1John 5:1 regeneration before faith

Theo1689

Well-known member
I think you misread his post.

You need to stop making inaccurate and derogatory assumptions about me.

He offered to listen to you for correction if you had something to tell him. This is not the post of a know-it-all

No, he is also the same poster who misrepresented me and "proclaimed" that I agreed with him. The only reason he wants me to respond is to tell me how "wrong" I am and to insult me.

And I'm not interested in wasting my time.
So please, I would appreciate it if the both of you would stop stalking and harassing me. This is a discussion forum, it's for making comments or questions to the GROUP, not for chasing down one individual and harassing them.
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
You are changing your issue now.
First you claimed there was no conditional word there, but clearly "unless" is a conditional word. For me, before asking another question, I would think thath you should acknowlege your mistatement and admit there is a condition: unless

But as to you next three part question:
1. Unless what? Unless God draws, meaning if God draws you can, if He does not draw you can not
2. Man's part in this particular verse is to come; that is our response to being drawn
3. Why we come does not have one answer for everyone. Why i came and why you came could be different,
For me, I had been looking into world religions and when when I was drawn to Jesus, I understood that he wa the God I was after.
How did you come?
There is no conditional in John 6:44. Your trying to insert one.

1) It does not say you can come. It says those drawn will be raised up on the last day.

2) it does not say man has any part.
 

Synergy

Well-known member
You need to stop making inaccurate and derogatory assumptions about me.



No, he is also the same poster who misrepresented me and "proclaimed" that I agreed with him. The only reason he wants me to respond is to tell me how "wrong" I am and to insult me.

And I'm not interested in wasting my time.
So please, I would appreciate it if the both of you would stop stalking and harassing me. This is a discussion forum, it's for making comments or questions to the GROUP, not for chasing down one individual and harassing them.
These are my questions to the Reformist group:

1. How is "regeneration" defined around Reformist circles?
2. How can a Reformer say that Saint Peter's proclamation to everyone of "Repent ... and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38) does not go against Reformist principles of regeneration before repentance?
3. How can a Reformer say that Jesus' exhortation to everyone of "Repent and Believe" (Mark 1:15) does not go against Reformist principles of irresistible grace?
4. How can a Reformer say that Saint John's declaration that Jesus "is the propitiation concerning our sins, and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the sins of all the world” (1 John 2:2) does not go against Reformist principles of limited atonement?
5. How can a Reformer say that Saint John's declaration that "if anyone does not abide in Me [Jesus], he is cast out as a branch and is withered. And they gather and cast them into the fire, and they are burned" (John 15:6) does not go against Reformist principles of preservation of the saints?

Thanking you in advance for your Bible-supported answers.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Hello,

My response to your post is NOT an invitation to expect/demand a continued "discussion with me. You are, of course, free to respond if you wish. And I am free not to respond to your response.

Second, I don't really appreciate "questions". If you have concerns, I consider it far more honest to express your concerns in the terms of an explanation of how you see things.

These are my questions to the Reformist group:

1. How is "regeneration" defined around Reformist circles?

There are many standard sources which can answer this question. If you don't know what Reformed theology teaches, maybe you should do some more research on your own. In all seriousness, I have found that simply asking questions and learning about Reformed theology "piecemeal" is a far inferior way to understand the theology, and only serves to develop more misunderstandings about what it teaches.

2. How can a Reformer say that Saint Peter's proclamation to everyone of "Repent ... and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38) does not go against Reformist principles of regeneration before repentance?

This is one of the reasons I believe "asking questions" is the wrong methodology. Your question is fallacious, as it ASSUMES that Acts 2:38 goes against our understanding of regneration before repentance. So to move the discussion forward, it seems to me that it would be more appropriate for YOU to present an argument of why YOU think they are at odds with one another.

3. How can a Reformer say that Jesus' exhortation to everyone of "Repent and Believe" (Mark 1:15) does not go against Reformist principles of irresistible grace?

Again, your question is fallacious. since it ASSUMES there is an alleged conflict.
I think it is more appropriate for YOU to present a valid argument that tries to identify this alleged conflict.

4. How can a Reformer say that Saint John's declaration that Jesus "is the propitiation concerning our sins, and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the sins of all the world” (1 John 2:2) does not go against Reformist principles of limited atonement?

Because it says "all the world", not "all individuals".
You are ASSUMING that it is referring to "all individuals".
All you're doing is projecting your own theology onto the text.

