OT: The Reformed View of the Ordo Salutis
Note: I'm not posting this here to debate the merits of the Reformed view. If anyone is interested in that please start a different thread. I'm only interested in clarifying the facts of what the Reformed view is in response to another poster.
Blair Laird said:You are very correct we are a bit off subject. My post may be
beneficial to a reader so I will respond.Concerning "saved in order to believe" is
imprecise"Unless a person from the reformed perspective wishes to a say a
person is not saved by regeneration, then they must conclude you are saved in
order to believe. Since according to them regeneration precedes faith.
The problem is “salvation” itself can be an ambiguous term.
Notice that the term “Ordo Salutis” implies that the term “salvation” refers to
all the individual aspects (in the Reformed view: effectual call, regeneration,
repentance/faith, justification, def. sanctification, adoption, prg. sanct.,
and glorification). Thus, as John Murray says, “when we think of the
application of redemption we must not think of it as one simple and indivisible
act. It comprises a series of acts and processes” (Redemption Accomplished and
Applied 79-80).
So “saved in order to believe” is an imprecise (incorrect) statement
because it confuses a part (regeneration, which I assume is what you mean to
stand in for “saved”) with the whole (salvation or redemption). It might make
sense to say that God regenerated a person in order that they may believe, but
regeneration is *not* coterminous with salvation. Furthermore, the statement is
incorrect because it confuses the means with the goal. The goal is not
believing, it is salvation and belief (or faith) is an instrument towards that
end.
Blair Laird said:Regeneration is progressive.. Sanctification is the technical
term for it
It seems to me that you think each of the parts of the ordo
salutis is synonymous with the other parts. How is that possible? I don’t see
how it is, at least not in the reformed view. Is effectual calling the same as
adoption? No, to say otherwise is just a category mistake. Again, I think I’m
in agreement with the common Reformed view. So John Murray, “These are all
distinct, and not one of these can be defined in terms of the other. Each has
its own distinct meaning, function, and purpose in the action and grace of God”
(ibid 80). Regeneration, in the Reformed view, is *not* progressive. So John
Murray: “Regeneration is the *inception* of being made holy and sanctification
is the continuance.” (asterisks added; ibid). Sanctification itself can be
broken down into definitive and progressive aspects (cf. Reymond’s NSTCF ch. 19). The Westminster Confession of Faith, probably the most popular Reformed confession, (in XIII.1) and the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (X.1-2; XIII.1) also distinguish or separate sanctification and regeneration.
Blair Laird said:Calvin in his commentaries spoke about regeneration being
subsequent to faith and also he spoke about progressive regeneration in ICR.
What is really interesting is Augustine held to a progressive justification.
Calvin does speak of being “regenerated by faith” (Comm. on
Gen. 17:4, Isa. 44:5 and elsewhere), but, while I’m no Calvin scholar, it seems
that he often used “regeneration” in a less technical sense (or loosely) than
what more contemporary Reformed theologians do when speaking of the order of
salvation. For instance, he sometimes uses it to refer to what persons like
Murray would call glorification (the final state with the resurrection) and he
sometimes used it to refer to sanctification (III.III.21; III.XI.1). However,
he also uses it to refer to “the commencement of the spiritual life” (ICR
II.III.6) and “our first power to act aright” (III.XIV.5). I think he would
agree that this latter sense precedes or is the source of faith; for he says, “the
[effectual call] brings with it the spirit of regeneration” (III.XXIV.8) and
clearly the call of God precedes faith. Furthermore, in his commentary he
address the issue of which precedes which directly and says “I reply, that both
statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed,
(1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet
faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children
of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and
an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children.
The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and
thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source” (comment on 1:13).
Finally, I would note here that Calvin is not the only
representative of Reformed theology. As Muller notes, it is a mistake to
approach current Reformed theology “as if Calvin were the only source of
post-Reformation Reformed theology and as if the theology of the
mid-seventeenth century ought for some reason to be measured against and judged
by the theology of the mid-sixteenth century. Because the orthodox systems do
not mirror Calvin’s 1559 Institutes, they are labeled “distortions” of the
Reformation. The genuine historical and theological issue, of course, is one of
development and change within a broad tradition, of continuity and
discontinuity with the thought, not only of Calvin, but also of Zwingli, Bucer,
Bullinger, Musculus, and Vermigli” (PRRD v. I 45–46).
Blair Laird said:On that note I think the scriptures are clear.. We believe and
are saved the logical order is faith then regeneration unless one holds that
you are not saved by the regeneration (Titus 3:5 says
otherwise)
I fail to see how Titus 3:5 says anything relevant to
faith preceding regeneration. You’ll have to spell that out.
Blair Laird said:One more question, I noticed you say sola fide. Looking at the
reformed perspective, how can a calvinist hold to sole fide if they have the
logical order of salvation(regeneration then faith )? That always puzzled me, unless they
say that regeneration and being justified can be separated.
They say they are logically distinguished, but not necessarily
chronologically or temporal separable and certainly not coterminous.
Regeneration pertains to newness of life. Justification is simply God’s legal
imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner. Sola fide is the instrument
of that justification. To see where Calvin logically distinguishes them in the same way see my comment below.
Blair Laird said:The problem with that understanding is all the Church fathers
including Calvin seen being justified and being regenerated as two sides of the
same coin.
