You must be born again

Do you want to apologize now for falsely accusing me, then? :tonofbricks:

skypair

 

Do they see time to REPENT somewhere in between??? Because nobody is born again without repentance.

They do see regeneration first in terms of logical order. This is where I depart somewhat with my Calvinist brothers and sisters though we ultimately arrive at the same place of God's unilateral sovereign enablement to believe for salvation.

Yes. As I described to you once before, belief is merely "hope" that what God says is true. But that "lively hope" is converted to faith and regeneration/rebirth by REPENTANCE toward God.

The more I discuss this with Calvinists, the more I feel that they miss out on the meaning of repentance. 1) They do not understand that repentance changes the SOUL unto justification. 2) They nowhere recognize that this change is necessary on our part BEFORE salvation can be received (necessaary while we are still under the "old nature"). 3) This is why Calvinists like you have questions about salvation (and why web, me and others are so incredulous when you describe your sotierology), Lar. Your theology leaves out the critical ingredient to salvation apart from the new nature, are left to gloss over or ignore it, but still must rationally explain salvation of the "elect" via Calvinism.

skypair

 

Do they see time to REPENT somewhere in between??? Because nobody is born again without repentance.
They do see regeneration first in terms of logical order. This is where I depart somewhat with my Calvinist brothers and sisters though we ultimately arrive at the same place of God's unilateral sovereign enablement to believe for salvation.

If I may, the issue here, as I see it, is that one does not give God enough credit, in that He goes around issuing saving faith to the elect (regenerating thier soul) and then sits back biting His finger nails hoping they repent. But what God begins, He will finish. You do not need to worry that some might be running around with only "half salvation." It IS regeneration that makes repentance possible and inevitable. I do not think, though, that there is some huge gap here. The grace of God is irresistible. He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it.
On Justification: This is a part of, but more importantly a RESULT of salvation. I believe it is a puctualar acknowledgment. But, Romans 8:30 tells us that "those whom He called He also justified."


This is why Calvinists like you have questions about salvation (and why web, me and others are so incredulous when you describe your sotierology), Lar. Your theology leaves out the critical ingredient to salvation apart from the new nature, are left to gloss over or ignore it, but still must rationally explain salvation of the "elect" via Calvinism.

What part does he leave out? Repentance? We are to preach repentance with the Gospel. But it is the heart change given by God that allows and changes the heart to a repentant heart. One who weeps for their sins against God and reaches out for the newness of Christ. I submit that adding a human element to the process is the road that should not be travelled. Else our Gospel preached will include works.

:type: ~k

 

It's not hard at all. I know it well, and I can cut and paste it, as I have done before. Here it is from Jan of 2007, so quite telling me I am declining to give it. I have given it.

I have disproved them many times.'

I have.

First, salvation is not conceptual, but actual. Second, regeneration doesn't mean that one has passed from death to life without faith. They do have faith. Their faith is not the cause of passing from death to life.

So how is that relevant? Talk to Sproul about that. It is totally irrelevant here. The false assertion you made is that Calvinism teaches I can die without faith and still be saved. That is an exact quote from you on page 5. That is not about regeneration preceding faith (which many Calvinists believe), but about salvation without faith (which no Calvinists that I am aware believe).

I think my time here has demonstrated that I have a pretty good handle on Calvinism.

 

About what did I falsely accuse you?

For Calvinists, it is not a "time" issue.

And as I used the Bible to point out to you before, the distinction between belief and faith is unbiblical.

I am not sure this is coherent. It makes no sense to me. I think it has some theological problems like misunderstanding what a nature is (a complex of attributes), and it certainly misrepresents me having questions about salvation. THere is certainly still stuff for me to learn, as there always will be, but I am pretty solid on what the Bible teaches about this. When I describe my soteriology, I can do it from Scripture, and if that makes you incredulous then I don't know what to say. I am not sure what "critical ingredient" to salvation you think I leave out, or what I gloss over or ignore. So far as I can recall, I have answered every question that has been put forth to me at one point or another. I don't always answer them multiple times however.

In the end, I am reminded why I quit having these conversations with you. You don't listen and you are not interested in any kind of dialogue that might actually bring understanding. And I don't enjoy that.

 

~k, thanks for joining the discussion. :wavey:

It is the "unilateral" aspect of God's "enablement" that is the issue and your "departure" from your Calvinist friends on that issue is quite biblical. It would be nice if God didn't require repentance at all. That would, indeed, make salvation "unilateral" (or as Calvinists are wont to say "monergistic").

