Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of $140 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Posts: 2,870
Joined: September 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,551
Posts50,776
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,314
Tom 3,324
chestnutmare 2,870
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 25
Pilgrim 21
Recent Posts
Adam created holy, so how could he fall?
by Pilgrim. Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:39 AM
Presuppositional Apologetics
by Tom. Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:42 PM
Christmas
by Pilgrim. Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:01 AM
Key teaching of Dispys is Gnostic
by PerpetualLearner. Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:11 PM
Glorious Bach
by goldenoldie. Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:46 AM
Nothing New Under the Sun?
by PerpetualLearner. Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:25 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 6 of 16 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 15 16
#11325 - Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:24 PM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Thanks for the tips pilgrim. i'll try the quote thingy. I hope to get back to you some time soon. I might be busy over the next few days but I would like to carry on with this post though. I can't consider the Fall unless those clear texts have been dealt with which clearly show that receiving life (being quickened) is a result of believing. About the "absurd" thing (sorry for using such a strong word)....those being spoken of do not become children until they first believe. if they are not children before they believe (or "receive him"), than they cannot be born. Then the order would have to be believe, become children. if you're view was right, it would read, "who had been born," not "who were born." You become a child when you are born. Therefore when it says "who were born," it must be speaking of their becoming children, not their receiving. They received, they became children. AS CHILDREN, they were born of God and not man. talk to you later
ZionSeeker

#11326 - Sun Mar 21, 2004 9:06 PM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote

Are you seriously suggesting that a human being (using the Lord Christ's analogy when He spoke to Nicodemus) must first receive, believe on Christ in order to be born so that they can become children?


A person must believe/receive in order to be a child of God. "But as many as received him, to them gave he authority to become the children of God." When a person is born, he becomes a child. That one is then born, as a child, from God.

If a person is already born, then they are already children. But they must believe before they are children, and therefore before they are born. As I noted before, it would say "had been born" if your contention were correct.

Anyway, I would be happy to digress onto the Fall, but I would like to deal with a few issues from this one first, if you don't mind.


Quote

You said:This quickening is through faith, as seen in Colossians:
Hmmmm, that isn't much of an exegesis of the Ephesians passage is it?


Ephesians speaks of the quickening/being made alive which you agree refers to regeneration. The passage in Ephesians clearly says that this change is a result of grace, which comes in turn through the instrumentality of faith. I thought that might be too many steps of logic for somebody trying to poke holes in it, so I showed that other of Paul's writings agree <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bif.gif" alt="" />

The Colossians passage also speaks of the quickening, which is our being raised to newness of life in Christ. But it specifically mentions that this is through faith. These passages are the reasons I believe regeneration is through faith. You can't seperate the Colossians quickening from the Ephesians one. Maybe you wouldn't mind giving an exegesis of Colossians 2:12?

Really your only argument from Ephesians is that we were "dead in sins." Well yes, and it would be good to look at our different understandings of this, but you cannot get around the fact that the coming alive is through faith.

You claim that when Ephesians says, "by grace are ye saved,", that Paul is referring to something following the quickening. Clearly though, Paul is referring to the act of quickening.

Quote

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith;


Paul is not saying, "God raised us up. oh and then that caused you to believe and then after that you were saved through faith." No the act of quickening is the cause for the words "by grace are ye saved."

Quote

As Christ was raised from the dead in which He suffered for punishment of sins, vicariously and substitutionally, likewise did God raise us up from the dead, through our own trespasses and sins. This is regeneration. In verse 6, Paul uses a similar analogy when he says that we are "raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus", referring to the life lived after that resurrection both actually and positionally.


I agree with the gist of this. Only I believe that the dying corresponds to repentance, or being baptised into Christ's death, and the raising corresponds to being raised up by faith - Colossians 2:12 again. What in your view is the being baptised into Christ's death which precedes being raised again?

Quote

Regeneration is that new spiritual life out of which faith comes.


Then how is it that we receive life by believing the the Lord Jesus Christ?

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31

#11327 - Sun Mar 21, 2004 9:27 PM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
NH, USA
Quote
ZionSeeker said:
I can't consider the Fall unless those clear texts have been dealt with which clearly show that receiving life (being quickened) is a result of believing.

But there are no texts which show that regeneration is a result of believing! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> Dead men can't believe. It's really simple; so simple that even a child can comprehend that.

Quote
You continue with,
[my absurdity]. . .those being spoken of do not become children until they first believe. [and your reply] If they are not children before they believe (or "receive him"), than they cannot be born. Then the order would have to be believe, become children. if you're view was right, it would read, "who had been born," not "who were born." You become a child when you are born. Therefore when it says "who were born," it must be speaking of their becoming children, not their receiving. They received, they became children. AS CHILDREN, they were born of God and not man.

FYI, "who were born" in the Greek is genesthai, which is an aorist infinitive which denotes a past action, i.e., "who had been born". [Linked Image] Further, you don't have the right to change the order which the inspired John wrote in this text. The apostle in v. 12 gives us what takes place from the perspective of man; i.e., he receives or believes on Christ and consequently, God bestows the right/authority to become a son of God. There are two important things we must not slight: 1) The consequence of believing/receiving is that God bestows the "right or authority" to become His child. The emphasis here is upon a change of status for John; relational as opposed to physical change, (cf. Jh 8:44) although it is certainly true that those who have been adopted into the family of God will be progressively changed through sanctification. 2) The text incontrovertibly states that this right/authority is given subsequent to the believing, "But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God". So, thus far we have the order as being, a) believing/receiving, results in b) being given the right/authority to become children.

Now let's move on to v. 13 once again. I must press this matter of the grammar as it is so fundamental and cannot be obviated in the manner which you have tried to do. Verse 13 is a "relative clause" which qualifies that which is antecedent to it, v. 12. It's clearly John's intention to focus now upon the origination of the believing/receiving from the divine perspective. It is here that John cuts off all attempts to make the receiving/believing and consequent giving of right to become children of God to originate with man, which is what you are arguing for. The ones who received/believed on Christ were those who did not come by way of familial connection, e.g., heredity; e.g., "we are Abraham's seed; his children by birth", nor through any effort of the flesh, nor yet by a man's determinative choice. And it is at this place that we find the fatal blow delivered to any notion that the believing/receiving or having the right to become a child of God and more particularly to be "regenerated", aka: born again is the result of one's believing. It is self-contradictory and illogical prima facie. For immediately after this tri-negation, John says the origin of the believing/receiving was due to one having been "born of God". (cf. Jh 3:3-8) Again, verse 13 is dealing with origin and not result. And the grammar, if nothing else will not allow anything but this understanding.

Let me also quote a short section from Calvin's Commentary on the Gospel of John in support of this order which is: 1) regeneration, produces 2) faith, which results in 3) being given the right to become sons of God.

Quote
Calvin writes:
Though he refers directly to the Jews, who gloried in the flesh, yet from this passage a general doctrine may be obtained: that our being reckoned the sons of God does not belong to our nature, and does not proceed from us, but because God begat us WILLINGLY, (James i. 18,) that is, from undeserved love. Hence it follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God.

And lastly, I must insist also, once again, that one must come to a right understanding of the Fall and Original Sin if one is to rightly comprehend the doctrine of salvation by grace. To go astray here will invariably lead to untold errors in other areas of the faith and end in one embracing synergism.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#11328 - Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:10 PM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hmm well I don't know what happened to my last post. maybe a prob with my computer so here goes again.

Quote

But there are no texts which show that regeneration is a result of believing! Dead men can't believe. It's really simple; so simple that even a child can comprehend that.


What of the text which says that we have life through believing. if so, then we do not have life before we believe and are dead. Right?


Quote

FYI, "who were born" in the Greek is genesthai, which is an aorist infinitive which denotes a past action, i.e., "who had been born".


This was a big booboo on your part <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> The word genesthai does not correspond with "who were born" but with "he gave the right TO BECOME children of God." "Who were born" is "egennathasan" and is passive aorist. aorist has an undefined aspect. "Who had been born" would be pluperfect, not aorist. It is interesting though, that they are given the right to be "genesthai" children of God when they believe, and that then they are egennathasan (born) of God. Both words are from gennao, to produce, beget, give birth to. so i guess it could read, "to those who received him he gave the right to be born children of God...who were born, not of man, etc"

Let's go on to the fall, but you must first explain why in both ephesians and colossians the quickening is linked to faith. in ephesians this quickening is said to be by grace (and grace is not said to be the result of the quickening but the cause of it), and this grace is said to come through faith.
also you have not explained what the being baptised into the death of Christ aspect to the quickening corresponds to. how can i accept your view when it cannot deal with so many scriptures?

ZS

#11329 - Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:59 PM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav  
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
fredman Offline
Addict
fredman  Offline
Addict

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Canyon Country, CA
Quote
Let's go on to the fall, but you must first explain why in both ephesians and colossians the quickening is linked to faith. in ephesians this quickening is said to be by grace (and grace is not said to be the result of the quickening but the cause of it), and this grace is said to come through faith.


(Fred) Actually, if you read the text (and I will remain in the NKJV), Paul qualifies the nature of faith, "and that, not of yourselves, it is a gift of God." In other words, we are given saving faith to believe; it is one part of the gracious gift of salvation, just as repentance is another part. Hence, a person can never believe savingly unless the Lord gives them the ability to believe, and I would add, any person who is given this ability will act upon it in order to fulfill the purposes of God in salvation.

Furthermore, Colossians 2:11-13 only affirms this reality, it does not contradict it as you suppose. First, the person is circumcised in heart - a circumcision that is made without hands. That is Paul's way of saying that a person is regenerated. Second, verse 13, Paul ties the work of regeneration with the work of Christ on the cross and his resurrection from the dead. In the same manner that Christ was raised from the dead, those who were his people for whom he died, will be raised spiritually. The reason individuals can be raised in newness of life is based upon the fact that they were identified with Christ because the father gave them to the son in eternity past (see John 6:37-45).

Quote
also you have not explained what the being baptised into the death of Christ aspect to the quickening corresponds to. how can i accept your view when it cannot deal with so many scriptures?


(Fred) On the contrary, I once held your point of view, but left it because it cannot deal adequately with so many scriptures. As I learned how to actually study the Bible and apply the appropriate hermeneutical rules to the various passages on election and so forth, my position could not hold up under any reasonable scrutiny. The right understanding of scripture forced me to abandoned my traditions and embrace what is nicknamed "Calvinism."

Fred


"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
#11330 - Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:00 PM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
NH, USA
Quote
This was a big booboo on your part The word genesthai does not correspond with "who were born" but with "he gave the right TO BECOME children of God." "Who were born" is "egennathasan" and is passive aorist. aorist has an undefined aspect. "Who had been born" would be pluperfect, not aorist. It is interesting though, that they are given the right to be "genesthai" children of God when they believe, and that then they are egennathasan (born) of God. Both words are from gennao, to produce, beget, give birth to. so i guess it could read, "to those who received him he gave the right to be born children of God...who were born, not of man, etc"

An admitted rushed oversight on my part! [Linked Image] However, egennathasan is aorist indicative (passive voice), which still makes the case for the view held by all the Reformed/Calvinistic churches, because the GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION demands that the relative clause modify that which is antecedent to it and thus, those who received/believed and were given the right to become children of God were antecedently "born of God". Sorry, but there is no getting around this as much as you might want it to be otherwise. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Quote
Colossians 2:13 (ASV) "And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, [I say], did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses;"

I fail to see where this text offers your view any support either? Paul emphasizes the "double death" in that they were dead and guilty before God due to their actual sinful life (trespasses and sins)and due to their very nature (uncircumcision of the flesh). It was in this helpless and hopeless state that God "made them alive" (Gk: suzoopoieo) "together with Christ". There is not even a hint that this "reanimation" was the result of any act on the part of the individuals themselves.

Again, the natural man has no inclination, desire nor ability to believe on Christ until he is regenerated. Men are born spiritually dead.... not sick, not mortally wounded, not terminally ill, but DEAD! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#11331 - Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:16 AM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote

However, egennathasan is aorist indicative (passive voice), which still makes the case for the view held by all the Reformed/Calvinistic churches, because the GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION demands that the relative clause modify that which is antecedent to it and thus, those who received/believed and were given the right to become children of God were antecedently "born of God".




The relative clause certainly modifies something. If it modified what was antecedent to receiving, it would be pluperfect. no offence, but can you actually read Greek unaided, because i am having a hard time believing that?

if what you were saying were true, it would read "who had been born" - pluperfect. since it uses gen gennao twice, nmeaning, I give birth to, produce, beget, it could be read this way

"to those who received him he gave the right to be born/begotten children of God...who were born/begotten not of man, etc"
You cannot get around this. the being born directly corresponds with the being made children of God, and this latter is to those who receive him.

Quote

It was in this helpless and hopeless state that God "made them alive" (Gk: suzoopoieo) "together with Christ". There is not even a hint that this "reanimation" was the result of any act on the part of the individuals themselves.


But this very passage in Colossians, as I have pointed out many many times, shows that the quickening is through FAITH:

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses" Colossians 2:2.

There is first a dying by being crucified with Christ, then a resurrection into newness of life through faith.

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31

if believing is required to have life, why do you deny it? this is a simple question, but you won't come to terms with it. dead means unable to have fellowship with God, or to know God. it means the spiritual part of man which contacts God is dead. when a person believes, they receive new life. you cannot get around this verse. regeneration purifies the heart, but the bible says that faith purifies the heart. you cannot dance around these scriptures at will.

"And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

"For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."


"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

any philosophy which contradicts these plain scriptures must be wrong, however reasonable and good it sounds
Zion Seeker

#11332 - Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:55 AM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav  
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
fredman Offline
Addict
fredman  Offline
Addict

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 406
Canyon Country, CA
Quote
But this very passage in Colossians, as I have pointed out many many times, shows that the quickening is through FAITH


(Fred) You are assuming that man is the one who can produce the faith on his own, unaided, when the Bible clearly states that he cannot, Ephesian 2:8,9 once again. Nothing in those passages suggests that this faith is something intrinsic to men apart from a divine work of God first. You are going to have to show us from the text that saving faith is natural to sinners. Just because these various texts point to faith as the instrument of salvation, does not conclude that it is natural to men.

Fred


"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
#11333 - Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:24 AM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav [Re: fredman]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote

You are assuming that man is the one who can produce the faith on his own, unaided, when the Bible clearly states that he cannot, Ephesian 2:8,9 once again. Nothing in those passages suggests that this faith is something intrinsic to men apart from a divine work of God first. You are going to have to show us from the text that saving faith is natural to sinners. Just because these various texts point to faith as the instrument of salvation, does not conclude that it is natural to men.


You have fallen into the mistake of assuming something that is not true. I have never claimed that faith is natural to man. On the contrary I have affirmed in a recent post that faith is the gift of God and not of man. Nevertheless, you cannot ignore other scriptures which show that receiving life is through faith.

ZionSeeker

#11334 - Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:01 AM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
NH, USA
Quote
ZionSeeker caustically remarked:
The relative clause certainly modifies something. If it modified what was antecedent to receiving, it would be pluperfect. no offence, but can you actually read Greek unaided, because i am having a hard time believing that?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> Let me only say in regard to your ad hominem slur, that if you are asking if I need a walker to read Greek, the answer is no. Doubtless, I have forgotten more from my many years of Greek study than you have learned in your one semester study. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Let me offer you something to ponder as you learn Koine Greek:

Quote
The Aorist for the (English) Pluperfect. The Aorist Indicative is frequently used in narrative passages of a past event which precedes another past event mentioned or implied in the context. In English it is common in such a case to indicate the real order of the events by the use of a Pluperfect for the earlier event. HA. 837; G.MT. 58; B. pp. 199f. [Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, Ernest De Witt Burton, p. 23.]

The difference between the English Pluperfect and the Greek Pluperfect:

English Pluperfect: is used to mark the fact that the event expressed by it preceded another past event indicated by the context, and this whether the earlier event is thought of as completed at the time of the later event, or only indefinitely as a simple occurrence preceding the later event.

Greek Pluperfect: is used to represent an action as standing complete, i.e., has having an existing result, at a point of past time indicated by the context. [Ibid p. 24

And just as an aside, which for me looking back I can now <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. The book from which the quotes above were taken was part of an advanced Greek course I took at one of the seminaries I studied at. It was a requirement of the professor of that course, that this book be memorized. Thanks for making those grueling hours of memorization meaningful, albeit 25 years after the fact.

Quote
ZionSeeker continues:
But this very passage in Colossians, as I have pointed out many many times, shows that the quickening is through FAITH:

BTW, the address of that passage is v. 12, not 2. The context of this passage is that of Paul arguing against the syncretism of the Judaisers, who taught an admixture of Christianity, Judaism and Paganism. In the immediate context, he is addressing their Judaistic imposition in that they insisted that Christians needed to be physically circumcised. But Paul argues that the circumcision which the believers at Colossae received was far superior in that it was of the heart, which was made "without hands", accomplished the putting off and casting away of their entire evil nature, in its sanctifying aspect to be progressively realized, and it signified an actual union with Christ, Himself.

The "having been raised with Him through faith" is addressing not regeneration as you suppose but the believer's identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for their justification (burial) and sanctification (resurrection), so that all the benefits of Christ's substitutionary atonement for them was bestowed upon them the moment they believed; in the operative power of God Who raised Him from the dead).

In verse 13, Paul exalts the sovereignty of God's grace Who took them (referring to the Colossae believers) when they were pagans, people who had no interest, desire in God, indeed without the ability to do so, never mind exercise faith which results from one's predisposition, and made them alive suzoopoieo with Christ. Here, both regeneration and the life of faith which results from that regeneration are in view. For he adds, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;. Thus, there is no evidence here that regeneration follows faith, but to the contrary, regeneration produces faith which apprehends Christ and thus justification and sanctification.

Quote
And you further state:
"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31

if believing is required to have life, why do you deny it? this is a simple question, but you won't come to terms with it. dead means unable to have fellowship with God, or to know God. it means the spiritual part of man which contacts God is dead. when a person believes, they receive new life. you cannot get around this verse. regeneration purifies the heart, but the bible says that faith purifies the heart. you cannot dance around these scriptures at will.

[note the Greek, please]But these are written in order that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and in order that believing you may continue to have life in His name.

This text is NOT addressing regeneration, but that life which was already received; i.e., justification and sanctification. Exegete the text... don't eisogete it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

Quote
another text you quote:
"And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

Peter likewise is speaking of the "purification of the heart", which is justification. There is not even a hint here that he was referring to the Gentile's regeneration.

Quote
And you conclude with:
any philosophy which contradicts these plain scriptures must be wrong, however reasonable and good it sounds

Agreed! And this is especially true when the philosophy isn't reasonable and sounds bad. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#11335 - Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:01 PM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote

Let me only say in regard to your ad hominem slur, that if you are asking if I need a walker to read Greek, the answer is no. Doubtless, I have forgotten more from my many years of Greek study than you have learned in your one semester study.