5. How can a Reformer say that Saint John's declaration that "if anyone does not abide in Me [Jesus], he is cast out as a branch and is withered. And they gather and cast them into the fire, and they are burned" (John 15:6) does not go against Reformist principles of preservation of the saints?

Because there are 31,000 other verses of Scripture in the Bible. And the Bible UNDENIABLY teaches perseverance of the saints (eg. John 10:28-29).


The bottom line is that nobody is forcing you to accept Reformed theology.
If you don't believe it to be Biblical, then you don't have to accept it.

You see, Reformed Christians are confident enough in our theology that we don't have to "prove" it to anyone else. If you don't feel the same about your own theology, I feel sorry for you.

Thanking you in advance for your Bible-supported answers.

I look forward to YOUR Bible-supported assertions of the fallacious assumptions in your questions.
 

Synergy

Well-known member
What evidence could I offer you?Anything that speaks of a physical object being moved thru space is a literal use of drag, You can not obtain that info from scripture, it only comes thru undersatnding the language itsself plus knowing the difference between literal and figurative.
Being drawn to God is a metaphoric use of the word drag. yes it actually happens, it is real, but it is not literal physical force
You are correct about John 6:44.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws [ἑλκύσῃ] them, and I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6:44)

In Greek, when ἑλκύσῃ is associated with inanimate objects then ἑλκύσῃ means to physically drag. There is no other way to draw an inanimate object than to be physical and forceful about it such as dragging it.

Humans, on the other hand, are a little bit above inanimate objects. In fact in Greek a person who is ἑλκύστικος is said to be attractive or winsome, not a autocrat or dictator. When ἑλκύω is used in the metaphorical sense, it means to draw by inward power or to lead or to attract. Since God does not physically come down and pull you kicking and screaming into heaven then ἑλκύω or ἑλκύσῃ is used in the metaphorical sense for humans.

The problem that we're having with Reformist theology is that it has been led astray so much by the anti-Bible doctrine of Total Depravity that it ends up teaching that God treats humans as inanimate objects.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You are correct about John 6:44.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws [ἑλκύσῃ] them, and I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6:44)

In Greek, when ἑλκύσῃ is associated with inanimate objects then ἑλκύσῃ means to physically drag. There is no other way to draw an inanimate object than to be physical and forceful about it such as dragging it.

Humans, on the other hand, are a little bit above inanimate objects. In fact in Greek a person who is ἑλκύστικος is said to be attractive or winsome, not a autocrat or dictator. When ἑλκύω is used in the metaphorical sense, it means to draw by inward power or to lead or to attract. Since God does not physically come down and pull you kicking and screaming into heaven then ἑλκύω or ἑλκύσῃ is used in the metaphorical sense for humans.

The problem that we're having with Reformist theology is that it has been led astray so much by the anti-Bible doctrine of Total Depravity that it ends up teaching that God treats humans as inanimate objects.

@Alexander the adequate , are you still trying to claim he's not trying to play the "know-it-all" (your phrase)?

There's nothing Biblical in his entire rant, only misplaced condemnation.

Total Depravity is "anti-Biblical"?
Is that why historical Arminians and Calvinists were 100% in agreement with it?
Have you never read Gen. 6:5, or Rom. 3:10-20?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The problem that we're having with Reformist theology is that it has been led astray so much by the anti-Bible doctrine of Total Depravity

Can you show us any Biblical passages which teach that the natural man is not totally depraved?

that it ends up teaching that God treats humans as inanimate objects.

Please quote ONE Reformed Christian (linked quote, please) who has taught that "humans [are] as inanimate objects".
 

Synergy

Well-known member
Hello,

My response to your post is NOT an invitation to expect/demand a continued "discussion with me. You are, of course, free to respond if you wish. And I am free not to respond to your response.
I totally believe in the free will you possess to respond or not.
Second, I don't really appreciate "questions".
First you said, "This is a discussion forum, it's for making comments or questions to the GROUP" and now you say that you don't appreciate questions. Make up your mind.
If you have concerns, I consider it far more honest to express your concerns in the terms of an explanation of how you see things.
I have inquiries. Is this a forum for inquiries?
There are many standard sources which can answer this question. If you don't know what Reformed theology teaches, maybe you should do some more research on your own. In all seriousness, I have found that simply asking questions and learning about Reformed theology "piecemeal" is a far inferior way to understand the theology, and only serves to develop more misunderstandings about what it teaches.

This is one of the reasons I believe "asking questions" is the wrong methodology. Your question is fallacious, as it ASSUMES that Acts 2:38 goes against our understanding of regneration before repentance. So to move the discussion forward, it seems to me that it would be more appropriate for YOU to present an argument of why YOU think they are at odds with one another.

Again, your question is fallacious. since it ASSUMES there is an alleged conflict.
I think it is more appropriate for YOU to present a valid argument that tries to identify this alleged conflict.

Because it says "all the world", not "all individuals".
You are ASSUMING that it is referring to "all individuals".
All you're doing is projecting your own theology onto the text.
This is your first attempt to synchronize one of my mentioned Bible verses with Reformer theology. Isn't "all the world" a reference to all individuals in the known world?
Because there are 31,000 other verses of Scripture in the Bible. And the Bible UNDENIABLY teaches perseverance of the saints (eg. John 10:28-29).
Throwing John 10:28-29 against John 15:6 will not make John 15:6 go away. It's the same person writing all those verses so they all have to be synched together. Sheep is a metaphor for followers of Christ that are in and protected by God's hand. Now if they stop abiding in Christ then they are cast out and burned.
The bottom line is that nobody is forcing you to accept Reformed theology.
If you don't believe it to be Biblical, then you don't have to accept it.

You see, Reformed Christians are confident enough in our theology that we don't have to "prove" it to anyone else. If you don't feel the same about your own theology, I feel sorry for you.
I'm just inquiring, for my education. No need to fell sorry about that.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I totally believe in the free will you possess to respond or not.

"Free will" does not exist.
But you are free to continue in your delusion.

First you said, "This is a discussion forum, it's for making comments or questions to the GROUP" and now you say that you don't appreciate questions. Make up your mind.

The first comment was what is allowable according to the rules.
The second comment was my opinion of what is or is not productive.

I'm not sure why you seem so obsessed about finding imaginary "contradictions" which don't exist.

This is your first attempt to synchronize one of my mentioned Bible verses with Reformer theology.

There is nothing I need to "synchronize".
You have not demonstrated that anything is NOT "synchronized".

Isn't "all the world" a reference to all individuals in the known world?

The text does NOT say "all individuals", no.

Throwing John 10:28-29 against John 15:6 will not make John 15:6 go away.

Another insulting comment by you.
I have no need, nor any desire, to make John 15:6 "go away".
I love John 15:6, just as I love all Scripture.
You have not demonstrated that John 15:6 allegedly teaches that one can "lose their salvation".

It's the same person writing all those verses so they all have to be synched together. Sheep is a metaphor for followers of Christ that are in and protected by God's hand. Now if they stop abiding in Christ then they are cast out and burned.

You just denied John 10.
Congratulations!

I'm just inquiring, for my education. No need to fell sorry about that.

No, you're not.
You've already dictated that you "are correct", and I "am wrong".
You are simply here to argue.
And I'm not interested in wasting my time with closed-minded individuals.
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
You are correct about John 6:44.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws [ἑλκύσῃ] them, and I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6:44)

In Greek, when ἑλκύσῃ is associated with inanimate objects then ἑλκύσῃ means to physically drag. There is no other way to draw an inanimate object than to be physical and forceful about it such as dragging it.

Humans, on the other hand, are a little bit above inanimate objects. In fact in Greek a person who is ἑλκύστικος is said to be attractive or winsome, not a autocrat or dictator. When ἑλκύω is used in the metaphorical sense, it means to draw by inward power or to lead or to attract. Since God does not physically come down and pull you kicking and screaming into heaven then ἑλκύω or ἑλκύσῃ is used in the metaphorical sense for humans.

The problem that we're having with Reformist theology is that it has been led astray so much by the anti-Bible doctrine of Total Depravity that it ends up teaching that God treats humans as inanimate objects.
Interesting idea about inanimate objects. Pretty much that is what calvinists think humans are in reference to spiritual life.
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
What is your evidence for your insulting and self-serving assumption that "calvinists think humans" are "inanimate objects"?
The evidence is the posts I have been reading here, my comments are based on what you and others have been writing. For instance denying that we have free will puts us on a level with a dirt clod.
By the way, since my post was about Calvinists, I assume, beacuse you responded, you identify that way?
 
Top