Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Question for Open Theists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post

    So we can understand that a person believes in order that he might have life.
    Your understanding omits the reality that the participle (πιστεύοντες) is a present tense participle and the subjunctive verb (ἔχητε) is also in the present tense. Both strongly indicate ongoing action. Both the "believing" and the "having of life" are ongoing.

    No one is denying that the ongoing process of having life is dependent upon the ongoing process of believing.
    Calvinists believe this to be absolutely true.

    What John isn't saying, which you are trying to force into the mouth of the evangelist, is that believing precedes regeneration, and the passage just doesn't say this. It doesn't address the question at all.

    To say that one's ongoing physical life is dependent upon one engaging in the ongoing process of breathing is an absolutely true statement. To say that does not necessitate or even imply that one's physical life was preceded by breathing and, in fact, we know that this isn't true.

    Originally posted by Jerry
    This means that life comes as a result of believing. But the Calvinists teach that regeneration (life) precedes believing. They have it backwards.
    You are drawing an illegitimate conclusion here. However there is a verse in the bible that does clarify the question; that would be 1 John 5:1.

    Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

    (1Jo 5:1 ESV)

    The greek participle γεγέννηται is a perfect participle meaning that its action is completed prior to the beginning of the action of the main verb, or in this case the participle πιστεύων; which is a present tense participle.
    This means that being born again (regeneration) precedes belief.
    Case closed.

    Originally posted by Jerry
    And I can see that you have just a limited knowledge of the Greek language but just enough to be able to pervert what the Apostle John said at John 20:31!
    This is an Ad Hominem argument and is therefore irrelevant.
    It doesn’t matter how much or how little knowledge of Greek I have, the arguments are still sound.
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Dialogos View Post
      It doesn’t matter how much or how little knowledge of Greek I have, the arguments are still sound.
      Then why did you not even attempt to address what I said here:

      Your explanation completely overlooks the meaning of the Greek word hina found in these two places here:
      "But these are written, that (hina) ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that (hina) believing[/B] ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:31).

      The Greek word hina means "to the intent that; to the end that, in order that" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

      In the first instance we see that these words are written "in order that" ye might believe.

      In the second instance a person believes "in order that" he might have life.

      This means that life comes as a result of believing. But the Calvinists teach that regeneration (life) precedes believing. They have it backwards.

      If you think that the meaning which I gave for hina is incorrect then you can use one of the other meanings of that Greek word and we will see if the meaning which you chose makes any sense.
      Last edited by Jerry Shugart; March 12th, 2017, 09:56 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dialogos View Post
        However there is a verse in the bible that does clarify the question; that would be 1 John 5:1.
        Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.
        (1Jo 5:1 ESV)

        The greek participle γεγέννηται is a perfect participle meaning that its action is completed prior to the beginning of the action of the main verb, or in this case the participle πιστεύων; which is a present tense participle.
        What you overlook is the fact that the main verb only speaks of the action as being on going at that time. It doesn't indicate when the action begins. So it is wrong to argue that being born of God is completed prior to the beginning of believing because there is no way of knowing when the believing started.

        Here is an explanation in regard to the Greek Present Tense:
        "In English, we know that the present tense describes something happening right now. It informs us of the time when an action takes place.

        In Greek, however, the present tense primarily tells us the type of action. The Greek present tense indicates continued action, something that happens continually or repeatedly, or something that is in the process of happening. If you say, for instance, 'The sun is rising,' you are talking about a process happening over a period of time, not an instantaneous event. The Greeks use the present tense to express this kind of continued action."

        Comment


        • John 20:31-32 is about Jesus as God, the Messiah

          Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
          What you overlook...

          Jerry,

          You fail to see the primary purpose of the passage is to declare that true belief is upon Jesus as God. Trying to force the passage to teach something about regeneration is laying too much burden on the passage.

          Case closed:
          https://bible.org/seriespage/appendi...esis-john-2031

          Appealing to the Greek is unnecessary. The full counsel of Scripture attests to the dire condition of the unbeliever's state in Adam.

          The unbeliever will never seek God's righteousness for the unbeliever

          - is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
          - is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
          - is not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God (Eph. 2:2);
          - must be quickened by God (Eph. 2:4-5);
          - cannot choose righteousness until regenerated (Titus 3:5);
          - loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
          - is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
          - is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
          - is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
          - is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
          - cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
          - is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

          Until you can overcome the clear didactic teachings above, your argument denying quickening first, faith and repentance second, is moot.

