They had to look to the sepent as an acknowledgment of their sin/rebellion and look for salvation from God alone.

Is this not illistrative of a repentant heart? To acknowledge our sinful state and that we can do nothing to save ourselves except to trust/believe the word of the Lord that ... (for them) whosoever looked upon the Serpent would live... (for us) whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (believe) shall be saved.

The serpent (like Christ) was set up for or offered up for all who were under judgment that they might be saved if they would only believe the Word of the Lord, but not all 'would' and thus not all would be saved.

 

It wasnt intended to be an argument. It was a statement. There is nothing about Calvinism or regeneration preceding faith that contradicts Acts 16:31. If you would like some arguments to that affect, they abound all over.

It's not the only one that claims to, but it may well be the only one that actually does. But I typically don't make arguments like that about others views.

 

Personally, I have never heard Piper equate born again with Salvation. Regeneration, yes, but not salvation. But he makes a statement in this presented material to that effect.
Here it is:

(Under sub-heading "Crucial question about being born agian" - 3rd paragraph from the bottom - about midway)

Now I would simply like some clarification from those who know Piper better than I. I have heard his sermons and read much of his work (being that him and MacArthur are the two of a few promenent public front runners of Calvinism). But I don't want to put words in his mouth, so I ask those of his view what this means.

It (IMO) has only two potential meanings (there might be more but this is all I see):
1. That Regeneration/Born Again = Salvation : Which is Salvation through faith, which means regeneration/born again occurs like salvation, through faith (the Non-Cal view)
OR..
2. That Regeneration/Born Again = Salvation : Which is that we are saved first and then must believe in that salvation.

Clarify please.

 

And yet many of you will say that regenerated means receiving the Holy Spirit so that the "elect" can hear the gospel, Lar.

And is'nt it clear to you that to be born again without hearing would be a perversion of Acts 2!?

But go ahead -- I notice that you didn't offer your own Calvie order of events. Like I've said before, we hear the gospel, repent and receive, and are born again/regenerated.

If what I see of your theology is correct, that would be spiritually fatal and I would not want any to go on unaware. Webdog has put it succinctly -- you could be believing a wrong gospel or a wrong salvation and what would you have to repent of?

skypair

 

Passing from death to life is not salvation? I believe all through the Bible it teaches it is.

 

I won't speak for anyone other than myself. I see regeneration as the work of Holy Spirit on an unbeliever (one of God's elect) that transforms their nature (instantaneously or over time) in such a way that they are then capable of seeing themselves as sinners in need of a savior, and indeed are convicted of that very fact. Conviction of sin accompanies the regeneration process.

I see regeneration as occuring in conjunction with the presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that the (elect) unbeliever will, in time but without fail, repent of his/her sinful life and turn, in faith, to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord . The result is salvation without fail and the indwelling Holy Spirit as the pledge promise of God to fulfill His promises.

The amount of time each person spends under conviction varies with the person. I, therefore, do not eqate the initial work of Holy Spirit in bringing about regeneration with the actual indwelling of Holy Spirit which accompanies salvation through faith.

I welcome all civil debate; except from Skypair. It is impossible to debate someone suffering from the delusion that if you disagree with him you are blaspheming Holy Spirit.

peace to youraying:

 

Gerald,
Thanks so much for the latest and greatest version of the Calvin free will thread. It ends up just like the other 20,000, endless babbling back and forth with nothing accomplished. Good job.

Why not, say one in every 10 threads you start, start one that is worthy of debate, and both sides might learn something?

 

All he did was post a video from John Piper that explains very well what being born again is. I don't think he was inviting debate, just sharing a sermon that is much needed in this age of 'salvation without regeneration', to quote the prophetic words of William Booth. It was a great sermon though, even if people used Geralds post to spring into a CvA debate.

 

As has been pointed out to you many times, there are distinctions in the ordo salutis that you are unwilling to acknowledge.

Not sure what verse in Acts 2 you have in mind, but most Calvinists do not believe that regeneration comes without hearing the Word. they believe it comes in conjunction with hearing.

I've offered it before. It is iirrelevant here. The point is that you stll misrepresent what others believe.

What you see of my theology is not correct. You don't even get my theology right. It is not spiritually fatal. It is solidly biblical, sustained by the exegesis and right understanding of Scripture. And we have shown that many times. But you insist on usually talking about stuff we don't believe.

I have never seen webdog say this, but it is true, one could be believing a wrong gospel. The way we know that is by looking at Scripture, somethign that far too often gets pushed aside for man's opinion. But as for repentance, we still have to repent of sin.

 

This is your main subterfuge/problem. You will not declare an common "ordo salutis." Y'all are "all over the map" often just saying that "everything is SIMULTANEOUS."

If I were you (and assuming you even know what the ordo salutis is), I'd be too embarrassed to offer it again, too!

But in fact, the title of this thread is "You must be born again" and I can't think of anything more relevant unless you don't think being born again is relevant to salvation!

I'm still waiting for you to prove it ----- waiting for you to do anything but deny my assertions.

skypair

 

Did you get out of the 3rd grade?

Did you get out of the 2nd grade?

 

No, I have defined my ordo salutis many times. In fact, once I even cut and pasted from my doctrinal statement, as I recall. The truth is that many thing in teh ordo are simultaneous chronologically, but have a logical order.

If you were me, you wouldnt believe what you believe and post what you post. You would be more interested in discsussing the Bible and exegeting it properly, and correlating the various passages.

Of course I believe you must be born again.

I have given biblical support for my position long before you got here and have done so many times since. If you disagree with me, that's fine. But at least rightly represent what I believe.

 

You two are one sad pair.

 

Yes I did. I even finished elementary school and successfully passed Jr Hi and High School. I even have a college degree, followed by more than 130 hours of post college education (three Masters) and am currently enrolled in two doctoral programs. Was there a particular question you had for me about this that is relevant to this thread? Or were you just trying to make a very thinly veiled personal attack? What was your point in posting this? Somehow I don't think my level of education is really at stake here is it?

 

Perhaps you could help us understand what is sad about insisting on someone rightly representing the position of their opponent? What is sad about insisting on common decency in debate?

 

Then debate like someone who has some education and common sense.