Regeneration before or after saving faith

[Eternally Grateful]

Absolutely. He ordained all of it. Look at the crucifixion of the Christ. There was never a man more wronged than He was. He was an innocent man who the Jews had to violate their own Law to have Him crucified by Roman soldiers. And God ordained it.

Yep

that’s why I despise fatalism, you have God condoning and basically creating evil then punishing mankind for it

Jesus volunteered for the cross, huge difference than countless men and women who suffer evil and did not volunteer for it. In fact tell the teen sold into sex slavery how God wants he to be forcibly raped by all those men.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yep

that’s why I despise fatalism, you have God condoning and basically creating evil then punishing mankind for it

Jesus volunteered for the cross, huge difference than countless men and women who suffer evil and did not volunteer for it. In fact tell the teen sold into sex slavery how God wants he to be forcibly raped by all those men.

It’s not fatalism. You guys say that He didn’t ordain these things. Yet, in your schema, God didn’t ordain them, so they serve Him no purpose whatsoever. Yet, He allows these atrocities to occur, having no purpose to serve.

You guys are closet deists. Deism teaches a god made all we see, set it in motion, and now sets back and watches things unfold. That’s what you guys are averring. Sadly, you can’t see this. Good bye. Our convo is over.

 

[Dcopymope]

ROTFLOL! " I didn't do it officer! The gun killed him, not me! I only squeezed the trigger!"

This is getting good man

 

[Paul Christensen]

And who ordained that nature, even the fall of man, according to Calvinism?

I have read right through Calvin's Institutes, and I can't see any reference where he taught that God ordained the fall of man. I think there is a difference between what Calvin himself taught and what his subsequent followers taught.

I was thinking about the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. I have also read the first 450 page volume of Arminius' works, and I don't see anything that is inconsistent with Scripture. So, although from slightly different perspectives, they are both consistently teaching from Scripture. The problem is the adaptations, additions and subtractions that subsequent followers taught.

Also, because Calvinism adopted the dominant place in Europe and British Reformation theology and because they were intolerant to any other theology, such as to the Anabaptists, who, originally all they held different was they believed in adult, rather than infant baptism (some later forms of Anabaptist theology got a bit way out), Calvinists discredited Arminius' teaching and promulgated the lies that Arminius complained about in his own writing, giving an incorrect view of what Arminius' theology really was. Calvinists accused him of being Pelagian, when Arminius himself definitely opposed it.

So, rather than just make assumptions about someone's theology (I am saying that generally, and not saying that you are), it is best to take the time and effort to get the theology from the horse's mouth rather than from hot air from another horse's ass.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

But the objector is a Calvinist, IMO. He claims in a round about way, that no one resist God's will. ( Wrong!) And Paul's reply?

19 One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?

Paul says he talks back to God, confirmation that man can go against God's will. If all is determined by God as it is in your doctrine, we only do exactly what we are programmed to do, and can no more talk back to God than flap our arms and fly.

Lol!! All you are showing is you do not grasp the text. At all! You're truly making a desperate grasp here with your straw man!

No Calvinist answers God back here for justly punishing any person he does not show mercy to, in fact we embrace it.

This has not one thing with man going against Gods will brother, that isn't what is even going in here.

It is saying that none can resist what he is doing: showing mercy to some, and not to others, so the complainer is upset saying "How can God still find fault, we can do nothing to resist what He is doing! He has mercy only on some! That is unfair!! Since he doesn't have mercy on some, and leaves them there, how can he still fault them?!!! Its unfair!!!"

That is what the text is saying, and that is the epitome of your position. You are then saying God is unjust to do what he is doing since man can do nothing about it. Paul says God would answer "Who are you to speak back to me?"

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It’s not fatalism. You guys say that He didn’t ordain these things. Yet, in your schema, God didn’t ordain them, so they serve Him no purpose whatsoever. Yet, He allows these atrocities to occur, having no purpose to serve.

You guys are closet deists. Deism teaches a god made all we see, set it in motion, and now sets back and watches things unfold. That’s what you guys are averring. Sadly, you can’t see this. Good bye. Our convo is over.

Um

scripture says God works all things for good to those who love him

not all for good

And do us a favor, stop trying to tell us what we believe, it makes you look bad, your wrong again. Because we are not what you claim, you need to stop falsely accusing people in order to attempt to defend yourself

the conversation is not over, what it is is how it always is, you tell us what we believe, your wrong, and you walk away

But hey, it’s all god, it just strengthens my own faith, thank you

 

[Dcopymope]

Um

scripture says God works all things for good to those who love him

not all for good

And do us a favor, stop trying to tell us what we believe, it makes you look bad, your wrong again. Because we are not what you claim, you need to stop falsely accusing people in order to attempt to defend yourself

the conversation is not over, what it is is how it always is, you tell us what we believe, your wrong, and you walk away

But hey, it’s all god, it just strengthens my own faith, thank you

They call that making a straw man argument, is what he is doing.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

@Renniks I'm enjoying dialog with you but at the same time you only respond to portions of my posts and duck the balance where you've been refuted. Come on, man up. OK? 1 Corinthians 16:13?

Answer the entire refutation I offer without pulling parts out of context.

I've answered your posts in their entirety. I don't hide from any of it. You know in your heart you've been refuted and truth has been brought to you. I know you know this brother.

I count you as a brother in Christ because you profess him.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Absolutely. He ordained all of it. Look at the crucifixion of the Christ. There was never a man more wronged than He was. He was an innocent man who the Jews had to violate their own Law to have Him crucified by Roman soldiers. And God ordained it.

Yep.

Check this out: Ten Years Later by R.C. Sproul

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Um, no, and why are you trying to tell me what I think? But your system doesn't work that way. There's no " allowing" in Calvinism. It's God causing everyone's evil, and then punishing them for what he caused.

Again you cut my posts out of context. God didn't cause everyone's evil, but he certainly allowed it. That us where there is "allowing" in Calvinism.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

ROTFLOL! " I didn't do it officer! The gun killed him, not me! I only squeezed the trigger!"

Would you like some passages where God used secondary means to judge, kill, maim? And did so justly?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Arminius teaches a works based gospel does he not?

It is not as clear as that. I didn't see that in his first 450 page volume of his works. I think that is one of the lies that was put about concerning his theology. From what I read from his own works, he certainly preaches a grace-based gospel without a doubt!

It is just that he puts his emphasis on man choosing of his free will to respond positively to the invitation to believe the gospel of Christ, and that God does not deliberately predestine people to hell regardless if they choose to believe the gospel or not. He see that the realisation of election is based on a person's ability to understand and believe the gospel. He knows that the god of this world (the devil) has blinded the minds of those who don't believe the gospel, and that it takes the Holy Spirit to break through the blindness to illuminate a person to see the truth of the gospel. He says it is then up to the person to make a free-will choice to believe the gospel and to receive Christ as Saviour. He says that once the person makes the free-will choice, then his election is confirmed.

His theology is quite different from Pelagian theology because Pelagianism puts the whole emphasis on man's choice alone without any influence from the Holy Spirit. Pelagius taught that a person can receive Christ today, and reject Him tomorrow - in other words, be saved today and lost tomorrow through his own choice. This is not what Arminius taught. He taught eternal security for the believer, so to maintain assurance of salvation he must continue with faith in Christ alone and continue to demonstrate his faith through what he does (ie: the works that Christ has ordained for him to do, and works in him to achieve them. This is not works-based salvation, but God-ordained good works that demonstrate his faith in Christ).

Pelagius taught that it is through man's choice alone for salvation, and if the person chooses to sin (not to remain sinlessly perfect) he can be lost through his own choice, and God will just stand by and allow him to be lost. Arminius opposed this type of theology.

By the same token, Calvin never taught that once a person is saved, because they are already elected by a decree of God, they can just continue in the works of the flesh and expect to remain saved. He taught that it was the Holy Spirit who enlightened the unsaved person to the truth of the gospel, and through the person's positive response to it, He gave the person saving faith to receive Christ as Saviour and be assured of his salvation. He also taught that one had to earnestly seek God for the Holy Spirit to work true conversion to Christ in the person, bringing about the total transformation of heart so the person will hate sin and earnestly desire holiness. He taught that sanctification was a development process and does not involve sinless perfection, and as long as the believer remains in Christ, there is no condemnation and his eternal security is ensured.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Giuliano,

I assume you have read the Bible, but apparently you have trouble remembering what you read.

I read the bible daily. I would like to remember even more than I do.
What you do not seem to grasp is your ideas are not found in this text.
What you are suggesting is an absurdity.

You are not moving out of your body[in the Spirit] like what happened to the Apostle John.
Such fanatical claims bring reproach upon the name of Christ.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Like the fall of mankind and the atrocities of hitler?

take those two examples...are you saying they happened outside of the control of God?
Is that what you are saying? You want to object, but now I am asking you to explain these things.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

The fact is God knew everything that would take place ever, instantly, perfectly, exhaustively without having to think it through. He didn't have an R&D department to work things through trial and error. In other words his knowledge is beyond comprehension. Steven Charnock influenced me on this in his book The Existence & Attributes of God.

Yes, he created all things knowing, decreeing and allowing all things whatsoever come to pass. Job acknowledged that by God we receive both good and evil and in declaring this to be true, he did not sin for stating it; Job 1:22, Job 2:10. Yet we are accused of many things for embracing these truths.

Christ was also punished by Gods wrath, took our sins upon him, was brutally beaten for our sins, all at God's hand, purpose and decree, Acts 2:23-24. Not one anti-Calvinist considers what the innocent Lamb went through, yet as sinners they are whining about what wicked sinful people suffer in this world, and that it is justly so. "Not fair!" is their cry as they try to get God off the hook.

Unreal...

Excellent and informative post. Men like Steven Charnock would be ridiculed also on some of these message boards by persons who know very little scripture.
Do you notice a lack of scripture by many of these objectors?
You offered several fine verses. If these objectors were sincere, they would look up each verse and consider the teaching.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

I have read right through Calvin's Institutes, and I can't see any reference where he taught that God ordained the fall of man. I think there is a difference between what Calvin himself taught and what his subsequent followers taught.

Really? Then perhaps you haven't read Calvin at all, or dozed off. There is no difference between what we teach, what he taught in which are biblical truths:

“I freely acknowledge my doctrine to be this: that Adam fell, not only by the permission of God, but by His very secret, the counsil and decree …”[2]

“The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should.”[1]

“God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.”[3]

“I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree.”[4]

~John Calvin


You then said this:

it is best to take the time and effort to get the theology from the horse's mouth rather than from hot air from another horse's ass.

The above I've supplied is from the horses mouth, looks like you got your assumptions from the back end.

Now I want to take a look at what you say Arminius taught that is so biblical and better than what Calvin taught, yet you've provided not one quote or example of his to substantiate your claims. I'm beginning to think you're offering things from the wrong end of the horse!

 

[Paul Christensen]

It’s not fatalism. You guys say that He didn’t ordain these things. Yet, in your schema, God didn’t ordain them, so they serve Him no purpose whatsoever. Yet, He allows these atrocities to occur, having no purpose to serve.

You guys are closet deists. Deism teaches a god made all we see, set it in motion, and now sets back and watches things unfold. That’s what you guys are averring. Sadly, you can’t see this. Good bye. Our convo is over.

Oh come on! You are like my younger brother who upsets the chess board when he knows he's losing!

You are showing a lack of understanding concerning God's nature and character. God loves righteousness and hates evil, so how can He ordain evil and sin and the resultant suffering in the world because of it?

What! Are you expecting God to create a race of programmable robots which He can control; or did He create people with free choice?

When God told Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of any of the trees in the garden, except the one tree that if they ate of the fruit they would die, did God force them to eat the fruit? Did He force it down their throats, or did they choose of their own free will to eat of the fruit and to disobey God?

So, are you saying that God deliberately made that happen, or did He, because He gave them free will to choose, and then tested them on it, which they failed, had to allow the consequences to happen?

Now that sin entered the world along with the curse of suffering, disease, and death, are you going to demand that God takes free will away from mankind so they become programmable robots?

So, is God responsible for the death, suffering, disease, and man's inhumanity in the world, or is man himself by his own free choices? What is the alternative?

Do you really believe that God is just standing by and doing exactly nothing? Have you actually read the Bible? After all, it is God's communication with mankind to show what He is doing about the state of humanity and His plan of salvation which He has been working on through the ages.

If you really do read the Bible, you will see that God has been very active in the affairs of mankind right through from Adam to the present day, while maintain man's ability to choose their own future through free will choice.

So, if you want to continue with your own views, that God is responsible for all the suffering in the world, then carry on, and don't let the Bible confuse you with the facts!

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Excellent and informative post. Men like Steven Charnock would be ridiculed also on some of these message boards by persons who know very little scripture.
Do you notice a lack of scripture by many of these objectors?
You offered several fine verses. If these objectors were sincere, they would look up each verse and consider the teaching.