          That said, regeneration is instantaneous, as is faith and repentance, so one is hard pressed to look back at that moment of re-birth and be able to parse out the exact orderings. Yet one thing is certain, that is, the one who believes must be made able to believe by God the Holy Spirit before he believes.

          Denying this places the Christian in the unenviable position of thinking he can merely argue someone into Heaven, as if there are purely objective arguments that all must necessarily accept. This would mean that we can save ourselves solely by our own will power, despite what Scripture (see above) has to teach us about our fallen state beforehand. This also means that man has reason to boast, for the one who "saved" himself must have been more wise than the man who did not.

          Let's not make God a debtor to man's choices.

          AMR
          Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; December 23rd, 2016, 02:34 PM. Reason: grammar
          Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



          Do you confess?
          Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
          AMR's Randomata Blog
          Learn Reformed Doctrine
          I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
          Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
          Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
          The best TOL Social Group: here.
          If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
          Why?


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
            You fail to see the primary purpose of the passage is to declare that true belief is upon Jesus as God. Trying to force the passage to teach something about regeneration is laying too much burden on the passage.
            I am not forcing anything. According to the Calvinists a person is "regenerated" (given life) prior to believing the word of God. In other words, they teach that this regeneration is separate from anything having to do with the Word of God. However, what the Lord Jesus said here contradicts what the Calvinists teach:
            "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).

            According to you being "born anew" gives a person the ability to to choose to glorify God and that begins with "faith":

            Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
            The lost require a supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit to give them a new heart (Eze. 36:26)—regeneration or what is called "born anew"—such that they will now possess the moral ability to choose to glorify God, beginning with sure faith and repentance.
            According to your ideas being "born again" precedes faith. However, the Apostle Peter says that it is believing that results in being "born again":

            "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you"
            (1 Pet.1:23,25).

            James says the same thing:
            "He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created" (Jas.1:18).

            So when we consider the words of the Lord Jesus at John 6:63 and the words which I quoted of Peter and James the evidence is overwhelming that receiving life comes as a result of believing. The Calvinists are wrong when they teach that "life" precedes "faith."

            Comment


            • Regeneration is via Ordinary Means of the Gospel

              Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
              I am not forcing anything. According to the Calvinists a person is "regenerated" (given life) prior to believing the word of God. In other words, they teach that this regeneration is separate from anything having to do with the Word of God.
              I do not think you properly understand regeneration, Jerry. It is not separated from the Good News at all. The Holy Spirit usually works by means; and the Word, read or preached, is the ordinary means which the Holy Spirit renders effectual to the salvation of sinners.

              Regeneration (the Divine spark) is the act of God by which a principle of new life is implanted in a man or woman with the result that the governing disposition of the soul is made holy. And then the actual birth is that which gives evidence of the first exercise of this disposition.


              Regeneration has to do with both how the Christian life begins and how it develops over time. All created life has a birth or beginning, which is actually the culmination of a process that has been under way for some time. In God’s appointed time and way, the Holy Spirit begins to work in us, quickening the heart, enlightening the mind, renewing the will, and instilling a new hatred for sin and a new hunger and thirst for righteousness. Drawing us to Christ, He enables us to use the hand of faith to receive the salvation offered to us in the gospel.

              This passing from death to life is called the new birth. It manifests itself as the transition from unbelief to faith in Christ. Note, however, that we do not believe our way into the new birth. Our faith is one of the firstfruits (evidence) of our re-birth. Our faith is not the means of our re-birth. Rather, we are born again to faith in Christ as the firstfruits of God's grace at work in us. When Our Lord says “Ye must be born again” (John 3:7), He is showing us our need, not telling us how to meet it. (See more here.) The gospel command is, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!” (Acts 16:31). Those who are born again believe in Christ alone for salvation and are saved.

              AMR
              Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



              Do you confess?
              Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
              AMR's Randomata Blog
              Learn Reformed Doctrine
              I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
              Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
              Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
              The best TOL Social Group: here.
              If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
              Why?


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                What you overlook is the fact that the main verb only speaks of the action as being on going at that time. It doesn't indicate when the action begins.
                Absolutely true, and totally irrelevant to my point. It is true that the present tense indicates ongoing action. So we know that "believing" is an ongoing action that happens regardless of the time. That makes sense because John is talking about a principle that applies to every believer regardless of when they became a believer.

                What you are overlooking is that the perfect tense of the participle (γεγέννηται) is what places being "born again" prior to "believing."