Here you are speaking of SANCTIFICATION, k. Sanctification FOLLOWS -- comes AFTER -- justification by the blood of Christ. As the scripture you quoted clearly states, God "calls," you answer, God "justifies." Then He sanctifies what He has justified (the passages says "glorified" which is part of sanctification).

 

Well guess what. God put all this in TIME and RATIONALITY -- something we can figure out.

Without proof, you did. I have since posted that it takes 3 things to get to saving faith: 1) acknowledging the truth, 2) assenting to it, and 3) appropriating the truth. You can believe (acknowledge and assent) and not appropriate it and you would NOT have faith. You take way too much of the responsibility out of the hands of man and expect way more than God is willing to give.

I, too, am sorry we cannot communicate. I suspect you cannot see any defintions and vocabulary but the Calvinist one. Much as I try, I cannot seem to satisfy you that I understand enough about Calvinism to debate with you.

And, from our previous confrontations, I believe that you accepted Christ just like I did. But you have been "overthrown"/"shipwrecked" by your affinity to Calvinism. You have totally put everything in salvation upon God. There is nothing for the "elect" but "que sera, sera!"

You leave out any REAL REPENTANCE!

Try not to be impatient, bro. I was reading 1John last night and noting that we "stumble" in darkness when we fail to love others -- especially our brothers and sisters.

skypair

 

Skypair,

I am going to ask that you edit the above post. You have quoted me as saying things that others have said. (If it is bold in my post it is a quote)

This site is odd in its quoting unless you add the html code.

anyway, please start over. Nothing in your post accuately reflects my views, and only half are my actual quotes. I do NOT depart from my Calvinist brothers.

Glorification is NOT part of Sanctification, but part of the process of Salvation--the culmination.

God does NOT repent FOR us but gives us the ability TO repent.

Sanctification is an instantaneous act AND an ongoing process.

We are freely justified by our faith, that faith given to us by a sovereign Lord. We are justified the instant we "accept Christ." But by no work of our own. Infact, we are incapable, apart from Christ, to accept anything Holy. I am not concerned with where you place Justification in your ordo salutis. As long as it is tied closely to the Gospel Call and regeneration. I will submit to the good Dr. Grudem for my ordo salutis:


1. Election (God's choice of people to be saved)
2. The gospel call (proclaiming the message of the gospel
3. Regeneration (being born again)
4. Conversion (faith and repentence)
5. Justification (right legal standing)
6. Adoption (membership in God's family)
7. Sanctification (right conduct of life)
8. Perseverance (remaining a Christian)
9. Death (going to be with the Lord)
10. Glorification (receiving a resurrection body)

 

"There is nothing for the "elect" but "que sera, sera!"



http://www.youtube.com/v/XjX7k2QoRX8&rel=1

 

He put all what in time and rationality?

I put in the hands of men what God does (the responsibility to repent and believe), and putin the hands of God what God does (calling, regeneration, etc.) But the truth is that faith and belief are the same thing in the NT. You cannot believe and not have faith. The Bible uses one word for them. It distinguishes between true faith and false faith.

You can't "satisfy" me that you understand enough about Calvinism because you don't show it. I know the definitions and vocabulary from both sides. But you are misusing it.

This is totally false. The elect must repent and believe. You see, this is why I say you don't understand. You make a straight out false statement like this as if it is true. And then you say I have been shipwrecked. I guarantee you I can support everything I believe from Scripture. I have done so before. If that is "shipwreck" then so be it. I think of it as shipwrecked on the grace of Christ.

What gives you this idea? I believe in repentance so much that I have been acccused of adding to faith alone.

I think a key part of love is being honest about what other people say. You can't say you love someone and then misrepresent them.

 

I kinda got that, k. I tried to segregate your comments but it would ep if you would just use the "QUOTE" box and add your comments. That way, I wouldn't end up with others comments when I do the same. :thumbs:

Many people miss this but, truly, we are "glorified" when we believe on Christ. It is called "terrestrial glory" (1Cor 15).

You are "making a distinction without a diffference." You are saying that God does it so it is actually HIS decision, not yours.

This you are correct on. If you were to die immediately after receiving Christ, you still would have all the Spirit you needed to be completely sanctifiied. But sanctification also involves whatever life you have before death. It is called "spiritual growth."

Thank you for this order. May I suggest that scripture says that we are "foreknown" before we are "elected?"

Might I suggest that "conversion" MUST come before "regeneration?" By that I mean that God is NOT going to regenerate/rebirth anyone who has not repented. Doesn't that make more sense to you??

Then there is a subtle nuance to "glorification." We are "terrestrially glorified" while we yet live. That merely says that we are Spirit indwelt. But when we are resurrected in the body, we are "celestially glorified." We cannot live "flesh and blood" in heaven -- there's no AIR there for one thing. Do you see the difference?

skypair

 

Your misquoting me is NOT my mistake. I did find the quote button and will use this int he future, but there will not be a future if you do not edit post #66

I do not hold to this, not do I care to discuss it. I find it to be as false as the Pope himself

Exactly

I know

You may make what ever suggestion you like. and no, it not only makes no sense, it is non biblical.

I do not see a biblical distinction for 2 glorifications. We are indwelt by the spirit at conversion. we are glorified after death.

don't complicate it.


edit #66!!!!!

 

No, I read your rebuttal, it failed on all points.

You are amusingly silent and somehow far away when one of your own has makes similar and certainly far worse comments. But I have come to expect this.

More importantly, you need to learn the definition of "personal attack". That means a specifically named person. It was a general statement, not a personal one.

I am a FORMER CALVINIST who TAUGHT CALVINIST doctrine regularly. I realize that gets under your skin and the only thing you have left to do is protest in some fashion, but sorry Charlie, those are the facts.

 

Then demonstrate how.

What are you talking about? I have said that neither side should do this, and when I was moderator I routinely edited both sides.

Um, no. A personal attack is when you attack a person, rather than a person's ideas. Naming a person is not a personal attack.

Then you should know better. (And you should quit being a former Calvinist )

You being a former Calvinist doesnt bother me in the least. I didn't know you were, and am not sure how much of a Calvinist you were. But I really don't care that much.

My protest is about those who do not rightly represent others' positions. Over my almost 20,000 posts, I have patiently and repeatedly answered questions regarding this topic. So I am not "protesting in some fashion." I am pointing facts of people misrepresenting others position. If you are indeed a former Calvinist, then you should be joining me in calling on Skypair to stop misrepresentations. If you really are a former Calvinist, then you know he is not telling the truth about what we believe because you once believed it.

As a former non-Calvinist, I don't like it when people misrepresent your position, and I have used my voice to express that.

 

Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

 

Yes. I agree we must repent. It wasn't being addressed in the discussion Jesus had with Nicodemus though.
We will only repent after we realize the sinners that we are and it takes God opening our eyes and hearts to do that.

 

You might have missed it but I answered you earlier in the thread that repentence is illistrated there in.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1136137&postcount=25

 

Let me give you an example, Lar. You do expect to be raptured, right? The Bible calls this a "lively hope," not faith, because it has never happened to you before. You BELIEVE it on the word/promise of God.

Likewise, when you believe without appropriation, you have what you called "false faith." That's a poor way of saying it but you believe in vain ---- you believe in something you have absolutely NO experience or commitment to. But then you appropriate that belief and God GIVES you regeneration whereby you KNOW and trust what you only hoped was true!

At the risk of being over-technical, you have no idea that is true because we -- none of us -- has ever seen the "original hand" documents.

And I have no doubt you believe this. Only problem is where and to what you put the repentance. Let's get this straight ---- if you repent and believe after you are born again, then you basically believe on an omnipotent "Tinkerbell" who sprinkled you with "pixie salvation." You basically "turn to" your own delusion that you are "elect."

Isn't that the very definition of rote memory vs. UNDERSTANDING??

We all need to repent of specific sin throughout our Christian lives. That, in fact, is what makes it look like works -- or like Catholic confession.

That is NOT that repentance I am talking about. I am talking about the repentance of conversion where you turn from self to God, not just sins to God. If you repent after you are born again/regenerated, you are merely repenting of sins because you are already what God wills you to be. Thus, you have made repentance a work rather than conversion.

I believe I understand what you are saying but that you don't understand what I am saying. Instead you (not you alone) get all indignant wherein I see you "stumbling." In one of the most famous cases of such, the Pharisees were indignant with Jesus Who became their "stumblingblock," the "stone that the builders rejected," remember?

skypair

 

kmichael,

You, like PL, apparently have "stumbled" on me as well.

Furthermore, we are not allowed unlimited time to edit posts here.

I'd suggest that you follow along the discussion until you get your bearings -- but you aren't taking any of my "suggestions" anyway, are you. :laugh:

Ah, well. I though you had such promise but you've turned out to be more "hard core" than you let on, haven't you?

skypair

 

I see nothing about repentance in that verse.

Repentance comes as a result of a changed heart. Unregenerate sinners have no desire to repent and cannot repent of their own power.

Are you saying belief=repentance? Are they the same thing?