1John 5:1 regeneration before faith

[cadwell]

You know what a genuine believer is. Your playing games. What choice do you have? I have you and you know it.

What do you have, beside an unsubstantiated claim? If you think Judas was an unbeliever, you do so with no biblical proof. His works and fruit are certainly bad, but Peters works and fruit are just as bad. Why do you condemn Judas as an unbeliever, but wont do the same with Peter?

I will simply turn it around on you since you want to play. Where does it say Satan entered Peter?

Who said the bible says "satan entered Peter"? I am dealing with the text, and you keep running from it. I ask again, what is behind Peters statement in Matt 16:22? Jesus said it was satan. Is Jesus wrong? Is Peter filled with the Holy Spirit asking something the Spirit would have known? Why would Jesus say that?

 

[fltom]

Post 1569 Tom: "Judas was not a true believer" Tom's honest issues are rearing their ugly head again.

Opps

Hope this helps

Oops

this is post 1589

fltom said:
Quote me

If you can't quote me you misrepresent me

seems it is your issues which are rearing their head

oops

 

[David1701]

There no such thing as a “happened at a point in time” in the Perfect tense. The tense simply says that a particular action is a continuing action that began at some point prior to the present moment. It says nothing about the “chicken and egg”, nothing about causation one way or the other.

Your description of the Greek perfect tense is not quite right. It refers to something that happened in the past, with the result continuing in the present. The result is not necessarily a continuing action.

You're not paying attention to what I post (at least, I hope that's what it is...).

Firstly: I know that the Greek perfect tense is not punctiliar. I didn't say that it was; nevertheless, in the CONTEXT we were discussing, it referred to having been born again, which we know does happen at a point in time.

Secondly: I explicitly stated that I was not making a case, from 1 John 5:1, for a causal relationship between having been born again and presently believing. I stated that I was making a case for a "before and after" relationship, which is not the same thing.

I do believe that being born again is necessary, in order to believe in Jesus, but I did not make that case in my post; and I would use a different passage as my basis for that.

Scripture always places faith as the act that results in eternal life. The perfect tense, in itself, does not say anything about causation.

Please take the trouble to read what I actually post, not what you assumed that I was going to post. Thanks.

 

[Reformedguy]

Oops

this is post 1589

fltom said:
Quote me

If you can't quote me you misrepresent me

seems it is your issues which are rearing their head

oops

How did I misrepresent you? Lol You said it did you not??

 

[Reformedguy]

What do you have, beside an unsubstantiated claim? If you think Judas was an unbeliever, you do so with no biblical proof. His works and fruit are certainly bad, but Peters works and fruit are just as bad. Why do you condemn Judas as an unbeliever, but wont do the same with Peter?

Who said the bible says "satan entered Peter"? I am dealing with the text, and

you keep running from it. I ask again, what is behind Peters statement in Matt 16:22? Jesus said it was satan. Is Jesus wrong? Is Peter filled with the Holy Spirit asking something the Spirit would have known? Why would Jesus say that?

If he was a believer why would it be better if he were not born?

Whose running? Lol So I will ask again was Peter actually Satan? If not what did Jesus mean? "Get thee behind me Satan"

 

[fltom]

How did I misrepresent you? Lol You said it did you not??

No not anywhere in that post

I reposted it for you. It was not there.

 

[Reformedguy]

No not anywhere in that post

I reposted it for you. It was not there.

But you know you said it in the right post. Post 1569 to be exact.

Tom: " Judas was not a true believer"

 

[fltom]

But you know you said it in the right post. Post 1569 to be exact.

Tom: " Judas was not a true believer"

In post 1569 yes

not in the post you originally cited

 

[cadwell]

If he was a believer why would it be better if he were not born?

Probably because betraying our Lord and Savior is seen as a negative. Doesn’t mean he didn’t actually believe as Peter did in Matt 16:16. Bible doesn’t say, we are debating your assumption and presupposition, remember?

Whose running? Lol So I will ask again was Peter actually Satan? If not what did Jesus mean? "Get thee behind me Satan"

You keep ducking the text with these silly questions. I don’t think Jesus is saying Peter is LITERALLY satan, but He definitely is attributing Peters words in Matt 16:22 to satan. Unless, again, you think this genuine believer is speaking by the Spirit??? We don’t know, you won’t go near that.

 

[Reformedguy]

In post 1569 yes

not in the post you originally cited

So you said it then. Good. Thanks

 

[Reformedguy]

Probably because betraying our Lord and Savior is seen as a negative. Doesn’t mean he didn’t actually believe as Peter did in Matt 16:16. Bible doesn’t say, we are debating your assumption and presupposition, remember?

You keep ducking the text with these silly questions. I don’t think Jesus is saying Peter is LITERALLY satan, but He definitely is attributing Peters words in Matt 16:22 to satan. Unless, again, you think this genuine believer is speaking by the Spirit??? We don’t know, you won’t go near that.

You did not answer my question. Would Christ tell a believer it woukd be better if he were not born? The son of perdition.

His words He was attributing to Satan? Quote Him if you would please.

 

[cadwell]

You did not answer my question.

I did actually.

Would Christ tell a believer it woukd be better if he were not born? The son of perdition.

I’m sure Christ would say that to anyone who would betray Him.

His words He was attributing to Satan?

Yes, not saying Peter was literally satan, but definitely that Peters words in Matt 16:22 were not of Him.

Quote Him if you would please.

“Get thee behind me, Satan”. Matt 16:23.

 

[Reformedguy]

I did actually.

I’m sure Christ would say that to anyone who would betray Him.

Yes, not saying Peter was literally satan, but definitely that Peters words in Matt 16:22 were not of Him.

“Get thee behind me, Satan”. Matt 16:23.

How do you know what He would say?

You brought up Matthew 16 not I. Still trying to figure out why.

Yes, I quoted the relevant part already. Like his words were being attributed to Satan. Missed it

 

[cadwell]

How do you know what He would say?

I‘m just meeting your assumption with one of my own.

You brought up Matthew 16 not I. Still trying to figure out why.

I was testing your assumption to see if it can be applied elsewhere. It failed.

Yes, I quoted the relevant part already. Like his words were being attributed to Satan. Missed it

What does satan refer to in Matt 16:23? We have already established that it’s not literally Peter.

 

[Reformedguy]

I‘m just meeting your assumption with one of my own.

I was testing your assumption to see if it can be applied elsewhere. It failed.

What does satan refer to in Matt 16:23? We have already established that it’s not literally Peter.

Could you quote him? Maybe your so special you had a special revelation.

It's your proof text dude. Lol You tell me. Start with where his words are mentioned.

 

[cadwell]

Could you quote him?

“Get thee behind me, Satan” from Matt 16:23. Your genuine believer is called satan and being chided and called an “offense” to Jesus. Is Peter speaking by the Holy Spirit in verse 22? You never bothered to approach that question, I’m wondering if you are ready now?

Maybe your so special you had a special revelation.

It's your proof text dude. Lol You tell me. Start with where his words are mentioned.

Is Jesus responding to something Peter did or said? Why would Jesus call Peter “satan”? Are believers often called satan by our Lord and Savior?

 

[fltom]

Where is " SALVIFICALLY " used in John 6 ?

oops once again

fallacy alert, fallacy alert

We all know it was not

 

[Reformedguy]

“Get thee behind me, Satan” from Matt 16:23. Your genuine believer is called satan and being chided and called an “offense” to Jesus. Is Peter speaking by the Holy Spirit in verse 22? You never bothered to approach that question, I’m wondering if you are ready now?

Is Jesus responding to something Peter did or said? Why would Jesus call Peter “satan”? Are believers often called satan by our Lord and Savior?

Its your proof text. You explain. You brought it up. Still waiting

Where does it say it was his words? For the 3rd time

 

[cadwell]

Its your proof text. You explain. You brought it up. Still waiting

Waiting for what? Have you forgotten what we are even discussing? YOU claimed that Judas is an unbeliever, that he wasnt drawn, etc. I asked for scriptural proof of that, you admitted there was none, and continue to argue an ASSUMPTION that you base on what the bible says about him. The son of destruction, it would have been better if he were never born, satan entered him, he betrayed Jesus.......everything. I simply asked if those reasons for your ASSUMPTION could be applied elsewhere, like Peter for example. The bible says some pretty bad things about Peter, but you consider him a "genuine believer" despite that. That makes your ASSUMPTION is arbitrary and inconsistent. Why is Peter a believer but not Judas?

Where does it say it was his words? For the 3rd time

And this is your favorite tactic. Once you are backed in a corner, you just repeat the same evasive questions, this is the third time for this particular one. If we cannot agree on the extent of satans involvement in Matt 16:23, who cares, that is not really the point. The point is that YOU mentioned in your ASSUMPTION about Judas and satan. Well satan is mentioned with Peter as well, so...? You keep ignoring that, and we both know why. According to your ASSUMPTION about Judas, Peter would then be an unbeliever as well. Own it.

 

[Reformedguy]

Waiting for what? Have you forgotten what we are even discussing? YOU claimed that Judas is an unbeliever, that he wasnt drawn, etc. I asked for scriptural proof of that, you admitted there was none, and continue to argue an ASSUMPTION that you base on what the bible says about him. The son of destruction, it would have been better if he were never born, satan entered him, he betrayed Jesus.......everything. I simply asked if those reasons for your ASSUMPTION could be applied elsewhere, like Peter for example. The bible says some pretty bad things about Peter, but you consider him a "genuine believer" despite that. That makes your ASSUMPTION is arbitrary and inconsistent. Why is Peter a believer but not Judas?

And this is your favorite tactic. Once you are backed in a corner, you just repeat the same evasive questions, this is the third time for this particular one. If we cannot agree on the extent of satans involvement in Matt 16:23, who cares, that is not really the point. The point is that YOU mentioned in your ASSUMPTION about Judas and satan. Well satan is mentioned with Peter as well, so...? You keep ignoring that, and we both know why. According to your ASSUMPTION about Judas, Peter would then be an unbeliever as well. Own it.

I did not say there is none. Quote me. And your right, in my opinion he was not based on Biblical evidence. I beleve Peter was based upon the evidence. You have a theological axe to grind so you insist Judas was a believer. A believer who would have better he would not have been born, a believer Satan overcame, and a believer called the son of perdition. Sorry, not bying it.

I repeat my questiions over and over again because you never answer them except to answer a question with a question. Never said Peter was a unbeliver. You shall know them by their fruit. Peters fruit is obvious. The fruit Judas produced not so much.

By the way in Numbers 24 did the Holy Spirit come upon a unbeliever to pronounce prophecy in Gods name? Mr. no no??