                Here is a good treatise on perfect participles:


                "The aorist participle, for example, usually denotes antecedent time to that of the controlling verb. But if the main verb is also aorist, this participle may indicate contemporaneous time. The perfect participle also indicates antecedent time. The present participle is used for contemporaneous time. (This contemporaneity, however, is often quite broadly conceived, depending in particular on the tense of the main verb.) The future participle denotes subsequent time. (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 614)"

                Originally posted by Jerry
                So it is wrong to argue that being born of God is completed prior to the beginning of believing because there is no way of knowing when the believing started.
                A) It doesn’t matter when the believing started, the text says that being born again is an action that is completed prior to the action of the main verb (believing). So if a 25 year old hindu woman comes to Christ tomorrow and starts believing at 5:45 and 32 seconds PM the perfect nature of the participle that John used tells us that she has already been born again prior to 5:45 and 32 seconds PM.
                B) It’s a little annoying that you want to have your cake and eat it too on this one. ALL of the verbs and participles in question vis a vis John 20:31…

                καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. (Joh 20:31)
                are present tense verbs and present tense participles. So you, in effect are making the perfect tense participle act like a present tense participle in John 5 and are turning a present tense participle into a perfect tense participle in John 20.

                αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
                Worthy is the Lamb

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                  I do not think you properly understand regeneration, Jerry. It is not separated from the Good News at all.
                  Let us look what you said earlier about "regeneration":

                  Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                  The lost require a supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit to give them a new heart (Eze. 36:26)—regeneration or what is called "born anew"—such that they will now possess the moral ability to choose to glorify God, beginning with sure faith and repentance.
                  According to you a person is 'born anew" in order to have the ability to glorify God and that starts with faith. So in your logical order this being "born again" happens prior to anyone believing.

                  It is a fact that the Calvinist's doctrine is based on the logical order of salvation:
                  "The 'ordo salutis' is the order of salvation. This focuses on the acts of God and the response of the individual in salvation. God calls us, produces regeneration in us, so that we respond with repentance, faith, and obedience. Behind the divine call is God’s electing decree. The 'ordo salutis' is not concerned with a temporal sequence of events, but with a logical order" (The Order of Salvation, Ligonier Ministries, The Teaching Fellowship of R.C. Sproul).

                  According to this the logical order is first, God calling us. Then secondly, He produces regeneration (born again) in us. Then finally that enables us to respond in faith.

                  So being born again precedes faith in this logical order. But both Peter and James makes it plain that is is faith which results in being born of God:

                  "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).

                  "He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created"
                  (Jas.1:18).

                  The Calvinists have it backward. The Scriptures reveal that a person is "born again" (regenerated) as a result of his faith.

                  The Calvinists teach that a person is "born again" (regenerated) prior to faith.

                  Why do you cling so hard to a teaching which is obviously in error?:

                  Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                  Our faith is not the means of our re-birth. Rather, we are born again to faith in Christ as the firstfruits of God's grace at work in us.
                  Can you not even understand that what both Peter and James say about this subject directly contradicts what you say?
                  Last edited by Jerry Shugart; December 27th, 2016, 09:05 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dialogos View Post
                    What you are overlooking is that the perfect tense of the participle (γεγέννηται) is what places being "born again" prior to "believing."
                    As I said, the Greek present tense in regard to "believing" in the verse we are discussing only speaks of a believing which is on going. It does not say when the believing started. So you are in error when you said this:

                    "...the participle ([γεγέννηται) is what places being "born again" prior to "believing."

                    What you are saying is that the participle places being "born again" prior to when a person first begins to believe.

                    But since the verse says nothing about when the believing begins then what you say is in error.

                    Also, you failed to address what I said here about the Greek word hina found in these two places here:
                    "But these are written, that (hina) ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that (hina) believing[/B] ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:31).

                    The Greek word hina means "to the intent that; to the end that, in order that" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

                    In the first instance we see that these words are written "in order that" ye might believe.

                    In the second instance a person believes "in order that" he might have life.

                    This means that life comes as a result of believing. But the Calvinists teach that regeneration (life) precedes believing. They have it backwards.

                    If you think that the meaning which I gave for hina is incorrect then you can use one of the other meanings of that Greek word and we will see if the meaning which you chose makes any sense.

                    Comment


                    • Born Again versus Regeneration Strictly Speaking

                      Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                      Let us look what you said earlier about "regeneration":

                      According to you a person is 'born anew" in order to have the ability to glorify God and that starts with faith. So in your logical order this being "born again" happens prior to anyone believing.

