1John 5:1 regeneration before faith

Yes no works, no faith, no salvation. The two go hand in hand together.

Its why faith alone, sola fide is not true. James makes it clear as does Paul above that faith without works is dead.
Exactly and Paul never taught of a workless salvation but only one that does not come by human works and which he also called "the works of the flesh".

What proves whether one has true faith from God or not is whether God is doing his work in that persons heart and life and this was made very apparent to me the night that I was saved also.

For it was God who brought me to a brokenness in repentance and then opened my ears to his word and this is how I was saved and transformed immediately and I have never forgotten this either.

This is why I am so heavy on hearing the word of God from the Spirit, for there is a big difference between reading and studying the word and actually hearing it God breathed by his Spirit into the heart and without which one cannot even be saved or grow afterwards either.

For we must hear the rhema from beginning to end in our salvation, for that is how we continue to be transformed into the likeness of Jesus.

Romans 10:17 "Now faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God".
 
Simply repeating a falsehood over and over again doesn't make it true.
and your continued denial does not make it false

2 Corinthians 5:20 (KJV 1900) — 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
 
The verse is not to be understood in isolation. The reason why you should not proof text.
Why do you use the word prooftext? Surely you don't expect a person to simultaneously discuss all verses on a particular topic. Are you suggesting it is mpossible to pull a verse's truth from it, one verse at a time?
Instead of charging "prooftext" it would seem more profitable to bring up verses yourself that you felt need to be harmonized with the "prooftext" I don't get what i see here so often, just a blanket denial with nothing scriptural added or explained
 
Why do you use the word prooftext? Surely you don't expect a person to simultaneously discuss all verses on a particular topic. Are you suggesting it is mpossible to pull a verse's truth from it, one verse at a time?
Instead of charging "prooftext" it would seem more profitable to bring up verses yourself that you felt need to be harmonized with the "prooftext" I don't get what i see here so often, just a blanket denial with nothing scriptural added or explained
Proof texting is quoting a verse without offering context, audience, genre and so on. Prooftexing often involves eisegesis. A great example? Acts 2:38. Do you believe sins are remitted in baptism?
 
Why do you use the word prooftext? Surely you don't expect a person to simultaneously discuss all verses on a particular topic. Are you suggesting it is mpossible to pull a verse's truth from it, one verse at a time?
Instead of charging "prooftext" it would seem more profitable to bring up verses yourself that you felt need to be harmonized with the "prooftext" I don't get what i see here so often, just a blanket denial with nothing scriptural added or explained
Ditto
 
Proof texting is quoting a verse without offering context, audience, genre and so on. Prooftexing often involves eisegesis. A great example? Acts 2:38. Do you believe sins are remitted in baptism?
how could you level that accusation about that particular poster without an indepth chat about all those ideas you listed. it would be more interesting chat than the dimissive "prooftext" with no discussion as to how you reached that conclusion.

Also, if you are thinking that context is going to rob a verse of what it says in black and white, or allow you to just ignore the verse, then your learning process is flawed
 
Why do you use the word prooftext? Surely you don't expect a person to simultaneously discuss all verses on a particular topic. Are you suggesting it is mpossible to pull a verse's truth from it, one verse at a time?
Instead of charging "prooftext" it would seem more profitable to bring up verses yourself that you felt need to be harmonized with the "prooftext" I don't get what i see here so often, just a blanket denial with nothing scriptural added or explained
It seems to me that's all you have ever posted. How many times have you been asked to harmonize scripture and failed to do so?
 
Why do you use the word prooftext? Surely you don't expect a person to simultaneously discuss all verses on a particular topic. Are you suggesting it is mpossible to pull a verse's truth from it, one verse at a time?
Instead of charging "prooftext" it would seem more profitable to bring up verses yourself that you felt need to be harmonized with the "prooftext" I don't get what i see here so often, just a blanket denial with nothing scriptural added or explained
It's an excuse Calvinists use to avoid a response but they turn around and do the same thing themselves
 
And of course it must be understood and understanding is by the Spirit
That is not addressing the verse

I
Just a suggestion. You seem to agree with other posters whenever it suits you. You then proceed to use 'calvie talk' which is a personal affront to people who don't believe as you do. After looking at pages and pages of your posts, you never offer anything that shows you have actually thought this over, engaged in any of the actual doctrines of grace.

