We have already settled the fact that your highest authority is the Protestant Reformation, so why not leave it at that?

And what is it that YOU are offering if not just "an argument"? The "light cessationist" arguments are based upon the biblical record using the Grammatico-Historico hermeneutic; i.e., it takes seriously the language and historical context of the passages which speak of the ecstatic gifts given to the Apostles during their earthly life. It also takes into account Biblical Theology, i.e., the progression of revelation that has been revealed in ALL of the Scriptures.

People who deny the gifts do so because they have not experienced much of God - it is that simple. There are at least two scriptures which teach that the gifts will be around until the second coming...not including mark 16. But since your highest authority is the Protestant Reformation I won't waste my time and quote them. Besides your system always takes precedence over scripture.

The answer to your first two rhetorical questions is, "Yes!", you are undoubtedly wrong to believe that regeneration results from believing.

Actually I said that life comes from believing...exactly as the apostles taught. Before you saw the utter inconsistency of your "position" you would have agreed that regeneration means receiving new life:

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.

Now you have a new understanding of receiving life above and beyond regeneration. Wow. Not only are we born "again" twice (sounds like the dispensational two "second" comings) - one as children of God, and an antecedent regeneration - but now we receive new life twice as well. You can quote all the different meanings of life - but you cannot explain how these supposed two different lives relate, compare, and contrast. So you are left with pontification.

Of course, you have totally ignored the wider context of this passage in that John is addressing people who already have believed and are united with Christ. (cp. 1Jh 5:1 with 1Jh 2:1; 2:7; 3:1, 2, 7, 18, 24; 4:1, 7; 5:10-13).

Yes, in First John he is. Perhaps though, when in the gospel of John he writes, "These things are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ..." - just maybe, just perhaps, perhaps he actually meant that. hmm naw -that would contradict calvinism so that can't be right. oh well let's explain it away!

Using your "logic", it would appear that every place where you see the word, "life" appear in a text where "belief or faith" appears, it is to be understood as a synonym for regeneration, e.g.,John 3:15-16 (ASV) "that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life [regeneration?]. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life [regeneration?]."

Regeneration means new birth. It is the beginning - the initiation into - new life.

The word in the Greek for "made alive" is suzoopoieo; i.e., to bring to life conjointly with. The reference is unmistakable. [...] This is regeneration.

Well, it was regeneration. Now it's not. Your whole argument has been that people are dead until they are regenerated, and that with this new life they then believe. Now you are saying that the new life comes after believing, and that to say otherwise is to make regeneration and life synonomous. Look, you just want to win an argument, so you want to interpret words differently in similar contexts in order to avoid the inconsistency of your carnal philosophical pseudo-intellectual drivel.

So do we not receive new life at regeneration? does the bible not say, as you quoted yourself, that eternal life is a result of believing? why is it you can never answer straitforward questions - you have to rant instead?

Surely the point can be easily seen, that the same word can have various and sometimes contradictory meanings depending upon the context in which they are used. Thus, to the point at hand, "life" may mean "regeneration", or "eternal existence in communion with God", or "one's physical existence", or "that invisible element of a human being which we call a soul/spirit", or... etc.

Yes, but not in the context of new life - eternal life - being made alive unto God. You are guilty of a theological sleight of hand. Now you see it now you don't. Here quickening refers to regeneration, here the very same thing refers to something else.

As has been pointed out to you, and which you quickly rejected, the texts which you are wanting to eisogete by forcing the definition of "regeneration" upon the word "life", don't speak of regeneration at all, but of that life which is joined with Christ after one believes upon Him which results in being reconciled to God. It also includes an existence where the blessings of Christ's atonement are bestowed upon the one who believes.

you said yourself that a person is dead until they are regenerated by God. If they are no longer dead, and if they are raised with Christ to walk in newness of life, how can they then be raised again through faith to receive life again? This is nonsense pure and simple. This is a cleverly devised fable. And you fell for it. Did not the passage in Ephesians say that the quickening which you identified as regeneration enabled the believer to be raised with Christ into his life? to be joined with him? you want to interpret every text independently of every other rather than admit you are wrong and receive the revelation of the truth which comes to those who receive the truth as little children. Please, go back to your Reformers whom you trust and spare me the pretence of biblical debate.

Last edited by ZionSeeker; Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:25 PM.