First of all, I’m not even sure what you mean by “two sides
of the same coin”. I can think of senses in which Calvin (and Murray and myself)
would agree that they are “two sides of the same coin” (if, for example, the “coin”
is salvation in all of its parts). But I can also think of senses where Calvin
(and Murray and myself) would disagree that they are “two sides of the same
coin” (if, for example, you mean they are interchangeable or coterminous). For
example, Calvin would clearly disagree with this later sense, for he says “Now
after God has stretched forth his hand to his elect, it is still necessary that
they should confess their own want and nakedness, as to justification; for
though they have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, yet in many things they
are deficient...” (Commentary on Habakkuk, 2:4; cf. Comm. on John, 3:36).
Secondly, I doubt "all the Church fathers" held to one view here.
Blair Laird said:One is the inward act of being saved and the other is the
outward act of being declared righteous.
Again, you’re using the term “salvation” too
ambiguously. In general, there is nothing wrong with using “salvation” loosely,
but we need to be more precise when discussing more technical issues like the
ordo salutis. Regeneration and salvation are not coterminous.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
Comments
-
John Bowling said:
So “saved in order to believe” is an imprecise (incorrect) statement
because it confuses a part (regeneration, which I assume is what you mean to
stand in for “saved”) with the whole (salvation or redemption)."he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,"
The word is clear we are saved when we are regenerated, from that point on until glorification we are sanctified. The argument of confusing the part with the whole is concerning. As I clearly posted I am speaking of Justification and the reformed perspective on that subject. So just like greek and hebrew the context defines my words. So when I say salvation, and I am speaking of Justification that is what I am speaking of. Back on track... If one believes this regeneration precedes faith then one according to -(titus 3:5)- believes, as I stated we are "saved" or as titus says "he saves us" so that we can believe. Scripture says otherwise
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.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
Ac 16:30-32By simply letting these two speak for themselves we see that we believe to be saved and we are saved by regeneration
Thus the order
1. Grace
2. Faith
3. Regeneration, Justification and Adoption
The rest 99% of evangelicals are in agreement with (sanctification, glorification)
John Bowling said:It seems to me that you think each of the parts of the ordo
salutis is synonymous with the other parts.This assumption is incorrect
John Bowling said:while I’m no Calvin scholar, it seems
that he often used “regeneration” in a less technical sense (or loosely) than
what more contemporary Reformed theologians do when speaking of the order of
salvation.You are correct he did use the word more loosely then contemporary theologians. But there are clear scriptures about regeneration as we are using it that we can look at. For example his commentary on John 3
"To SEE the kingdom of God is of the same meaning as to enter into the kingdom of God, as we shall immediately perceive from the context. But they are
mistaken who suppose that the kingdom of God means Heaven;
for it rather means the spiritual life, which is begun by faith in this
world, and gradually increases every day according to the continued
progress of faith. So the meaning is, that no man can be truly united
to the Church, so as to be reckoned among the children of God, until he
has been previously renewed. This expression shows briefly what is the
beginning of Christianity, and at the same time teaches us, that we are
born exiles and utterly alienated from the kingdom of God, and that there is a perpetual state of variance between God and us, until he makes us altogether different by our being born again;" -John CalvinJohn Bowling said:They say they are logically distinguished, but not necessarily
chronologically or temporal separable and certainly not coterminousSo how can a person say God regenerates then we believe then we are justified ? If they are not separable how can a person from the reformed faith do so? It really comes down to how can we be saved ? Do we wait around for God to regenerate us so we can believe ? Hope that God gives us the gift of faith ? Or do we simply believe and be saved (like Paul said) ? I understand those from the reformed circle does not evangelize regeneration (tell people they have to wait for God to regenerate them). That is the theology in practice.
John Bowling said:I can think of senses in which Calvin (and Murray and myself)
would agree that they are “two sides of the same coin” (if, for example, the “coin”
is salvation in all of its parts).If the coin is salvation and salvation is by faith then logically regeneration being a part of salvation is by faith also. Which is my point...
John Bowling said:I can think of senses in which Calvin (and Murray and myself)
would agree that they are “two sides of the same coin” (if, for example, the “coin”
is salvation in all of its parts).To prove the first point—viz. that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997). III, xi, 6.( By sanctification calvin is speaking of regeneration)John Bowling said:Again, you’re using the term “salvation” too
ambiguously.The context tells you what I mean by regeneration. Just like in bible study context defines the word, so to in the context of what I am saying salvation is defined.God Bless0 -
Read The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death by John Behr for another (unreformed) perspective in which to put your debate. I would so like to see him in Logos format.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death by John Behr
I am not familiar with him, I will have to look him up.
0 -
John Bowling said:
Note: I'm not posting this here to debate the merits of the Reformed view.
Theological discussion/debate is discouraged on these forums. Pointing each other to Logos resources to help someone answer a question, or come to an understanding is fine.
If you want this kind of debate, could you please take it to another forum, to an email exchange, or some other communication method.
NOTE: I'm not a moderator, just a user helping other users. I'm not telling you what to do, I'm making a couple of suggestions.
BTW, a standard presentation of a Reformed understanding of the Ordo Salutis is found in L. Berkhof's Systematic Theology. AFAIK, this is only available in the L. Berkhof Collection, but that's still on pre-pub.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
This is truely weird.
I had NEVER heard anyone debate this particular topic before and JUST YESTERDAY I got into a discussion with a man who held to the view stated in the first paragraph...
what a coincidence.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Blair Laird said:John Bowling said:
So “saved in order to believe” is an imprecise (incorrect) statement
because it confuses a part (regeneration, which I assume is what you mean to
stand in for “saved”) with the whole (salvation or redemption)."he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,"
The word is clear we are saved when we are regenerated, from that point on until glorification we are sanctified. The argument of confusing the part with the whole is concerning. As I clearly posted I am speaking of Justification and the reformed perspective on that subject. So just like greek and hebrew the context defines my words. So when I say salvation, and I am speaking of Justification that is what I am speaking of. Back on track... If one believes this regeneration precedes faith then one according to -(titus 3:5)- believes, as I stated we are "saved" or as titus says "he saves us" so that we can believe. Scripture says otherwise
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.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
Ac 16:30-32By simply letting these two speak for themselves we see that we believe to be saved and we are saved by regeneration
Thus the order
1. Grace
2. Faith
3. Regeneration, Justification and Adoption
The rest 99% of evangelicals are in agreement with (sanctification, glorification)
Amen. I wish more people took a closer look at titus 3:5, It shows perfectly the salvation proces spoken of by Christ in john 3.
In john 3, Nicodemous was confused when Christ said he must be "born again" (regenerated), Jesus said, one must be born of water and spirit.. Later showing how Jesus was the son sent from God so that all who believe will recieve eternal life.
Titus 3 is perfect to show what Christ meant.
"he saved us, (God has saved us from the eternal penalty of sin) not because of works done by us in righteousness, Not because of righteous acts we have done, which would include sacraments),, but
according to his own mercy, Mercy comes from love, God shows mercy because of Grave because he loved us, And because Christ redeemed us in his blood by taking the penalty for all sin in our place. by the washing of regeneration Here is the water spoken of in john 3. The holy spirit completely cleanses the filth of sin in our souls, and because of this, we can be regenerated.. Our souls, which were dead, were given life. and renewal
of the Holy Spirit," Here is the new birth. the spirit part of John 3, Since we are washed by the water of the spirit.. we are now born of the spirit, because we are justified (declared innocent) of all sin.. and are restored to right standing with God.As far as the calvan issue. I can only think that since calvins version of total depravity deems the only way we can come to God is for god to chose us, thus allow us to have faith in his son.. you could interpret regeneration preceding faith.. for unles christ regenerated you, you would never believe.. does this make sense??
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
does this make sense??
Bryan,
it makes sense to me.
thanks for the x ref to titus...that'll give me more things to study today....I'm off for a week!!
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
As far as the calvan issue. I can only think that since calvins version of total depravity deems the only way we can come to God is for god to chose us, thus allow us to have faith in his son.. you could interpret regeneration preceding faith.. for unles christ regenerated you, you would never believe.. does this make sense??
Calvin taught that man still had a spark left in him after the fall. That spark is what makes man want to search for truth. He did teach that man must be enlightened by God, but he made it clear in his commentary on John 1:12-13 that this enlightenment is not regeneration although some may call it as such. Calvin was not concerned with regeneration preceding faith. He believed faith was a gift only given to the elect, that is how he worked total depravity. Today modern Calvinist dont really focus on faith as a gift. (not much scriptural proof) They place the regeneration before faith to make the doctrines of grace work.
Check--- Institutes of Christian Religion he lays out what he believes concerning the doctrine of total depravity.
0 -
Robert Pavich said:Bryan Brodess said:
does this make sense??
Bryan,
it makes sense to me.
thanks for the x ref to titus...that'll give me more things to study today....I'm off for a week!!
Hope you enjoy your week. Let me know how your study goes [:D]
0 -
Blair Laird said:Bryan Brodess said:
As far as the calvan issue. I can only think that since calvins version of total depravity deems the only way we can come to God is for god to chose us, thus allow us to have faith in his son.. you could interpret regeneration preceding faith.. for unles christ regenerated you, you would never believe.. does this make sense??
Calvin taught that man still had a spark left in him after the fall. That spark is what makes man want to search for truth. He did teach that man must be enlightened by God, but he made it clear in his commentary on John 1:12-13 that this enlightenment is not regeneration although some may call it as such. Calvin was not concerned with regeneration preceding faith. He believed faith was a gift only given to the elect, that is how he worked total depravity. Today modern Calvinist dont really focus on faith as a gift. (not much scriptural proof) They place the regeneration before faith to make the doctrines of grace work.
Check--- Institutes of Christian Religion he lays out what he believes concerning the doctrine of total depravity.
Interesting. Although I have never heard of regeneration before faith. Makes no sense whatsoever..
as for faith being a gift. I look at the biblical definition. It is the substance of thing hoped for, the evidence of things which we can not see. (Hebrews) it comes from hearing,, which comes by the word of God. and as Paul tells us in Titus, our hope is Eternal life, Which God, Who can not lie, Promised before time began..
The way I look at it is I can not see God, but I believe in him. He tells me that because of my sin, I am justly condemned to an eternity apart from him. He tells me that Christ was his son, who he sent to earth to die for me, And that even though I can see any of this, including his ressurection, that because Christ was raised, If I just trust him, and accept his sons death, He promises to give me eternal life and restor me to live with him forever, even though again I can see none of this.. this is true faith.. A trust in somethign I can not see, but has a Hope I am looking for.
This is what our faith has been since adam.. and why and how abraham was found justified before the law. His faith was in the promised redeemer, The gift is Christ. sent to earth to die for our sins, and be ressurected for us.. This is why Jesus said in jon 6 our faith is not a work, it is the work of God. Gods gift to us is his son,, and this is the gift of faith..make sense??
0 -
John Bowling said:
Note: I'm not posting this here to debate the merits of the Reformed view. If anyone is interested in that please start a different thread. I'm only interested in clarifying the facts of what the Reformed view is in response to another poster.