Congragulations on you advanced Greek study. My comment was far from being a slur. I have had people before claim Greek when it was obvious they had no clue. I have been honest about my lack of Greek (one semester completed, grade a). You are quoting from the Greek as though you know what you are talking about...whilst making some blunders. I accept that blunders can be made, but calling gennesthai an aorist, at least i think warrants me asking about your abilities in the language without you taking it as a personal attack (ad hominem). Don't you think? so don't get worked up because i dared to ask. i accept that you are well trained in greek.

Quote

The Aorist Indicative is frequently used in narrative passages of a past event which precedes another past event mentioned or implied in the context.


You would call this a narrative passage?

You wrote
Quote

FYI, "who were born" in the Greek is genesthai, which is an aorist infinitive which denotes a past action, i.e., "who had been born".


We understand that you wrote the wrong Greek word, but here you say that the aorist, which by definition is without aspect, has a pluperfect aspect of "had been born".

Quote

First, it may be used to describe an action or event in its entirety. This use of the tense, since it is by far the most frequent, may be called by preeminence the Indefinite Aorist. In the Indicative it may be called the Historical Aorist. The Aorist of any verb may be used in this sense; thus eivpei/n, to say; diakon/hsai, to serve.

The Aorist for the Perfect and the Aorist for the Pluperfect are, as explained below (52), not distinct functions of the Aorist, but merely special cases of the Historical, Inceptive, or Resultative Aorist.

Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, Ernest De Witt Burton,


And especially

Quote

The Historical Aorist. The Aorist Indicative is most frequently used to express a past event viewed in its entirety, simply as an event or a single fact. It has no reference to the progress of the event, or to ANY EXISTING RESULT OF IT.


and again

Quote

Instances of the Greek Aorist for the English Pluperfect arise when a past event which is conceived of simply as an event without reference to existing result is mentioned out of its chronological order, or is expressed in a subordinate clauses The Greek employs the Aorist, leaving the context to suggest the order; the English usually suggests the order by the use of a Pluperfect.


I cannot see how this applies here at all. The double use of the word gennao ties the second use, "who were BORN," to the first, "to them who received him he gave the right to BE BORN children of God."

Quote

A Pluperfect is strictly required only when the precedence in time is somewhat prominent. The Revisers of 1881 have used the Pluperfect sparingly in such cases. It might better have been used also in Matt. 9:25; Mark 8:14; John 12:18 (had heard).



The rest I will address when I have further time.
Zion Seeker

#11336 - Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:01 PM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote

The "having been raised with Him through faith" is addressing not regeneration as you suppose but the believer's identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for their justification (burial) and sanctification (resurrection), so that all the benefits of Christ's substitutionary atonement for them was bestowed upon them the moment they believed; in the operative power of God Who raised Him from the dead).


Earlier, when dealing with another passage, you supposed the same thing:
"The word in the Greek for "made alive" is suzoopoieo; i.e., to bring to life conjointly with. The reference is unmistakable. As Christ was raised from the dead in which He suffered for punishment of sins, vicariously and substitutionally, likewise did God raise us up from the dead, through our own trespasses and sins. This is regeneration. In verse 6, Paul uses a similar analogy when he says that we are "raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus", referring to the life lived after that resurrection both actually and positionally."


So being crucified with Christ and being risen with him refers to regeneration in Ephesians and Romans but sanctification in Colossians? I cannot accept this. Besides, Ephesians says, when referring to what you have acknweldged to be regeneration, "for by grace are ye saved, through faith." This raising up, this quickening, which God did, is by grace, through faith. This is the same dying with Christ and being raised again "conjointly" with him as in Colossians. I cannot scholastically make a seperation to fit my own views, hacking apart the scriptures more than any dispensationalist would even dare in the process. We are risen with Christ, and this is through faith. Whether in Ephesians or Colossians we are raised into newness of life through faith. So do you suppose that we need to be raised from the dead a second time, this time through faith, though we were already risen by grace? sorry, but I don't buy that. it is the result of wanting to read something into the text, here one way and there another

ZionSeeker

#11337 - Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:37 PM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
NH, USA
Quote
ZionSeeker confusedly said:
Besides, Ephesians says, when referring to what you have acknweldged to be regeneration, "for by grace are ye saved, through faith." This raising up, this quickening, which God did, is by grace, through faith.

