Posted on 12/23/2003 9:25:31 AM PST by P-Marlowe
LOL I given you a series of questions that you have completely avoided. I have answered every one of your questions directly. I don't buy into your false dichotomy that sex between a married couple is either right or wrong in and of itself. The answer is in the question I asked you. I'll ask again. simple question. Try your best to answer the question directly without obsfucation. What is the standard between sin and non-sin. (hint: the answer is in the book of Romans)
Calvin was a pado Baptist , but Moose that is not the issue . The issue is do ALL Calvinists without exception believe in infant baptism..and the answer is no.
Reform Baptists do not (as you should know IF your wife is one)
There are many members within my Presbyterian church that do not .
I personally know Reform Baptist churches that do not believe in covenant theology or infant baptism
To be a Calvinist one need only to affirm the Tulip. Now how can you call yourself one if your deny regeneration before faith? Thus denying two petals ??
There's a book out there by Fred Malone (The Baptism of Disciples Alone.) It really solidified my position as a Covenantal Credobaptist. I had previously read The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, and was certainly impressed for the case for covenantal baptism -- but I see no Biblical reason to extend one of the signs of the New Covenant to those not yet regenerate. (The other sign of the covenant, communion, is generally excluded from those not able to grasp the meaning of the sacrament by Reformed circles, recognizing that self-examination is enjoined in 1Co. 11.)
As I said, I have problems with the rigidness of the ordo salutis. There are three forms of faith, the assentia, cognitio, and fiducia; when do you propose regeneration takes place before, during or after any of those are being formed?
Taking advantage of the occasion of posting my testimony, where would you say that I had faith? I believed the Bible, in principle to be true assentia, I understood that which I read cognita, and based on my knowledge, I had a form of fiducia (putting faith from theory to practice). For years, my knowledge was clearly incorrect; yet after Ed Dean challenged me through questions to read (faith comes by hearing/reading of the Word) I was able to find the truth of the gospel; yet that knowledge did not transform as intensely as the night I read all through Matthew (the day of regeneration).
I firmly believe that regeneration must take place. Perhaps the question comes down to the issue of faith. What is saving faith? For if saving faith can only follow after regeneration, then it follows that I had no saving faith until that evening.
Why don't you tell me? For the jury is still out for me, based on my experience, and on the theory that the ordus salutis is a synthesized doctrine based on studied interpretation.
The question is can any man generate the faith to give his life away? (That is what salvation means )
Yes we do not have the ability to have saving faith without an act of God to open our hearts to understand it
I agree Mom. However, in my mind, regeneration is only the beginning. How many of us actually give all our life away at the moment of regeneration. As Warmoose points out, we may go through periods of intellectual assent, some knowledge, and quasi trust. For some people there is a clear black and white moment in their lives and for others it is a growth of character throughout their lives. I just think it is very difficult for finite humans to truly understand all the various workings of conversion, regeneration, and sanctification and carefully seperate events in ones life as falling neatly into one of those categories.
To "understand" means not only to apprehend the idea, but the etymological root suggests that one also agrees with it too. There are a number of things that I don't believe that Calvin developed as well as it should have been. So if Calvin and I differ, though I apprehend what he trying to say, yet differ in some points, then your statement says that you are flexible in your definition of 'Calvinist'.
I was saved many years before I accepted Calvinist doctrine
Assuming the role as The Great Picker of Nits, I would like to submit a better understanding of "saved" than the vague and malleable version often tossed around here. From God's perspective, you are either "saved" or not. If you were to be "saved", then it was accomplished in Eternity Past, not when the 3x5 Card was dropped into the offering plate, or the entertainer on stage saw your hand while everyone's "eyes were closed and head bowed". In contrast, from the common man's perspective, "being saved" is something that is accomplished after you do something (drop the card or raise the hand). When viewed in the Biblical and temporal sense 'sozo' (to rescue, deliver, etc.) we have yet to actually be spared, the assurance that we will be, according to God's integrity, is given to us; yet the actual preservation from Hell fire awaits us all. So to say "I was saved on such and such date, or after such and such event" is meaningless since in actuality you have yet to be spared God's wrath, all you have, in effect is a "Get Out Of Hell" card, backed by the faith and assurance of the Almighty Creator (who printed your card, wrapped it in His Son, and has it waiting from eternity past). So it is just best to claim that you either have your pass or don't have your pass, since it really doesn't matter when you feel that you received it - it is really more of a time when you recognized that you were in His care and protection.
Returning to your opening statement. I like to extend the parable of the talents to an understanding of the things of God. If we replace "talent" with "Truth of God", then Romans 1 tells us that everyone has some wisdom of God. Romans 1 also tells us that the reprobate bury their talent and then later lie about God like the worthless servant did regarding his master - calling his master cruel and a thief. Those who are saved may have nominal wisdom and such will bear fruit, but because they don't have much to start with, the total amount of their product isn't nearly as praiseworthy as those who have lots and lots of wisdom. In the parable, the person who was "entrusted with much" received the worthless man's talent. I would like to be in the position where the master, God, would entrust me with much wisdom so that the produce of such (at least in number) would be great so that I could benefit my master.
Hi Mom. How do you define self-centered as it applies to salvation? Wouldn't you agree that we are all self-centered when it comes to avoiding eternal hell fire? I know I was/am. Dittos for desiring eternal bliss in heaven.
Blessings to you for your best year ever in 2004.
The discussion revolves around one set of theologians that believe you can be saved and still be lord of your own life ( say the prayer and repent and follow Christ later) And those that say without repentance and submission to the will of God one has only said words.
I fall into the group that believes that without a desire to be obedient and submissive to Christ , most likely one is not saved. They have only said a prayer.
There are times that like Paul we all kick against the goad and want our own way, however it is not a theme of our lives .
Ex if the ONLY reason a man come to the altar is to stay out of hell..then again I question if he is saved or he just said a prayer.
The thought of hell may make someone listen ...but unless we come to Christ because we desire Him above all things..it is indeed self serving .Being saved from Hell is a side bonus :>))
We are all thankful for being saved from Hell and for the promise of eternal life with Him..but being with him is my top reason and knowing you I suspect it is yours too.
Blessed New Year to you too
?
No actually quite rigid ..That is why I push you on your soteriology . My point was that I believe that when one repents and believes the gospel one is saved.One does not need a doctrinal dissertation to do that . God will lead .
The doctrine of the reformation seeks to explain the work of God as presented in the scriptures, in itself it does not save .
I was saved many years before I accepted Calvinist doctrine
Assuming the role as The Great Picker of Nits, I would like to submit a better understanding of "saved" than the vague and malleable version often tossed around here. From God's perspective, you are either "saved" or not. If you were to be "saved", then it was accomplished in Eternity Past, not when the 3x5 Card was dropped into the offering plate, or the entertainer on stage saw your hand while everyone's "eyes were closed and head bowed".
Seeing words mean things lets clarify. I think we may agree but some may not understand. God chose us to be saved before the foundation of the earth..but we are not saved until we repent and believe. We were not "born saved"
In contrast, from the common man's perspective, "being saved" is something that is accomplished after you do something (drop the card or raise the hand). When viewed in the Biblical and temporal sense 'sozo' (to rescue, deliver, etc.) we have yet to actually be spared, the assurance that we will be, according to God's integrity, is given to us;
If you mean that God knows we are His..yes
yet the actual preservation from Hell fire awaits us all. So to say "I was saved on such and such date, or after such and such event" is meaningless since in actuality you have yet to be spared God's wrath, all you have, in effect is a "Get Out Of Hell" card, backed by the faith and assurance of the Almighty Creator (who printed your card, wrapped it in His Son, and has it waiting from eternity past). So it is just best to claim that you either have your pass or don't have your pass, since it really doesn't matter when you feel that you received it - it is really more of a time when you recognized that you were in His care and protection.
No I do not think that is correct. I was not saved until I was obedient to the gospel of Christ and repented and believed. That was more than a personal maker for me..it was indeed the TIME of my salvation . This is were the doctrine of regeneration is significant. I could not seek Christ or desire Him before i was regenerate..I was an unregenerate woman that did not look for or desire Christ, until the Father dragged me .
Returning to your opening statement. I like to extend the parable of the talents to an understanding of the things of God. If we replace "talent" with "Truth of God", then Romans 1 tells us that everyone has some wisdom of God. Romans 1 also tells us that the reprobate bury their talent and then later lie about God like the worthless servant did regarding his master - calling his master cruel and a thief. Those who are saved may have nominal wisdom and such will bear fruit, but because they don't have much to start with, the total amount of their product isn't nearly as praiseworthy as those who have lots and lots of wisdom. In the parable, the person who was "entrusted with much" received the worthless man's talent. I would like to be in the position where the master, God, would entrust me with much wisdom so that the produce of such (at least in number) would be great so that I could benefit my master.
I disagree with your soteriology period . You have a salvation by the work of men
Would you please explain to me how you see Calvinism and different than an arminian?
The question is not 'does saving faith preceed regeneration', which it surely does not, but how is God working in the life of a person such that they are growing in union with God. If a person truly believes that their status before God is based on the righteousness of Christ and not their own works, irregardless of any specific knowledge of doctrine, then that individual has a saving faith. Further, if that person shows a desire for the things of God this is confirming evidence of their faith.
I think each of us, if we examine our life history even during our unregenerate days, can see how God was converting us unto himself. Those evil deeds we performed are brought to our minds by God to show us our depravity. God allowed us to sink further into depravity so that when he pulles us out his glory would be magnified. Yet, the level of wickedness God allows is subjective. I know countless persons who have lived exemplary moral lives yet base their salvation upon Christ alone and not their own works. These persons were brought up in the faith, taught since childhood that Christ alone saves, and have always believed that Christ alone saves. What are we to think of these people? Do we require some dramatic conversion experience? If so, then should we allow our children to wander into depravity so that they can experience some dramatic conversion experience? No, I think we should rightly regard our children as holy within our Christian communities and allow God to perform his saving actions according to his terms and not our finite understanding. This may not allow for easy definitions of conversion and regeneration or even sanctification but then we are not God.
Guilty as charged, says OP.
From another Thread, since pulled (on account of a Flame-War... sigh):
OK. It just seemed your tone was dogmatic on that point. ~~ lockeliberty
Well, I did "seem" that way, because I was dogmatic.
But I confess that I over-emphasized the Point which I was making.
The Reformers identified three components of Saving Faith:
As far as Notitia (Knowledge) is concerned, my point remains the same: Regeneration includes an epistemological certitude regarding the propositional facts of Jesus Christ, and the Mind of Man does not Create his own epistemological certitudes (any more than we can walk outside, and volitionally declare to our Minds that we shall perceive the Sky as being green-and-orange Plaid. The Notitia is not subject to Volition!).
As such, I remain "dogmatic" upon the Point that the Mind of Man does not Create his own epistemological certitudes.
However, you are correct that Notitia alone does not describe the fullness of Saving Faith. God does not merely enlighten our Minds; He regenerates our Hearts.
That said, it was never my intent to mis-represent the nature of Saving Faith; but I apologize if I have over-emphasized the Notitia at the expense of the Assensus and the Fiducia.
I just want you to know that I have understood and appreciated your helpful considerations, and have taken them to heart.... Like oil flowing down upon my beard, mein freund; like oil upon the beard (Psalm 133:1-2).
Best, OP
As far as Notitia (Knowledge) is concerned, my point remains the same: Regeneration includes an epistemological certitude regarding the propositional facts of Jesus Christ, and the Mind of Man does not Create his own epistemological certitudes (any more than we can walk outside, and volitionally declare to our Minds that we shall perceive the Sky as being green-and-orange Plaid. The Notitia is not subject to Volition!).
Of course, you are correct. Peter's exclamation of the divinity of Christ and Christ's response perfectly illustrates your point.
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
The gospel account of Peter provides a interesting insight into the life of a Christian. The very fact that Peter could be so schizo in his faith illustrates the trials that all Christians endure. Peter's denial of Christ would indicate to me that our epistemological certitude can waver and is not necessarily a constant throughout our journey. Yes, at the very point of new life it is a God-given knowledge. Maintaining that knowledge is our responsiblity through constant communion with God.
Thank you for your gentle nudging and I shall strive to "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer. (Psalm 19:12-14)
With brotherly affection,
G
I was nudging??
(OP scratches head curiously.) Really??
Well, it must have been predestined to your benefit, then... because it wasn't, actually, intentionally chosen on my part (grin).
I really was just intending to say that I thought your constructive criticism of a coupla weeks back to be quite accurate, and that I would therefore try in the future to incorporate a little more-balanced inclusion of the Assensus and the Fiducia in what I have above described as my oft-used "Notitia Illustration"... other than offering my assurance that I'd found your concerns to be valid and thoughtful, I'd no other particular thoughts in mind, honest.
But, if something I said was, by happy serendipity, edifying to you personally as well... well, then, um... hey, that's great!
best, OP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.