John,
I will not directly answer your question because this type of discussion is not what this Forum is designed for. It is sufficient for me to say the Blair has distorted the Reformed view. May I recommend a good recent read that explains the Reformed view of regeneration is Piper's "Finally Alive" http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/FINALIVE.
0 -
P. Keith Larson said:
May I recommend a good recent read that explains the Reformed view of regeneration is Piper's "Finally Alive" http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/FINALIVE.
Which I got for free through the Logos blog... [:D]
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Robert Pavich said:P. Keith Larson said:
May I recommend a good recent read that explains the Reformed view of regeneration is Piper's "Finally Alive" http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/FINALIVE.
Which I got for free through the Logos blog...
Must be nice!!..lol.. From the preview it seems like he is coming at it from the Peter/Jude point of view and speaking against licentiousness.. sounds like a nice read.. Will have to put it on my want list..lol
0 -
Brian, [Edit: I mean Blair... I must be fusing Bryan and Blair into one person...]
I said that I was only interested in the factual question of what the Reformed view is, not the merits of it. That's why I quoted what John Murray and Robert Reymond say and what the Westminster Confession and 1689 Baptist Confession teach. Of course, we could add a lot more Reformed persons to that.
I've already addressed your claims on Calvin, your only response is to quote more Calvin... But that's not going to change what he said about the issue in his commentary on John 1:13. We agree that Calvin uses his language loosely. We agree that at times he uses regeneration as something flowing from faith. But, as I pointed out, he also speaks of faith as flowing from regeneration. As Berkhof says, "Calvin was the first to group the various parts of the order of salvation in a systematic way, but even his representation, says Kuyper, is rather subjective, since it formally stresses the human activity rather than the divine. Later Reformed theologians corrected this defect" (ST 417). That's not a problem for Calvinists or Reformed persons because, again as I pointed out via Muller, it is a mistake to think that the Reformed or "Calvinist" perspective is somehow limited to Calvin.
Having said that, I think I've established my point and I'm satisfied to leave it here. Maybe we can debate the merits of the reformed view at a later time via email.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Robert Pavich said:P. Keith Larson said:
May I recommend a good recent read that explains the Reformed view of regeneration is Piper's "Finally Alive" http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/FINALIVE.
Which I got for free through the Logos blog
First, how did you survive all this time without getting into this debate? I've been on church boards where the topic either put in or out of that particular congregation. Beside Piper or Berkhof try also Grudem's "Systematic Theology" or Erickson's "Christian Theology". Like any other topic, the more you can come to it without any presuppositions, the more you will be blessed to understand the topic from a Biblical perspective. The Theological Journals are another good source on the topic. 25 years ago I would not have agreed with Piper, today I'm in full agreement with him, but I also see this topic as one of the non-essentials for those who are in Christ, in whom I see a living faith present.
Nuff said before Rich says something [;)], or the thread goes ugly.
Ralph
0 -
Blair Laird said:Bryan Brodess said:
As far as the calvan issue. I can only think that since calvins version of total depravity deems the only way we can come to God is for god to chose us, thus allow us to have faith in his son.. you could interpret regeneration preceding faith.. for unles christ regenerated you, you would never believe.. does this make sense??
Calvin taught that man still had a spark left in him after the fall. That spark is what makes man want to search for truth. He did teach that man must be enlightened by God, but he made it clear in his commentary on John 1:12-13 that this enlightenment is not regeneration although some may call it as such. Calvin was not concerned with regeneration preceding faith. He believed faith was a gift only given to the elect, that is how he worked total depravity.
To clarify what Calvin's position was allow me to quote him:
"He [John] intimates that the human soul is indeed irradiated with a beam of divine light, so that it is never left utterly devoid of some small flame, or rather spark, though not such as to enable it to comprehend God. And why so? Because its acuteness is, in reference to the knowledge of God, mere blindness. When the Spirit describes men under the term darkness, he declares them void of all power of spiritual intelligence. For this reason, it is said that believers, in embracing Christ, are “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” (John 1:13); in other words, that the flesh has no capacity for such sublime wisdom as to apprehend God, and the things of God, unless illumined by His Spirit" (ICR II.II.19). [Note: this "illumination" which, Calvin admits, must come first if man is to apprehend God, is what contemporary Reformed persons refer to as regeneration]
Blair Laird said:Today modern Calvinist dont really focus on faith as a gift. (not much scriptural proof) They place the regeneration before faith to make the doctrines of grace work.
Could you please quote all these modern Calvinists who "don't really focus on faith as a gift"?? How would you even go about proving such a statement? Again my concern isn't that you disagree, it's your presumption to present Reformed theology.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
John Bowling said:Blair Laird said:
Today modern Calvinist dont really focus on faith as a gift. (not much scriptural proof) They place the regeneration before faith to make the doctrines of grace work.
Could you please quote all these modern Calvinists who "don't really focus on faith as a gift"?? How would you even go about proving such a statement? Again my concern isn't that you disagree, it's your presumption to present Reformed theology.
I too am confused here, What do you mean they place regeneration in front to make doctrines of grace work..?
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
I too am confused here, What do you mean they place regeneration in front to make doctrines of grace work..?
He means that unless regeneration precedes faith then none of the other doctrines of grace (unconditional election etc.) "work" or will make sense. Like I said, I didn't start this thread to debate that question and I asked that persons wanting to do so start a different thread.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
John Bowling said:Bryan Brodess said:
I too am confused here, What do you mean they place regeneration in front to make doctrines of grace work..?