Sorry, but I have to accept the CONTEXT of each passage and not err in using a "psycho statistical mean" hermeneutic. The phrase ("for by grace are ye saved") means what it says, i.e., salvation is by grace, whether or not it is referring narrowly to regeneration, or to the faith which results from it. Perhaps you are having difficult comprehending these things which the Protestant churches everywhere which came out of the Protestant Reformation have understood, believed and taught for centuries, because you have only had one semester of hermeneutics too? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#11338 - Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:44 PM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote

Sorry, but I have to accept the CONTEXT of each passage and not err in using a "psycho statistical mean" hermeneutic.


What you mean is, you want to be free to interpret the believers death and resurrection with Christ as regeneration when you think it will aid your argument...
Quote

The reference is unmistakable. As Christ was raised from the dead in which He suffered for punishment of sins, vicariously and substitutionally, likewise did God raise us up from the dead, through our own trespasses and sins. This is regeneration.


and not when you are faced with the fact that this resurrection into new life is through faith...

Quote

The "having been raised with Him through faith" is addressing not regeneration as you suppose but the believer's identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for their justification (burial) and sanctification (resurrection),


And then, as if looking in the mirror, you write "ZionSeeker Confusedly wrote". lol!


You accuse me of ad hominem, thus judging yourself that ad hominems are not something we should be doing, and then what do you do? the very same thing you accuse others of...
Quote

Perhaps you are having difficult comprehending these things which the Protestant churches everywhere which came out of the Protestant Reformation have understood, believed and taught for centuries, because you have only had one semester of hermeneutics too?


In this prideful statement, you reveal what is your true authority. Underneath all the talk about the "Bible," your true authority is revealed to be the Reformers. To these everybody must bow down and give place, even if it means we are born again, then believe, then as a result of believing are born again again children of God. Faced with the impossibility of justifying such nonsense you are forced to appeal to your true authority. I am disappointed in you, I thought you were better than this. But now I know. The anabaptists were the true people of God at the Reformation, and they would have none of such nonsense as two being born agains, two quickennings to suit preconceived ideas depending in what context your philosophy has to be defended, two accounts of having your heart purified, uhhh it goes on and on, this double vision.

All for what? so you can maintain a theological system which enables you to feel superior and more learned than everybody else. What a tragedy and a waste. Jesus said the day will come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and hearing will live. I suppose the Calvinists of the day were saying "hang on, you can't hear if you are dead, you have to be made alive first."

Well, obviously you have appealled to Calvin, so to Calvin I leave you.

Zion Seeker

#11339 - Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:50 AM Re: Is man required to "choose" in order to be sav  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
grace2U Offline
Member
grace2U  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Devon, England
Acts 16:14. 'Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God (ie. a Gentile follower of Judaism). The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by God.'

She did not open her own heart to heed Paul; nor did Paul open her heart by his preaching. It was Almighty God who sovereignly used Paul's preaching to open her heart. For 'Salvation belongs to our God.'

I think some of the problems that have arisen on this thread stem from the 'instantaneous' view of regeneration taught by that otherwise great and good man, John Murray. If one takes the view, as I do, that regeneration starts with God's particular call, which leads to awakening and conviction which precede repentance and faith, which itself precedes Justification, which is the final stage of regeneration, then many of the problems aired on this thread are solved.

This was the view of most of the Puritans. A helpful book to read on the subject is, 'Physicians of souls' by Peter Masters (Wakeman Books ISBN 1-870885-34-5).

Blessings,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
Page 6 of 16 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 15 16

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 17 guests, and 128 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
December
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
667,104 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.052s Queries: 16 (0.005s) Memory: 2.7475 MB (Peak: 3.0565 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-17 23:32:25 UTC