Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Are we presenting the gospel scripturaly | John 1:12 | mark d seyler | 172484 | ||
Hi Doc, We are agreed on the meaning of regeneration, as refering to that moment when God creates a new being that did not exist before, created according to righteousness and true holiness. (assuming you agree with my expanded definition!) But I must also agree with what Tim wrote, that none of the Scripture references you offered show this "order of salvation". My problem with it is that this order would of necessity mean that God regenerates unrepentant sinners. That thought seems to me to be in conflict with a number of Scriptures. Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, In this passage, "receiving" Jesus, (said verb being in the active voice - done by those who are numbered in the "all" - "to all who...") comes before being given the right to become children of God (the right to be "regenerated"). The ones who are given the right to become children of God are those who received Him, not, for instance, those who "were made children of God". This verse does not say "those who were made children of God were given the right to become children of God." So I have a fundamental conflict with this. Another Scripture that comes to mind is: 2 Cor 7:10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. Paul does not in this passage say "... a repentance that SHOWS salvation..." Here, repentance leads to salvation. Is there any other way of thinking of second-birth, regeneration, as anything other than salvation itself? So if regeneration is that moment in time when the new creature is created, how can that precede repentance? To take a quote from Packer: "Regeneration is the spiritual change wrought in the heart of man by the Holy Spirit in which his/her inherently sinful nature is changed so that he/she can respond to God in Faith," He places regeneration before belief. I cannot reconcile that statement to the words of Scripture, such as Act 16:30-31 "Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." Again, this does not say, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you HAVE BEEN saved", it says "And you will be saved" Unless Packer is using the word "regeneration" in another way, not refering to the moment of creation of the new creature, this does not reconcile with Scripture. If Packer is using this as some would say, (if my understanding of these things is correct) Previent Grace, then I could accept this. And again it is written, Act 3:19, "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out," not "repent, therfore, and turn again, BECAUSE your sins HAVE BEEN blotted out." How do you reconcile your belief with these verses? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
2 | Are we presenting the gospel scripturaly | John 1:12 | DocTrinsograce | 172497 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, Keep in mind that the ordo salutis -- no matter which flavor you choose -- is a LOGICAL order, not necessarily a CHRONOLOGICAL order. Regeneration, justification, and positional sanctification, for example, might and probably do happen simultaneously. We are given logical order in Scripture. For example in Romans 8. You wrote, "My problem with it is that this order would of necessity mean that God regenerates unrepentant sinners." Yes, the orthodox view is that without regeneration no man is able to repent. Repentance and faith are always sure signs of the regenerate. A "new being that did not exist before" can't do ANYTHING prior to the time they come into existence. :-) God divinely initiates salvation. See John 3:1-10; Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13. God must draw a man to salvation (John 6:44). Just as a baby doesn't choose to be conceived, so is the new birth (John 3:8). Now, in the interest of amicable fairness: Although a challenge to elicit the definition, Tim's view is one that is called "prevenient grace." In a series of posts some time back he affirmed that he understood the drawing of John 6:44 as universal. Since the details were scanty, I looked elsewhere. I found that this is not an uncommon assertion among those who embrace semi-pelegian soteriology. John Wesley, one of the greatest historical proponents of this view wrote, "Human beings are totally incapable of responding to God without God first empowering them to have faith. This empowerment is known as 'Prevenient Grace.' Prevenient Grace doesn't save us but, rather, comes before anything that we do, drawing us to God, making us want to come to God, and enabling us to have faith in God. Prevenient Grace is Universal, in as much as all humans receive it, regardless of their having heard of Jesus. It is manifested in the deep seated desire of most humans to know God." The ordo salutis that you and Tim might be more comfortable with would look something like this: (1) the outward call, (2) faith and election, (3) repentance, (4) regeneration, (5) justification, (6) perseverance, and (7) glorification. In essence, therefore, as I understand it, synergists would assert that the old man persuades himself to repent and be saved -- freely choosing his own destruction -- at which point he is crucified with Christ and the new man comes into existence. In Him, Doc - - - - - - - - - - - - Now, before anyone gets offended by anything, I've attempted to only use language to clearly explain these soteriological views to the best of my understanding -- both my own and that of others. I do not proffer any value judgment on anyone of either persuasion. I only sought to offer definitions because I've been asked. I repeat... "Because I've been asked." The orthodox position was not done in a closet. I'd urge anyone to read the broadly and freely available creeds and confessions. They state things so much more clearly than I can! This is what it means to be a CONFESSIONAL EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN. However, it has been my experience that half the questions I am asked are not for the purpose of understanding my theology or even understanding the Word. Rather they are asked in order to justify an opposing perspective. I am not persuaded that these antipodal perspectives are arrived at through a logical process. High emotion tends to contraindicate rational thought. Having directly experienced the long, repetative, tiring, circuitous, and unfruitful threads of divisive debate -- and having read through those of yesteryear -- please forgive me if I excuse myself from dealing with each and every challenge to orthodoxy. No one will gain anything like a complete knowledge of theology from participating in a public forum. (There is, after all, a reason we don't draw the participation of serious professionals!) I've done my homework, even to the extent of reading the arguments of both sides throughout history. When other folks do likewise, come and talk to me about it all then. NO OFFENCE IS INTENDED TO ANYONE! |
||||||
3 | Are we presenting the gospel scripturaly | John 1:12 | mark d seyler | 172502 | ||
Hi Doc, Thank you very much for the clarity with which you stated yourself! I posted some of the verses that have shown, to me, a chronology of salvation, and I simply wondered if there was perhaps some other way of looking at them. I have seen this on a number of occasions that the way I have understood a verse may not be the only way it can be understood, and this could be one of those times. You may be suprised at the number of times I have changed my theology based on new understandings of particular verses. Having not seen another way to understand these verses, and since they seem so very clear, and others like them, then I must continue to believe that repentance and belief come before rebirth, and so we are a different sides of that particular line. Prevenient Grace - thank you! I had a feeling I wasn't saying it right! Yes, I definitaly have read many verses of the universal invitation, and it seems very clear that God offers salvation to everyone. The only order of salvation that I could possibly be comfortable with is that which is demostrated in the Bible, in the verses I cited, among others. Call it unorthodox if you wish (said word has many mis-applications already - everyone claims orthodoxy - its just another way of saying "I'm right"). I don't think that the order you have proposed for my thinking quite matched what I have in mind, but thats fine, I receive it in the spirit that it was offered. :-) If we were to simplify as much as possible what I believe, it would be something like this: At some point in everyone's life, God offers grace and salvation to every person, at such a time and in such a way as to give them a true and real opportunity to be saved. Some say yes, and many say no. And of those who say yes, some really mean it, and are really saved, and many don't, and are not. God prefers that all would be saved. That's it in a nutshell. I want you to know, I truly am interested in an exposition of those verses I referenced, if there is anyone who believe I am misunderstanding what they say. If you can show me from the Scriptures how they mean something different, I wll be able to identify and correct an error. As I am analysing Scriptures on this forum, it is for the purpose of showing not only my conclusions but also my process. I do this so that others might critique my analysis, to make sure I have not "gone off the deep end" in an emotion fit. ;-) Please feel free to point out to me if you think that I have made an error in exposition, whether it be based on an overpowering emotional state or something else. I have seen very technical forums, which have been very interesting to read, until they completely lost me. Definately, ours is more of a lay-person's forum. Again, I want to thank you for the spirit in which you have written, and I hope I have not said anything to offend. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
4 | Are we presenting the gospel scripturaly | John 1:12 | DocTrinsograce | 172535 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, How could I but respond to a post so graciously and kindly put? :-) This thread is getting pretty long. To shorten it, I'll post the responses elsewhere. The alternative ways of reading the verses you cited is at post #172532. The definition of orthodoxy, as I use it, is at post #172533. I'd suggest you spend further study on the doctrine of prevenient grace. It is not synonymous with the universal offer of the Gospel, the latter doctrine being held by synergists and monergists alike. All would agree that there is a difference between offering and drawing. I'm really proud of you for explictly stating your soteriological theology in a "nutshell." Very proud indeed! That is a wonderful first step that few have the courage to do. It lays bear your thinking so that you and your brethren can evaluate it. I urge you, brother Mark, to make a copy of your statement. Keep it by you as you study the Word. Over time you will find that it will require amending. Don't let that worry you -- amend away! Furthermore, no one will denigrate you for correcting it. None of us care about being right. What we care about is the truth. And when that is our aim, we are in the business of revamping our thinking in full submission to the Lord of all truth. Everyone who is a true believer is involved in this process all the way until glory! You see, your statement has far reaching implications with regard to faith (your doctrine) and practice (the application of your doctrine). It is valuable since it forms the root of your understanding of the Word of God. Lay it out before Him with whom we have to do. For we need not fear His correction even as we hope for His affirmation. He will ultimately lead us unto all truth. Thank you, again, for your openness and candor. Those are virtues well worth emulating. We all see the fingerprints of our Lord! :-) In Him, Doc |
||||||