Thank you.

Yes you are correct. They offer hardly any Scripture ever. Mostly of it is humanistic ideology.

I just responded to one who claims we teach what Calvin did not. He offered not one bit of evidence and if I recall correctly, no biblical texts in his argument. Since he offered no Bible I at least countered his response with refutations from Calvin himself that he in fact did teach what we say concerning the fall. Frankly, if one says they have read Calvin and never knew this I have to call it like it is: They have not read him because that is one of his major arguments!

 

[Paul Christensen]

Really? Then perhaps you haven't read Calvin at all, or dozed off. There is no difference between what we teach, what he taught in which are biblical truths:

“I freely acknowledge my doctrine to be this: that Adam fell, not only by the permission of God, but by His very secret, the counsil and decree …”[2]

“The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should.”[1]

“God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.”[3]

“I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree.”[4]

~John Calvin


You then said this:



The above I've supplied is from the horses mouth, looks like you got your assumptions from the back end.

Now I want to take a look at what you say Arminius taught that is so biblical and better than what Calvin taught, yet you've provided not one quote or example of his to substantiate your claims. I'm beginning to think you're offering things from the wrong end of the horse!

I am not saying that Calvin or Arminius were right in everything they said. After all, if according to the Scripture we know only in part (partial knowledge), none of us can say that any of us are perfectly correct in our theological views. We are influenced by our mentors and the way we read the Bible. I recognise that there are extremist Calvinistic and Arminian views and quite a few of the debates on the forums go from one extreme to the other. I guess that's what make posting on these forums fun and interesting. The bottom line is that neither Calvin nor Arminius were the Holy Spirit, and we can only settle on what we believe the Holy Spirit has said to us - but we need to be careful about how we decide to teach others. It is one thing to hold a personal opinion and it is quite another to teach that personal opinion as the objective truth. The Scripture warns about that - not to be many teachers, because we all have to give an account for what we teach others. I think Paul was aware of that when he told the Corinthians, "I determined not to know anything but Christ and Him crucified".

But debating on these forums is not teaching others. It is sharing and debating our personal opinions. All I give is my opinion about a theological issue. I would never say, "This is the absolute truth", unless I am directly quoting Scripture. I usually say, "in my opinion" or "I think that...etc.", because as soon as I post something as the absolute objective truth, then I am appearing that I have a special ear to God's absolute truth more than anyone else. In my view, that would be arrogance on my part, because I have just a very small slice of all that is knowable about the things and ways of God.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Oh come on! You are like my younger brother who upsets the chess board when he knows he's losing!

You are showing a lack of understanding concerning God's nature and character. God loves righteousness and hates evil, so how can He ordain evil and sin and the resultant suffering in the world because of it?

What! Are you expecting God to create a race of programmable robots which He can control; or did He create people with free choice?

When God told Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of any of the trees in the garden, except the one tree that if they ate of the fruit they would die, did God force them to eat the fruit? Did He force it down their throats, or did they choose of their own free will to eat of the fruit and to disobey God?

So, are you saying that God deliberately made that happen, or did He, because He gave them free will to choose, and then tested them on it, which they failed, had to allow the consequences to happen?

Now that sin entered the world along with the curse of suffering, disease, and death, are you going to demand that God takes free will away from mankind so they become programmable robots?

So, is God responsible for the death, suffering, disease, and man's inhumanity in the world, or is man himself by his own free choices? What is the alternative?

Do you really believe that God is just standing by and doing exactly nothing? Have you actually read the Bible? After all, it is God's communication with mankind to show what He is doing about the state of humanity and His plan of salvation which He has been working on through the ages.

If you really do read the Bible, you will see that God has been very active in the affairs of mankind right through from Adam to the present day, while maintain man's ability to choose their own future through free will choice.

So, if you want to continue with your own views, that God is responsible for all the suffering in the world, then carry on, and don't let the Bible confuse you with the facts!

The above is an unfortunate misunderstanding of biblical truths, the nature of the fall, God's decrees &c. Man doesn't choose his own future, that is more akin to The Secret, Eastern Mysticism and New Age teachings.

Perhaps you need to understand the difference between fatalism and God Sovereignly decreeing and by his providence accomplishing his purpose and counsel. Fatalism is an impersonal force. God's purpose and counsel is not impersonal.