He means that unless regeneration precedes faith then none of the other doctrines of grace (unconditional election etc.) "work" or will make sense. Like I said, I didn't start this thread to debate that question and I asked that persons wanting to do so start a different thread.
I see,, where are you getting this from? because saying unconditional election does not work unless regeneration precedes faith makes no sense whatsoever.. I am just trying to understand what they mean.. not trying to argue.. if you want to take this to another thread feel free..
also.. are you speaking of what many call "modern Calvinism" where people like Millard Erickson, Hodge, Ryrie, walvoord etc come from vs extreme calvanism? just wondering..
0 -
RalphMauch said:
Nuff said before Rich says something
, or the thread goes uglySomething. [;)]
Please. This isn't going anywhere. Drop it, or take it private.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Bryan, give me your email and I'll try to clarify in private. (It would be nice if Logos had a private message/mail system eventually).
Richard,
There are several threads like this, why do you have to spoil mine? Maybe it is helping people understand the historical position better.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
1 John 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him. 1 John 3:9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 1 John 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith. 1 John 5:18 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. I have listed above how John uses the term "born" in 1 John. I am curious to see how Bryan will exegete 1 John 5:1. 1 john 2:29 seems to suggest everyone who practices righteousness does so because they are born of God. Will this method of interpretation hold true in 1 John 5:1. Thanks
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
John Bowling said:
Richard,
There are several threads like this, why do you have to spoil mine? Maybe it is helping people understand the historical position better
As much time as I spend on these forums, I don't catch all the discussions. I try to ignore most of them. I was attracted to this one because of the subject matter (I'm a Christian Reformed Pastor and solidly in the Calvinist camp).
Having said that, I find that such discussions rarely produce any fruit. Further, this is not the place for them. So I express my opinion on the use of these forums when I am in the mood to do so. A bit capricious, perhaps, but I'm not the police, just another guy on the same road here, wishing folks would stay in the lanes (so to speak).
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
John Bowling said:
Bryan, give me your email and I'll try to clarify in private. (It would be nice if Logos had a private message/mail system eventually).
Richard,
There are several threads like this, why do you have to spoil mine? Maybe it is helping people understand the historical position better.
grr.. Thats why I asked about Erickson. I just purchased his theology book from logos.. thought if this was it, then I could look at his book and see what your saying.. I am not sure I want to give me email out in a public forum.. Yes I agree, private messaging would be nice..
0 -
Ted Hans said:
1 John 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him. 1 John 3:9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 1 John 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith. 1 John 5:18 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. I have listed above how John uses the term "born" in 1 John. I am curious to see how Bryan will exegete 1 John 5:1. 1 john 2:29 seems to suggest everyone who practices righteousness does so because they are born of God. Will this method of interpretation hold true in 1 John 5:1. Thanks
Ted
Not sure exactly what you mean. What is righteousness. Does a person who is not "born of god do a righteous deed?? I am looking at God's perspective and not mans..hint rom 3..
is this what your getting at.? if not explain and I will try to respond..
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
grr.. Thats why I asked about Erickson. I just purchased his theology book from logos.. thought if this was it, then I could look at his book and see what your saying.. I am not sure I want to give me email out in a public forum.. Yes I agree, private messaging would be nice..
Terms like "moderate" and "extreme" are relative, especially in a subject like this which tends to get people emotionally charged. It's been a long time since I read Erickson's systematic theology (we used it in college), so I don't recall exactly what his position is although I recall him leaning toward a reformed soteriology. If you want to get the full spectrum I would suggest you pre-order John Miley's Arminian systematic theology and read through that and Robert Reymond's ST (which you can currently get) and read through that (of course there are a lot of other places you could go for a full Reformed perspective like Hodge and Berkhof (not out yet), but Reymond interacts with some more contemporary thought like Pinnock and Open Theism).
[Edit: Also, you might just try reading through the relevant portions of the WCF and the 1689 London Baptist Confession (unfortunately not in Logos format). And make sure to check your library first to see if you already have these resources (you probably have WCF and Hodge).]
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
Not sure exactly what you mean. What is righteousness. Does a person who is not "born of god do a righteous deed?? I am looking at God's perspective and not mans..hint rom 3..
is this what your getting at.? if not explain and I will try to respond..
Sorry Bryan for not making myself clear. It seems to me 1 john 5:1 is saying to believe Jesus is the Christ one has to be born again. My point is, is this a wrong way of looking at this text? What are your thoughts. Thanks
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
Something.
Please. This isn't going anywhere. Drop it, or take it private.
Totally agree, the only reason I said something is because I know how fruitless these discussions can get. There are plenty of places to argue about topics like this, do a google, but at your own risk to join in a discussion board or list. It gets ugly on both sides of these type of debates, and I like to come here because of all the discussion on how to use our new software. Just this morning I went to check what the home page was all about, because I had turned it off, and then by accident I hit the "Ctrl & Tab" keys to find it returned me back to my original layout. How is that? rrm
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:RalphMauch said:
Nuff said before Rich says something
, or the thread goes uglySomething.
Please. This isn't going anywhere. Drop it, or take it private.
+1
Grace & Peace,
Bill
MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
iPad 9th Gen iOS 15.6, 256GB0 -
John Bowling said:Bryan Brodess said:
grr.. Thats why I asked about Erickson. I just purchased his theology book from logos.. thought if this was it, then I could look at his book and see what your saying.. I am not sure I want to give me email out in a public forum.. Yes I agree, private messaging would be nice..
Terms like "moderate" and "extreme" are relative, especially in a subject like this which tends to get people emotionally charged. It's been a long time since I read Erickson's systematic theology (we used it in college), so I don't recall exactly what his position is although I recall him leaning toward a reformed soteriology. If you want to get the full spectrum I would suggest you pre-order John Miley's Arminian systematic theology and read through that and Robert Reymond's ST (which you can currently get) and read through that (of course there are a lot of other places you could go for a full Reformed perspective like Hodge and Berkhof (not out yet), but Reymond interacts with some more contemporary thought like Pinnock and Open Theism).
[Edit: Also, you might just try reading through the relevant portions of the WCF and the 1689 London Baptist Confession (unfortunately not in Logos format). And make sure to check your library first to see if you already have these resources (you probably have WCF and Hodge).]
thanks for the references, Erickson considers himself a "moderate" Calvinist ( see Wikipedia) for what moderate Calvinism vs extreme Calvinism means ( I consider myself to be moderate calvanist .as per that definition.
I have hodge, Not sure of WCF. I do not have access to logos on my work computer, Which I hope to change soon,, am hoping to try on a external hardrive and see if that works.. thats if I do not need admin rights to install..
0 -
Ted Hans said:Bryan Brodess said:
Not sure exactly what you mean. What is righteousness. Does a person who is not "born of god do a righteous deed?? I am looking at God's perspective and not mans..hint rom 3..
is this what your getting at.? if not explain and I will try to respond..
Sorry Bryan for not making myself clear. It seems to me 1 john 5:1 is saying to believe Jesus is the Christ one has to be born again. My point is, is this a wrong way of looking at this text? What are your thoughts. Thanks
Ted
1 Whoever believes that
Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who
begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.seems to me it is saying whoever believes ( although I think the word faith, not just mere belief should be insinuated here) is born again, which would mean faith must come first.. do we agree??
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
not sure I want to give me email out in a public forum..
Very sensible. That's why I have a yahoo account for use in public places like this. It isn't my private account for family & friends. It isn't even the one I use for business. It's just for places where damage is limited if it's scanned. And Yahoo has a pretty good spam filter, so most of it never makes it into the inbox. You don't have to give your private email. Since these accounts are free, set one up & then take it off line without fear.
[:D]
Grace & Peace,
Bill
MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
iPad 9th Gen iOS 15.6, 256GB0 -
Virtually any sort of theological discussion suffers from the charge of "fruitless" by certain persons. (In fact a lot of non-theological discussions on this board look "fruitless" too.) Personally, I disagree. It's not that I don't think they *can be* fruitless, but that I don't think we can prejudge any discussion as *going to be* fruitless.
For years I was a hard nosed Arminian. I debated it for a long time and some people told me the pursuit was "fruitless" but some time later, as I mulled over the previous debates I had, fruit was born (although some of a different theological position would disagree). At the very least, all the debates, often late into the night, made a difference, although not immediately.
To be honest, every time (not an exaggeration) I've had this debate in a public manner (whether it be over dinner with friends or on a forum) someone has said that we shouldn't have the conversation because it would be "fruitless". If I had listened to them, I'd never know the other side of the issue. I personally know people who think that the very topic is by nature "fruitless" and, thus, that there is never an appropriate time or place to discuss such issues. Actually, I think a lot of people approach this subject like that, although probably never with a conscious awareness that they are doing it.
My own opinion is that we should not censure any discussion or prejudge it as fruitless unless it devolves into vulgarity or ad hominems.
I'm more than willing to not debate the issue here and I made that clear from my first post, but if charges like "fruitless" are going to be thrown around, well...
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
seems to me it is saying whoever believes ( although I think the word faith, not just mere belief should be insinuated here) is born again, which would mean faith must come first.. do we agree??
Thanks Bryan for your response. I posted how John uses the term "born" above in a previous post and gave an explanation of what i thought he was saying concerning "righteousness" in a text that included "born" 1 John 2:29. A literal translation suggest differently from your explanation. Born comes before belief, the reason why they believe is that they are born of God not the other way round. At least in 1 John.
Thanks for your interaction in this thread and the other, i have benefited a lot even though i do disagree with your view point. You have given me much food for thought & you have tried to be biblical in presenting your understanding of scripture.
Every Blessing.
Ted
Edit
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Ted Hans said:Bryan Brodess said:
seems to me it is saying whoever believes ( although I think the word faith, not just mere belief should be insinuated here) is born again, which would mean faith must come first.. do we agree??
Thanks Bryan for your response. I posted how John uses the term "born" above in a previous post and gave an explanation of what i thought he was saying concerning "righteousness" in a text that included "born" 1 John 2:29. A literal translation suggest differently from your explanation. ( Born comes before belief, the reason why they believe is that they are born of God not the other way round. At least in 1 John)
Thanks for your interaction in this thread and the other, i have benefited a lot even though i do disagree with your view point. You have given me much food for thought & you have tried to be biblical in presenting your understanding of scripture.
Every Blessing.
Ted
Edit
Thank you. I wish I knew why you disagreed so I can undersyand further, but it is fine.. And this is how we should discuss things in a brotherly manner. which you will not get in those other forums.. We should learn why people believe to understand them.. not to force them to believe the way we do..
Thanks again [:D]
0 -
John Bowling said:
Personally, I disagree. It's not that I don't think they *can be* fruitless, but that I don't think we can prejudge any discussion as *going to be* fruitless
If you meant my comment on fruitless, then let me explain... the older version of Logos had the remote notes that you could logon to, as well as the "newsgroups" where many of the discussions turned fruitless, not because folks could not learn form them, but because written emails, or even these posts, often failed to express what the author intended. Let's face it, emails and such is a very flat medium. Needles to say many folks started to express themselves out of frustration rather then helpful dialog. After having been through that for over 10 years now I have some experience with what happens. I have also had over 12 years involvement with two "yahoo Groups" , one of which I am a moderato for, so I also know how difficult it is too express yourself with this type of dialog.
The Word of God discussed is never fruitless, and while I don't see that we can avoid it here sometimes, it definetly can lead to something less than deisred. My own journey sounds very similar then your own, and I think disscussions on boards designed for that can grow one in their understanding of theology. But this specific topic is just an invitation for some less then desired discussion, though none has yet taken place. It's just my opinion, but one that has experience. I would love to have deep theological discusion too, but not sure this is the place. Other then not liking the Forum format, it was these intense discussions that never seemed to get resolved, why I've not posted very much, but am content to just listen and learn.
On vacation too, which is why I have more time then usual to be the forum[:D]
Blessings,
Ralph
0 -
Can I chime in?
I'm not a pastor....I'm probably the least of anyone here....
I'm probably misunderstanding this but I looked over the verse list that Ted gave....and coming from my "Calvinistic" perspective...I didn't see any issues that would contradict anything that Calvinists believe....
Am I missing something?
It seems to me that 1st John 5:1 supports the Calvinist view.
Everyone who ("present tense" currently) believes has been ( "perfect tense" past action, divine passive) born of God.
EDITED TO ADD: 1st John 2:29 seems to be exactly the same situation....present action / past action by God....
Is there something that I'm not seeing? (that's usually the case)
God bless,
bob
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
RalphMauch said:
I would love to have deep theological discusion too, but not sure this is the place
Ralph, I agree with you brother...this is a Logos forum....and IF we could confine the dialogue to "does the present tense mean...does the exegetical guide help doing this or that?
Then it would be relevant....as it is...one BIG problem is that most of the time...people don't listen to what the other is saying; they are "ready with their answer" before the send button is pushed!
If people are going to debate this via email...i'm in...I'd like to follow the conversation, which is above my head sometimes...as I said in my previous post....I'm not that bibically educated as a lot of you are....
bob
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
RalphMauch said:
written emails, or even these posts, often failed to express what the author intended. Let's face it, emails and such is a very flat medium.
Actually, I tend to think that they can be a better medium of exchange, they at least have that potential. Persons can choose their words more carefully and be more precise as well as have more time to think about what was said and what should be said. In addition, one can go back and reread what someone said, this can lead to much greater understanding of where a person is coming from than a verbal conversation. In a verbal conversation, which moves quickly, the other person *usually* only gives half of his attention to what the speaker is saying. The other half is spent in trying to think of how to respond and a lot of what is said gets forgotten.
But of course it doesn't always work out in this ideal way and the other things you say have some merit.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
I wish I knew why you disagreed so I can undersyand further, but it is fine
Sorry if i misunderstood you. I thought you argued that one has to believe to
be regenerated. I was simply showing in 1John at least that is not the case.
John Bowling has explained better than i can how in Reform thought regeneration
precedes faith. Sometimes the word "salvation" is used in broad category other
times in a narrow sense. I agree in broad terms with what you are arguing
for from the Titus text but that text does not explain how one comes to faith as
to be regenerated.Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us.
She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The
Lord opened her
heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.Thanks again for your informative perspective. I
better leave it at that before someone jumps in to say take this conversation
outside of the forum.TedDell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Robert Pavich said:
If people are going to debate this via email...i'm in...I'd like to follow the conversation, which is above my head sometimes...as I said in my previous post....I'm not that bibically educated as a lot of you are....
bob
I may offer my email at a later time for this. I've got other things I'd like to focus on at the moment. It is a huge topic since you have to get into issues about what language logically implies and does not imply as well as how literally we interpret phrases and metaphors. The Bible doesn't usually use language in a technical sense and yet this and other theological issues require us to use language that way and so we have to consider the range of meaning of terms and stuff... On top of that is the philosophical and logical arguments that are applied (I'm more well versed in this aspect than the former). As Berkhof says, "[The Bible] often employs terms which have now acquired a very definite technical meaning in Dogmatics, in a far wider sense" (ST 417).
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Robert Pavich said:
Can I chime in?
I'm not a pastor....I'm probably the least of anyone here....
I'm probably misunderstanding this but I looked over the verse list that Ted gave....and coming from my "Calvinistic" perspective...I didn't see any issues that would contradict anything that Calvinists believe....
Am I missing something?
It seems to me that 1st John 5:1 supports the Calvinist view.
Everyone who ("present tense" currently) believes has been ( "perfect tense" past action, divine passive) born of God.
EDITED TO ADD: 1st John 2:29 seems to be exactly the same situation....present action / past action by God....
Is there something that I'm not seeing? (that's usually the case)
God bless,
bob
Bob i am a Calvinist i was providing a "Calvinist" text [;)][:D]
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Ted Hans said:
Bob i am a Calvinist i was providing a "Calvinist" text
Ted,
See, I told you I wasn't that sharp...I didn't realize why you were asking....lol....
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Ted Hans said:Bryan Brodess said:
I wish I knew why you disagreed so I can undersyand further, but it is fine
Sorry if i misunderstood you. I thought you argued that one has to believe to
be regenerated. I was simply showing in 1John at least that is not the case.
John Bowling has explained better than i can how in Reform thought regeneration
precedes faith. Sometimes the word "salvation" is used in broad category other
times in a narrow sense. I agree in broad terms with what you are arguing
for from the Titus text but that text does not explain how one come to faith as
to be regenerated.
Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us.
She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The
Lord opened her
heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
Thanks again for your informative perspective. I
better leave it at that before someone jumps in to say take this conversation
outside of the forum.
TedSee now this is why I like an open hearted conversation.. One in which you usually do not get in other chat situations. I know know where you are comming from.. Although I do not interpret the word regenerate as you do. I think this is where the difference comes in.
Scripture states the things of God are foolishness to those who are not his.. So God must open our minds to help us understand the gospel in order for us to have faith in it.. Which I believe is a job of the holy spirit,, who not only convicts every man woman and child of sin. But when they open their heart also opens their minds to let them understand the gospel. The problem is not everyone opens their hearts. I think of the pharisees, that is why they never could see Christ as the messiah.. But the disciples ( minus one) even though they did not understand fully until Christ rose.. They kept an open heart..
Anyway with this perspective I do agree.. one must have their mind opened by God in order to have faith.. However, I believe this can only happen when we are opened to listen to truth and seek out truth.. which still takes a willingness on our part..
Do I make sense? I do not want to confuse anyone [:$]
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
Anyway with this perspective I do agree.. one must have their mind opened by God in order to have faith.. However, I believe this can only happen when we are opened to listen to truth and seek out truth.. which still takes a willingness on our part..
Do I make sense? I do not want to confuse anyone
Some one dead in sin & dead spiritually has to be opened to listen to the truth and seek truth! Hmmm. Confusing. A DEAD person cannot be opened to listen to the truth or seek it. How is this possible if they are DEAD?
Well, i said i will stop[;)]
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
Anyway with this perspective I do agree.. one must have their mind opened by God in order to have faith.. However, I believe this can only happen when we are opened to listen to truth and seek out truth.. which still takes a willingness on our part..
Do I make sense? I do not want to confuse anyone
Bryan...
Whoops...now I AM confused...lol..
When you say "I do agree.. one must have their mind opened by God in order to have
faith.. However, I believe this can only happen when we are opened to
listen to truth and seek out truth.. which still takes a willingness on
our part..Are you saying that God cannot open our hearts until we do something (be willing) and then He acts?
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Ted Hans said:Bryan Brodess said:
Anyway with this perspective I do agree.. one must have their mind opened by God in order to have faith.. However, I believe this can only happen when we are opened to listen to truth and seek out truth.. which still takes a willingness on our part..
Do I make sense? I do not want to confuse anyone
Some one dead in sin & dead spiritually has to be opened to listen to the truth and seek truth! Hmmm. Confusing. A DEAD person cannot be opened to listen to the truth or seek it. How is this possible if they are DEAD?
Well, i said i will stop
Ted
john 16: 6 - 11
7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But jif kI go, lI will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will nconvict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, obecause they do not believe in me; 10 pconcerning righteousness, qbecause I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.When we all stand in front of God.. we will have no excuse.. Because the holy spirit has convicted every man woman and child of these things.. If he can convict them of this when they are dead, then he can show them how to be saved also, even if they are dead.
By the way..would a person who is dead understand he is dead if he can not understand the things of God? can he understand he is a sinner, he is judged rightly, and he needs to be saved?? since these are the things of God..
0 -
John Bowling said:
Note: this "illumination" which, Calvin admits, must come first if man is to apprehend God, is what contemporary Reformed persons refer to as regeneration
Thanks you for the clarification.
Have you read Calvin's commentary on John 1:12-13. He actually clearifies and says illumination is NOT regeneration although some may call it that.
It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by
making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is
an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply,
that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,)
by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith
itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the
children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our
regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may
reckon us among his children. The illumination of our minds by the Holy
Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration
as from its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive
Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to
be the beginning of our adoption.- John Calvin 1:13 commentaryNotice how he says it is by faith we receive incorruptible seed. Yet faith itself is the work of the Spirit. I believe I commented earlier on this post about illumination of the elect.
Also notice the distinction between illumination and regeneration. God enlightens all men (John 1:9) however illumination belongs to the Children of God.
John Bowling said:Could you please quote all these modern Calvinists who "don't really focus on faith as a gift"??
I am sorry I was not very clear. They dont focus on the gift of faith as opposed to regeneration preceding faith. Regeneration preceding faith is the focus of modern calvinsm as opposed to the old reformed teachings (those of which I love to read). Calvin did not focus on regeneration preceding faith because he did not teach it. He focused on faith as a gift.
Btw I am blessed by this discussion
Gb
0 -
Sorry I caught your other post first. For anyone wishing to further discuss reformed theology you are welcome to join my forum. I will close here as this forum is not designed here for this.
http://debate.divinesoteriology.com/ Feel free to post your response in my forum, it is designed for debate
0 -
I said I was done posting on this but I thought I would post my perspective for what little it is worth.
The scriptures say we do not have the ability to seek God until he draws us. John 6:44 No man can come. We do not have the ability to initiate salvation. This is done by the working of the Spirit through the word. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Well that is my 2 cents.. God Bless
Btw if anyone is wishing to respond feel free to send me an email or join my forum set up for polemics and apologetics
http://debate.divinesoteriology.com/
Moderatecalvinism@yahoo.com
I am always up for edifying discussion on the word of God. Iron Sharpens Iron ..
0