Obviously you can post in the matter you prefer. However a Christian conducts him or herself in a forthright manner.

Titus 3:9English Standard Version (ESV)

9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.


1 Peter 3:15English 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet dot with gentleness and respect.


29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
Ephesians 4:29English Standard Version (ESV)


2 Timothy 2:14English Standard Version (ESV)


14 Remind them of these things, and charge them before God[a] not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.


James 1:26
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.

Now me, I fail every day and need to be mindful of these very same scriptures.

Consider that unbelievers come to these forums and read these posts. Do you really want to be seen as a Christian who engages in these behaviors? My baby sister comes by every now and then, and she had her Pastor read these forums. He said this is why people reject Christianity. Christians do this to each other and the gospel in order to 'win' some kind argument. The cause of Christ will prevail but some arguments leave behind a trail that might well cause others to stumble.

Have you actually addressed any of the argument?
 
how could you level that accusation about that particular poster without an indepth chat about all those ideas you listed. it would be more interesting chat than the dimissive "prooftext" with no discussion as to how you reached that conclusion.

Also, if you are thinking that context is going to rob a verse of what it says in black and white, or allow you to just ignore the verse, then your learning process is flawed
Which particular poster? The proof texters are many. To whom do you refer
 
`
You made a arguement? A coherent logical one? No way.

Wake up

Faith before regeneration (life)

John 20:31 (KJV 1900) — 31 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.

and what is sufficient is the John gospel

as i stated you addressed nothing
 
`


Wake up

Faith before regeneration (life)

John 20:31 (KJV 1900) — 31 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.

and what is sufficient is the John gospel

as i stated you addressed nothing
Sorry. That does not say faith precedes regeneration. Second, understanding of the things of God comes by the Spirit. Poor effort
 
Sorry. That does not say faith precedes regeneration. Second, understanding of the things of God comes by the Spirit. Poor effort
Sorry but you are in denial

regeneration imparts life


when a physically living man is stated to receive life that can only be spiritual life

so faith precedes regeneration



Faith before regeneration (life)

John 20:31 (KJV 1900) — 31 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.
 
Which particular poster? The proof texters are many. To whom do you refer
At this point, it is enough to look at the possibility that the accusation of "proof text" is simply a dodge to avoid truth.
Regardless of who is saying it.
The reason being that if you do not provide other verses that help to understand the verse in question, then "proof text" is simply a dodge, or an expression of a lazy attack.
 
At this point, it is enough to look at the possibility that the accusation of "proof text" is simply a dodge to avoid truth.
Regardless of who is saying it.
The reason being that if you do not provide other verses that help to understand the verse in question, then "proof text" is simply a dodge, or an expression of a lazy attack.
Yes indeed brother !
 
At this point, it is enough to look at the possibility that the accusation of "proof text" is simply a dodge to avoid truth.
Regardless of who is saying it.
The reason being that if you do not provide other verses that help to understand the verse in question, then "proof text" is simply a dodge, or an expression of a lazy attack.

It doesn't suprise me that people who proof-text try to spin things to make it look like a good thing, and try to demonize people who rightly reject proof-texting.

I haven't done a detailed study, but it seems to me that a common form of "proof-texting" is quoting a portion of a verse, and arbitrarily assigning a meaning that is contradictory or foreign to the context.

A good example would be when Arminians quote 2 Pet. 3:9, "God is not willing for any to perish", and RUN AWAY from the fact that the CONTEXT is "beloved" (v.8), and "us-ward" (v. 9, KJV)
 
Back
Top