Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

still_unsure
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54

Posted 7/27/2001 12:54 PM (GMT -6)

What is the scriptursl evidence for the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration PRECEDES faith. I know of only two scriptures used (ala R.C. Sproul), John 3:3,5 .-

"3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "

"5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." "

This seems a rather flimsy use of these scriptures. Are there others? Are there scriptures that support the oposite view?
Calvinists, Arminians. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Rob

Edited by - still_unsure on 07/27/2001 5:59:43 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/27/2001 2:14 PM (GMT -6)

Dear still_unsure:

I'm editing this because I didn't like my tone--too much like I thought I could fix something--and I really didn't mean it that way. It is just that for me trying to deal what you have there is an invitation to a head ache. Yet I wished I could help. Maybe this won't be any better?

You said you were looking for: "the scriptural evidence for the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration PRECEDES faith."

I'm not sure if you want to find that evidence...to prove the Calvinists view to be true... I'm not sure if you want to find their "best shot" and defeat it like a dragon... I'm not sure if you just are stalled by that issue.

Let me honestly offer that if you want a Reformed view, Sundays I see a whole church full of Calvinists. I could ask a friend if you ask me to--feed me a question to ask. One woman in particular teaches the Heidelberg Catechism to the high school kids, and co-wrote the new denominational study guide for the "HC." I could e-mail that friend. Knowing these people for almost nine years I can tell you that there is lots of "pastoral" tweaking that goes on between doctrine and application. Some wonderful sermons on free will! I once e-mailed three Calvinist friends, all with seminary or doctoral degrees, and asked them about how they square predestination with John 3:16. I got three very different answers. If you want to know what Calvinists think, ask them. Or ask two.

MY OWN PRESUMED CONTRIBUTION...is this...That perhaps if one begins by working with separate categories one will end up with something to fill those categories. And one might think those categories necessary and legitimate. But what if the debate about order of things is just "hoooey?" Calv,/Arm. debates are about reactions...at least in part. Way back upstream in history, past Augustine, some historians are questioning whether Pelagius was even Pelagian. Seems he may easily have been preaching with emphasis against some extremes that were condemned at the same time He was. But controversy aside, Maybe it is all unnecessary.

What if you approach the issue(s) of the Kingdom and of Rebirth through these verses: "If any man be in Christ he *IS* a new creature." and "I am the vine and you are the branches. If a man remains *IN* me and I *IN* Him he will bear much fruit, apart from me you can do nothing."

There is a fashionable habit among Reformed, at least--maybe Arminians too (?) of separating justification from sanctification. Sometimes catechism class different tasks to the three persons of the Trinity. I suspect, though, that it is done with subtlety and nuancing. Better to ask someone directly than go by documents.

My Eastern Orthodox friends read "atonement" as "at-one-ment." Real and relational rather than abstract and juridical. See why Modes keeps mentioning "multiple" images of God's redeeming us. (which is another one)

What if, as in verse 3, the Kingdom of God IS salvation/newbirth? "Thy Kingdom come!"
In verse 5, the Water and Spirit are both part of Baptism, where the oil of chrism is administered right after the water, in one continuous ceremony.

It used to be that becoming a Christian took weeks of ongoing becoming/what-would-you-call-it. Long preparation as a catechumens, Baptism/Chrismation, and then many, many days just living in the church, hearing teaching and worshiping God. Against the backdrop of what used to be involved those debates of the 1600s, or ours today would look like little league!

What if it is all just one big together?

PotOnWheel

Edited by - potonwheel on 07/27/2001 9:32:50 PM

still_unsure
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54

Posted 7/28/2001 1:38 AM (GMT -6)

Hi PotOnWheel:

quote:

What if you approach the issue(s) of the Kingdom and of Rebirth through these verses: "If any man be in Christ he *IS* a new creature." and "I am the vine and you are the branches. If a man remains *IN* me and I *IN* Him he will bear much fruit, apart from me you can do nothing."

There is a fashionable habit among Reformed, at least--maybe Arminians too (?) of separating justification from sanctification.

Do you feel that justification and sanctification are both ongoing things or do you mean they actually are two aspects of the same thing?
Rob

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/28/2001 8:28 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Rob:

You asked:" Do you feel that justification and sanctification are both ongoing things or do you mean they actually are two aspects of the same thing?

I'll answer at the bottom.

Well, not begin a theological I need a little courage to face being asked to be exact. That said.....sorry for this detour.

I get some courage by knowing that almost everyone says that "Scholasticism" led/leads many in going too far with making must-be-because statements. Courage in knowing that how logically neatened a theory is does not mean that it reflects reality. Gothic churches started as "scholastic" demonstrations of form, but had to be stealthily modified to actually stand up, to become better looking, and still spear as though they followed the rules. They had to adjust to reality. They tried to use the best proportions in designing their spaces--deriving from the math of good acoustics and of how spaces of pure-proportions (2:1, etc.) could hold symbolic value. But when you put pillars and arches in-between pure/symbolical spaces those pillar-arch units take up space too. Sudden;y the acoustics no longer work according to the way pool balls go so neatly around the table--good-bye wonderful reverb. And the space actually no longer looks right--they had that trouble in the Renaissance again too! So if the spacess are Peter and the pillared-units are Paul some robbery is necessary.!!! In the end it may look like the rules were followed. The acoustics work for reasons that also underlie the symbolism; but not because of it. Symbolism is maintained. (The idea of "Gothic" was really just invented by ONE person!)