                      It is a fact that the Calvinist's doctrine is based on the logical order of salvation:
                      "The 'ordo salutis' is the order of salvation. This focuses on the acts of God and the response of the individual in salvation. God calls us, produces regeneration in us, so that we respond with repentance, faith, and obedience. Behind the divine call is God’s electing decree. The 'ordo salutis' is not concerned with a temporal sequence of events, but with a logical order" (The Order of Salvation, Ligonier Ministries, The Teaching Fellowship of R.C. Sproul).

                      According to this the logical order is first, God calling us. Then secondly, He produces regeneration (born again) in us. Then finally that enables us to respond in faith.

                      So being born again precedes faith in this logical order. But both Peter and James makes it plain that is is faith which results in being born of God:

                      "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).

                      "He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created"
                      (Jas.1:18).

                      The Calvinists have it backward.
                      Jerry,

                      When I speak of regeneration I often follow it with a parenthetical, "born-again" as this is what the typical non-Calvinist uses. Unfortunately, the use of born-again is confusing as it—to us Reformed—generally refers to the entire corpus of salvation, the Golden Chain of redemption: foreknowledge, predestination, calling, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, union to Christ, adoption, sanctification, and glorification.

                      The Golden Chain of Redemption:
                      Spoiler

                      foreknowledge - God's love of His chosen (the elect) before time (Eph. 1:11).
                      predestination - God's sovereign eternal decree as relates to the elect and the reprobate (Eph. 1:3-14).
                      calling - God's ordinary means, the hearing of the Scripture, the outward call, that effectuates the inward call of the elect (Eph. 2:1-3).
                      regeneration - the quickening of the "dead men walking" to life: new genesis, the beginning of a new life in a radically renewed person (1 Peter 1:23).
                      faith - the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - a vital and personal trust in Christ as Savior and Lord (Rom. 10:5-13).
                      repentance - the radical turning from sin to Christ, the fruit of regeneration (2 Cor. 7:8-12).
                      justification - a forensic act of God declaring, counting, reckoning those "in Christ" righteous (Phil. 3:7-11).
                      union to Christ - the joining of the regenerated (quickened) radically new person with Christ by God. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling. (Eph. 1:22; Eph. 2:6-8).
                      adoption - we are now related to Christ as branches of the True Vine, the children of God (John 15:1,5).
                      sanctification - our walk of faith towards greater destruction of the dominion of sin and the lusts thereof (Rom.6:6,14; Gal.5:24; Rom.8:13).
                      glorification - as we will be after the Lord's Second Coming (1 Cor. 15:53).


                      In other words, we are saved, yet are being saved, in the now and not yet parlance of Scripture.

                      Now, but not yet” describes the tension between the benefits of redemption already experienced in this life and those benefits which await us at the consummation. Christians enjoy the “alreadyness” of the Atonement—remission of sins, adoption as children, the indwelling Holy Spirit, etc. However, there is a sense in which we will not see these realities in totality until the last day (1 John 3:2), and so they always remain objects of faith. For instance, the believer already has eternal life (John 5:24), but he is not yet physically resurrected. Likewise, the church is a fellowship of persons who are both new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) and still imperfect sinners. We await our glorification and the destruction of our sinful natures in the last day.

                      To be as plain as I can be, the unbeliever must first be given some spark of spiritual life, regenerated, before that person is now in possession of the moral ability to believe. As I have noted in previous posts that you seem to overlook, before this instantaneous temporal event of regeneration, the unbeliever is not able to believe given their state of moral inability (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14). The unbeliever's moral inability is as a result of the fall of Adam, whose sin has been imputed (judicially declared) by God to all of Adam's progeny. We are born sinners and sin because we are sinners. We are not born morally neutral and become sinners by sinning.

                      Now this spark of regeneration, if you will, comes from the efficacious grace of God the Holy Spirit. When does the spark of regeneration ordinarily take place? By the word of God or through the word of truth as stated in the First Peter and James citations you noted above (and many more elsewhere Scripture). In other words it is ordinarily by the hearing of the Good News that those chosen by God are made able and are brought into the kingdom. This hearing of the Good News is but one of the means that God uses to temporally achieve His eternally decreed ends. This is the proper way of viewing the passage you have cited. It is not faith that causes re-birth, rather it is re-birth (regeneration) that yields firstfruits: faith. Faith is evidence you are saved, it is not the cause of your salvation, for God alone is the cause.

                      To claim we Calvinists or Reformed folk have it backwards is to misunderstand exactly what is going on soteriologically. The non-Calvinists assumes that something within himself, some minute seed of righteousness remains within their corrupted images of God, even after the Fall of Adam. This seed of so-called prevenient grace thereby enables the person to eventually believe when hearing the Good News. Yet, if this is the case, one wonders why not all believe given that all are given the same measure of this prevenient grace. Either they do not each get the same measure, and therefore God is favoring some over others (making a sort of non-Calvinist form of election), or the person who believes can boldly claim to be more discerning, more wise, etc., than his non-believing neighbor, hence having reason to boast based upon merit.

                      Unfortunately, this sort of view ultimately results in what Spurgeon observed many years ago:
                      “Lord, I thank thee that I am not like these poor, presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free will; I was born with a power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace as I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know that thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves… it was not thy grace that made us differ… I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.”
                      Src: Spurgeon, Sermon on John 5:40Free Will a Slave” The New Park Street Pulpit, 1855- 1856, Volumes I & II (Pilgrim 1975), 395-402.

                      Of course Mr. Spurgeon was speaking hyperbolically, but the essential truth contained therein accurately describes the view that holds man can believe his way into the Kingdom of God. This evidence for this is seen in statements such as this (emphasis mine):

                      Originally posted by RobertPate View Post
                      And you and you alone are responsible for your salvation.


                      Clearly, the discerning reader will have their hearts pricked by such a view, and rightly so.

                      On the other hand, we Reformed or Calvinist's take Scripture's high view of the sovereignty of God (Daniel 4:35; Jeremiah 32:17; Matthew 28:18; Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 1:11; Isaiah 14:24, 27; Isaiah 46:9, 10, 11; Genesis 18:14; Job 42:2; Psalm 135:6; Isaiah 55:11; Romans 9:20, 21) and accordingly give God all the credit for our salvation (the entire Golden Chain).

                      We also, I believe, rightly understand the teachings of Scripture about the full effects of the Fall of Adam, recognizing that unless God does something to the fallen man, none would ever choose the righteousness of God. We give thanks to God for His mercy in choosing some out of the entire fallen lump of humanity in Adam to be redeemed, not because God saw something good in the chosen by peeking down the corridors of time, but simply because of His own good counsel to set His preferences upon (God's love) another. Hence, those not so chosen are left in their state of sin and ongoing sinning, never to be the subject of any of God's saving graces
                      .

                      AMR
                      Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                      Do you confess?
                      Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                      AMR's Randomata Blog
                      Learn Reformed Doctrine
                      I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                      Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                      Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                      The best TOL Social Group: here.
                      If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                      Why?


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                        When I speak of regeneration I often follow it with a parenthetical, "born-again" as this is what the typical non-Calvinist uses.
                        The word "regeneration" does indeed mean "born again." The word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

                        Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts, it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

                        Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

                        When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth," or being "born again."

                        So when the Calvinists speak of "regeneration" the reference is to being "born again."

                        We can see that both Peter and James make it plain that one becomes "born again" or "regenerated" by the word of God:

                        "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you"
                        (1 Pet.1:23,25).
                        "He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created" (Jas.1:18).

                        The Calvinists have it backward. The Scriptures reveal that a person is "born again" (regenerated) as a result of his faith.

                        The Calvinists teach that a person is "born again" (regenerated) prior to faith.

                        Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                        We also, I believe, rightly understand the teachings of Scripture about the full effects of the Fall of Adam, recognizing that unless God does something to the fallen man, none would ever choose the righteousness of God. We also, I believe, rightly understand the teachings of Scripture about the full effects of the Fall of Adam, recognizing that unless God does something to the fallen man, none would ever choose the righteousness of God.
                        I agree with you that "unless God does something to the fallen man, none would ever choose the righteousness of God." And that is why the LORD sends out His servants to preach the gospel (Ro.10:14-15) and those who believe receive life when they are born again. Here the Lord Jesus speaks about how that happens:
                        "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).

                        The same can be said of the gospel we preach because it too is spirit because it comes in the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Thess.1:5). And belief in that gospel brings salvation to all who believe:

                        "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).

                        When a person believes the gospel he is "born again" (regenerated) and therefore saved.

                        Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                        Faith is evidence you are saved, it is not the cause of your salvation, for God alone is the cause.
                        Paul and those with him believed that it is "faith" which causes salvation, as witnessed by their answer to this question:
                        "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).
                        Last edited by Jerry Shugart; December 23rd, 2016, 05:28 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                          As I said, the Greek present tense in regard to "believing" in the verse we are discussing only speaks of a believing which is on going.
                          As apposed to what other kind of believing, Jerry?

                          In 1 John 5, "believing" is indeed in the present tense, but what you either fail to see or refuse to see is that the tense of "believing" is irrelevant to the point I am making. "believing could have been the Aorist tense and my point would still be valid because the antecedent nature of the participle has nothing to do with the tense of the main verb, it has to do with the tense of the participle.

                          Perhaps you can understand the following:

                          " THE VERBAL SIDE OF THE PARTICIPLE

                          a. Time

                          The time of the participle's verbal nature requires careful consideration. Generally speaking, the tenses behave just as they do in the indicative. The only difference is that now the point of reference is the controlling verb, not the speaker. Thus, time in participles is relative (or dependent), while in the indicative it is absolute (or independent).
                          Chart 80Time in Participles
                          The aorist participle, for example, usually denotes antecedent time to that of the controlling verb.1 But if the main verb is also aorist, this participle may indicate contemporaneous time.2 The perfect participle also indicates antecedent time. The present participle is used for contemporaneous time. (This contemporaneity, however, is often quite broadly conceived, depending in particular on the tense of the main verb.) The futureparticiple denotes subsequent time.3


                          (Dan Wallace,
                          https://bible.org/article/participle)
                          Lets start here. Do you understand what Dan Wallace is saying here? If so, are you in agreement with what he says? If not, on what scholarly basis do you dissent?


                          Originally posted by Jerry

                          What you are saying is that the participle places being "born again" prior to when a person first begins to believe.
                          Yes, because "born again" is a perfect participle and "believing" is the controlling verb.

                          Read Dan Wallace above and then apply his conclusions to 1 John 5.

                          Originally posted by Jerry

                          But since the verse says nothing about when the believing begins then what you say is in error.
                          Wrong.

                          It doesn't say when the believing begins because John pretty well understands that the question of when is different for everyone. I'd bet you and I didn't start believing at the same time. John, the evangelist, started believing long before you and I were born.

                          It doesn't matter what date on a calendar one starts believing, what does matter is that the perfect tense of the participle means that the action of the participle is completed prior to the action of the main verb.

                          This means that the action of being "born again" is completed prior to the action of the main verb and that main verb is a present tense verb.

                          Originally posted by Jerry
                          Also, you failed to address what I said here about the Greek word hina found in these two places here:
                          "But these are written, that (hina) ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that (hina) believing[/B] ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:31).

                          The Greek word hina means "to the intent that; to the end that, in order that" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
                          Yes, this is what hina means. So what?

                          Why are you drawing false conclusions?

                          We can easily see that X may happen in order that Y may happen and yet the X is not necessarily temporally prior to Y.

                          I've already given you the example of breathing. We breath (X) in order to live (Y). But everyone knows that a fetus lives 9 whole months before breathing.

                          Would you like more examples?

                          I put another log on the fire (X) in order that (Y) the fire would burn.

                          According to your ideas, there couldn't be a fire prior to my putting a log on the fire. But that doesn't make any sense because one can't put a log on a fire if there is no fire.

                          Here's another example:

                          The surgeon surgically implanted a pacemaker (X) in order that (Y) the patient would live.

                          According to your ideas, there is absolutely no way that the patient was alive prior to the implantation of the pacemaker, but that's ridiculous because no surgeon implants a pacemaker into a cadaver.

                          Here's yet another example:

                          This time from the clause right before the one you think makes your point.

                          Originally posted by Jerry
                          In the first instance we see that these words are written "in order that" ye might believe.
                          So according to your ideas, there could be no believers who read John's words right?

                          That's peculiar because I recommend the gospel of John to new believers all the time. I even led a bible study where a group of 12 believing men read through the gospel of John. According to your ideas, its impossible that any of these men were saved because, according to your ideas, no one can believe prior to reading John's words.

                          You and I both know that this is spurious.

                          Its not even logical to assume that the ancient recipients of John's gospel were all lost. In fact, the following note from the NET bible is quite pertinent:

                          3 )sn John 20:31. A major question concerning this verse, the purpose statement of the Gospel of John, is whether the author is writing primarily for an audience of unbelievers, with purely evangelistic emphasis, or whether he envisions an audience of believers, whom he wants to strengthen in their faith. Several points are important in this discussion: (1) in the immediate context (20:30), the other signs spoken of by the author were performed in the presence of disciples; (2) in the case of the first of the signs, at Cana, the author makes a point of the effect the miracle had on the disciples (2:11 ); (3) if the primary thrust of the Gospel is toward unbelievers, it is difficult to see why so much material in chaps. 13–17 (the last meal and Farewell Discourse, concluding with Jesus' prayer for the disciples), which deals almost exclusively with the disciples, is included; (4) the disciples themselves were repeatedly said to have believed in Jesus throughout the Gospel, beginning with 2:11, yet they still needed to believe after the resurrection (if Thomas' experience in 20:27–28 is any indication); and (5) the Gospel appears to be written with the assumption that the readers are familiar with the basic story (or perhaps with one or more of the synoptic gospel accounts, although this is less clear). Thus no account of the birth of Jesus is given at all, and although he is identified as being from Nazareth, the words of the Pharisees and chief priests to Nicodemus (7:52) are almost certainly to be taken as ironic, assuming the reader knows where Jesus was really from. Likewise, when Mary is identified in 11:2 as the one who anointed Jesus' feet with oil, it is apparently assumed that the readers are familiar with the story, since the incident involved is not mentioned in the Fourth Gospel until 12:3. These observations must be set over against the clear statement of purpose in the present verse, 20:31, which seems to have significant evangelistic emphasis. In addition to this there is the repeated emphasis on witness throughout the Fourth Gospel (cf. the witness of John the Baptist in 1:7, 8, 15, 32, and 34, along with 5:33; the Samaritan woman in 4:39; Jesus' own witness, along with that of the Father who sent him, in 8:14, 18, and 18:37; the disciples themselves in 15:27; and finally the testimony of the author himself in 19:35 and 21:24). In light of all this evidence it seems best to say that the author wrote with a dual purpose: (1) to witness to unbelievers concerning Jesus, in order that they come to believe in him and have eternal life; and (2) to strengthen the faith of believers, by deepening and expanding their understanding of who Jesus is. (NET Bible, study notes, Bold Emphasis added by me)
                          According to your ideas, no one who read John's account of Jesus' miracles could have been a believer because, according to your ideas, hina means that X always temporally precedes Y.

                          In this instance, John's writing (X) were in order that - hina - (Y) you (John's audience) may believe.

                          So, according to your ideas, no one who received John's gospel could have been a believer.

                          I think you can see how ridiculous that is even without the very clear evidence presented by the NET study bible above.
                          Last edited by Dialogos; December 24th, 2016, 09:01 PM. Reason: correct spelling errors
                          αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
                          Worthy is the Lamb

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Dialogos View Post
                            This means that the action of being "born again" is completed prior to the action of the main verb and that main verb is a present tense verb.
                            You can talk about the Greek language until you are blue in the face but your conclusions are easily shown to be contradictory to the Scriptures. Let us look at what the Calvinists say about the "logical order of salvation":
                            "The 'ordo salutis' is the order of salvation. This focuses on the acts of God and the response of the individual in salvation. God calls us, produces regeneration in us, so that we respond with repentance, faith, and obedience. Behind the divine call is God’s electing decree. The 'ordo salutis' is not concerned with a temporal sequence of events, but with a logical order" (The Order of Salvation, Ligonier Ministries, The Teaching Fellowship of R.C. Sproul).

                            According to this the logical order is first, God calling us. Then secondly, He produces regeneration (born again) in us. Then finally that enables us to respond in faith.

                            So being "born again" precedes faith in the Calvinist's logical order. But both Peter and James makes it plain that is is faith which results in being "born again":

                            "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).

                            "He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created"
                            (Jas.1:18).

                            From this alone we can see that your conclusion, derived from your understanding of the Greek language, is not correct. So unless you can answer these points of mine in "English" then you must realize that your understanding of what is said in Greek is wrong!
                            Last edited by Jerry Shugart; December 27th, 2016, 06:30 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Repeating one's views is not a response

                              Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                              The word "regeneration" does indeed mean "born again."
                              Jerry, you are just repeating yourself. You have not interacted at all with my posts in depth. You go on to make the very assumption I noted as erroneous, that the unbeliever possessed the moral ability to choose wisely, despite the clear teachings of Scripture that man is not in any way able to do so (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14).

                              As I have noted from Scripture, the unregenerate is deceitful and desperately sick, full of evil, not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God, must be quickened by God, cannot choose righteousness until regenerated, loves darkness rather than light, is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God, is helpless and ungodly, is dead in his trespasses and sins, is by nature a child of wrath, cannot understand spiritual things, and is a slave of sin. You are ignoring these matters and hoping amateur resorts to the Greek will bolster your opinion. Your desperation is showing.

                              Your view, at its most basic level, is that you saved yourself by choosing rightly because you were more wise and discerning than your neighbor. Spurgeon's parody of this view therefore applies to you. Sigh.

                              So rather than your tortuous attempts and facile appeals to the Greek, why not focus on the real matter at hand: your support of libertarian free will? The topic of regeneration is really a secondary matter.

                              AMR
                              Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                              Do you confess?
                              Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                              AMR's Randomata Blog
                              Learn Reformed Doctrine
                              I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                              Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                              Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                              The best TOL Social Group: here.
                              If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                              Why?


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                                Your view, at its most basic level, is that you saved yourself by choosing rightly because you were more wise and discerning than your neighbor. Spurgeon's parody of this view therefore applies to you. Sigh.
                                That is not my view! My view is that I "believed" the gospel of my salvation. Unlike others, I did not "resist the Spirit" which comes with the gospel (1 Thess.1:5). When I did believe the gospel I was "born again" (regenerated):

                                "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you"
                                (1 Pet.1:23,25).

                                "He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created"
                                (Jas.1:18).

                                With these two verses in view it is certain that being "born again" (regeneration) happens as a result of believing, and not prior to believing, as the Calvinists teach. R.C. Sproul, a well known Calvinist author, explains the view on this matter in the following way:

                                "When speaking of the order of salvation (ordo salutis), Reformed theology always and everywhere insists that regeneration precedes faith. Regeneration precedes faith because it is a necessary condition for faith...when Reformed theology says regeneration precedes faith, it is speaking in terms of logical priority, not temporal priority. We cannot exercise saving faith until we have been regenerated, so we say that faith is dependent on regeneration, not regeneration on faith"
                                [emphasis added] (Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?, 195).

                                Despite the fact that both Peter and James make it plain that it is faith which results in being "born again" (regeneration) Sproul and the other Calvinits who I know continue to insist that being "born again" (regeneration) precedes faith!

                                There is no ambiguity in what Peter and James say and it is so simple that even a child can understand it. But for some reason the Calvinists just refuse to believe what is said in those two verses. This leads me to believe that the Calvinists put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than they do in what the Scriptures actually say!

                                And you are a prime example of this unbelief. I have presented these two verses to you more than once and you continue to avoid them like the plague. I keep thinking that at some point in time a lightbulb will go off in your head and finally this truth will shine into your heart but you continue to resist the Spirit.

                                Your false beliefs continue to lead to you to even more false beliefs to such an extend that you actually say this:

                                Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                                Faith is evidence you are saved, it is not the cause of your salvation, for God alone is the cause.
                                Paul and the Christians who were with him certainly believed that there is a "cause and effect" relationship between "faith" and "salvation," as witnessed how they answered the following question:
                                "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).

                                Despite the fact that what is said here blows your assertion out of the water you just ignore it. And I guess that you will continue to ignore it!

                                Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                                As I have noted from Scripture, the unregenerate is deceitful and desperately sick, full of evil, not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God, must be quickened by God, cannot choose righteousness until regenerated, loves darkness rather than light, is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God, is helpless and ungodly, is dead in his trespasses and sins, is by nature a child of wrath, cannot understand spiritual things, and is a slave of sin. You are ignoring these matters and hoping amateur resorts to the Greek will bolster your opinion. Your desperation is showing.
                                It is you who is ignoring the verses which I presented to you in regard to "regeneration."

                                I answered how those of whom you speak are regenerated and brought to life and once again you just ignored the verses which I quoted. Here is what I said again:

                                I agree with you that "unless God does something to the fallen man, none would ever choose the righteousness of God." And that is why the LORD sends out His servants to preach the gospel (Ro.10:14-15) and those who believe receive life when they are born again. Here the Lord Jesus speaks about how that happens:

                                "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).

                                The same can be said of the gospel we preach because it too is spirit because it comes in the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Thess.1:5). And belief in that gospel brings salvation to all who believe:

                                "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).

                                When a person believes the gospel he is "born again" (regenerated) and therefore saved.

                                The fact is that you just completely ignored these verses! All I can see from you is a heart of unbelief who puts what some men say about the Scriptures above what the Scriptures actually say.

                                So rather than your tortuous attempts and facile appeals to the Greek, why not focus on the real matter at hand: your support of libertarian free will? The topic of regeneration is really a secondary matter.
                                If the topic of "regeneration" is only a secondary matter then why do the Calvinists put so much emphasis on their false teaching that being "born again" precedes "faith"?

                                Show me that you can actually address the verses which I quoted from both Peter and James which demonstrate in no uncertain terms that "faith" results in a person being "regenerated" and that "regeneration" does not precede "faith," as the Calvinists teach.

                                You can't run from those verses forever.
                                Last edited by Jerry Shugart; December 24th, 2016, 08:25 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X