Back to justification and sanctification. The Scholastic influence is one to define into separate units and treat as if they could exist as separate organisms. That pattern of thinking--and it is ALL over the place--makes us keep separate and round off the rough edges of what in reality is all connected. Pretty soon Poetical or Mystical ideas loose their wings and forget-how-to-fly. (Well, that sounded a little fru-fru!) The ideas of sanctification and justification are the IN-BETWEEN things. The reality is US and GOD. Theology is knowledge OF GOD and not about Him. Scholasticism is not good at that. Calvin, as a friend tells me, was a Scholastic. Luther was a Nominalist--which meant to me he had to watch out for confusions of scale (potential forest/tree confusion). Calvin actually put down his pen instead of trying to analyze communion--said he would rather participate and felt unable to explain. (A very most famous scholastic overkill was the attempt to get technical on communion by the RCC.)

Another unfortunate division in the Middle Ages is the creation of the idea of God's grace as being a created thing--something separate from his actions/energies. (Leading to where "indulgences could actually be sold! Possible if they stand apart from God, I suppose.) Correct that by saying "God's graciousness." "For by graciousness you are saved through faith." Jesus said I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." I take each of those very literally. LITERALLY. Calvinists tend, I think, to make the "way" into a propositional teaching; at least sometimes--they find their way home eventually. Fro Truth it helps me to connect that with Word: as in God speaking/creating/upholding. Life is literal. God even upholds Satan's existence. (Here I like the image of a man trying to saw the branch he's sitting on. Ironic.) I suspect that justification and sanctification lost their moorings as part of a whole and became separate parts...both worked on, moved around, and in the habits of the Heidelberg Confession even assigned respective members of the Trinity. (Potentially changing doctrine of the activities of the Trinity?)

I don't handle technical things well. And I certainly don't write short and sweet. (My typo just said "sweat" -- that's more like it.

)

So the TECHNICALITY OF ONE is Christ. ONE. ONE. Instead of dividing it all into separate "things", and worrying about the timing. ONE.

Can **someone else** unpack that more briefly thatn I can? !!! {:)} {:)} {:)}

The old communion liturgy (of St. John Chrysostom) says: "One is holy! One is the Lord, Jesus Christ! To the glory of God the Father, Amen. Receive the body of Christ, taste the fountain of immortality.

Atonement==at-one-ment. For Justify think of your word processor and the margins; then think of drawing-near/being-drawn unto God. (Calv. and Armin. will find a debate in drawing-near vs, being-drawn; but I'm not interested.)

Does that mean that my answer is yes, and yes? I guess I have to say that at this pint I think that SANCTIFICATION probably is an ongoing thing. But since I am JUSTIFIED in Christ, I don't know the grammar well enough to know whether to emphasize his ONCE FOR ALL--which is NOT ongoing--OR my necessity to keep "running the race" and abiding in Him. But I think that I have committed here to saying they two aspects of the same thing.

Too long. Others are better skilled.

(I obviously just love to tell stories.)

PotOnWheel

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 07/28/2001 1:31:23 PM

GODesteem
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 7/31/2001 1:45 PM (GMT -6)

Greetings in Jesus' precious name! Being a
Calvinist", let me try to answer your question. Here is the question:

"What is the scriptural evidence for the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration PRECEDES faith. I know of only two scriptures used (ala R.C. Sproul), John 3:3,5 .-

"3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "

"5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." "

This seems a rather flimsy use of these scriptures. Are there others? Are there scriptures that support the oposite view?
Calvinists, Arminians. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks."

My response:

Far from there being "two" verses to support the doctrine of irresistable grace (which is WHY regeneration precedes faith), let me quote just a couple others:

"Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (1 John 5:1).

Notice the tense of the verbs in the sentence.

Also, another passage is John 1:12-17. Here John says that God gives the right to become the children of God to all who receive Christ (John 1:12), and then he goes on to say that those who do receive Christ "were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." In other words, it is necessary to receive Christ in order to become a child of God, but the birth that brings one into the family of God is not possible by the will of man.

A specific example involves Lydia in Acts 16:14, where she is listening to the preaching of Paul.

Luke says, "The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul."

Jesus Himself explains the unbelief of some people by teaching about such things. In John 6:44 Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." This drawing is the sovereign work of grace without which no one can be saved from their rebellion against God. Specifically, John 6:64-65 says, "'But there are some of you that do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.'"

Notice two things.

First, notice that coming to Jesus is called a gift. It is not just an opportunity. Coming to Jesus is "given" to some and not to others.

Second, notice that the reason Jesus says this, is to explain why "there are some who do not believe." We could paraphrase it like this: Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would not believe on him in spite of all the teaching and invitations he received. And because he knew this, he explains it with the words, No one comes to me unless it is given to him by my Father. Judas was not given to Jesus. There were many influences on his life for good. But the decisive, irresistible gift of grace was not given.

Much more could be said, but I hope you get a sense of the foundation upon which the "Calvinist" bases his or her beliefs.

God is our greatest treasure!
Benjamin Musclow

God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure!

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:43 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual