Regeneration

[Cynthia]

I agree with you. I say that Titus establishes the Logical Order of which came first, the Renewing or the Regeneration. Since Titus says Regeneration and Renewal are the twofold aspects of the one New Birth, Logically speaking, one is the precedent and one is the predicate. Staying a middle-man and not making that decision doesn't fix things because Arminians, Provisionalists and Calvinists believe we're Washed and Renewed at the same time; Temporarily speaking...

Basically, the Arminian/Calvinist debate boils down to the Logical Order; arguing over which comes first. When you pick a side on which comes first, that decision is THE deciding factor which categorizes you as an Arminian or a Calvinist...

Aaaaah. I see said the blind man.

OK. If I must pick a side on which comes first (I don't have to, but in a flash I will).

In another passage, renewal reads as if it is a continuing process, which would have begun at the regeneration.

So, regeneration and renewal occur at the same time, and renewal of our mind continues throughout our Christian maturity.

So, which clubhouse am I allowed to enter?

 

[Cynthia]

I intend to be a Traveling Evangelist

I would love to caravan. I have a Lance travel trailer. But want to trade it for a small one such as a Scamp or Casita. Anyway, what a wonderful thing.

 

[ReverendRV]

Aaaaah. I see said the blind man.

OK. If I must pick a side on which comes first (I don't have to, but in a flash I will).

In other passage, renewal reads as if it is a continuing process, which would have begun at the regenerations.

So, regeneration and renewal occur at the same time, and renewal of our mind continues throughout our Christian maturity.

So, which clubhouse am I allowed to enter?

Either Club...

If Titus meant they occur Concurrently, you can solve this age-old debate...

 

[Cynthia]

Either Club...

If Titus meant they occur Concurrently, you can solve this age-old debate...

Probably if the sequence was THAT monumental, there would be several passages making that clear.

I had no clue there was an age-old debate on that singular point. I have no desire to wade into that.

 

[TomFL]

When I wrote "...calling, election, and work..." I thought I covered all those bases.

I did not quote. I made a reference to a passage. Malachi refers to both the persons and their descendants.

Magnifying glass? Fine tooth comb?

So you agree it was election to service ?

 

[Cynthia]

So you agree it was election to service ?

Concerning Esau, he was given work/service but I do not think the term election should be used in a category other than salvation. We do not know his final spiritual destiny.

 

[TomFL]

Concerning Esau, he was given work/service but I do not think the term election should be used in a category other than salvation. We do not know his final spiritual destiny.

Ok but election can be to service in the bible

 

[Theo1689]

Ok but election can be to service in the bible

Where?

 

[TomFL]

Where?

Israel

You are not going to argue all Israel was elected to salvation are you ?

Esau and Jacob Read Malachi 1 as well

Cynthia nailed it

 

[Theo1689]

Israel

You are not going to argue all Israel was elected to salvation are you ?

I see...
So based on a meaning you ASSUME about "Israel", you make an additional ASSUMPTION about what "election" must mean.

But it does NOT say "elected to service", correct?

Esau and Jacob Read Malachi 1 as well

<sigh>
Please stop wasting my time.
I've read Malachi 1.
I've read the ENTIRE Bible, MANY times.

It simply doesn't teach what you falsely claim.

So instead of wasting my time giving me "reading assignments" that accomplish nothing (because the Bible does NOT teach your false doctrines), why don't you stop playing these stupid games, and simply QUOTE the specific passages you have in mind, and EXPLAIN how you THINK they teach what you claim.

Is it because you know you can't?

Cynthia nailed it

Um, Cynthia DISAGREES with you.
She said she thought "election" should NOT be used in a context outside of salvation.
You seem have difficulty understanding thing things you read.

 

[TomFL]

I see...
So based on a meaning you ASSUME about "Israel", you make an additional ASSUMPTION about what "election" must mean.

But it does NOT say "elected to service", correct?

I never stated what it must mean

I did point out there was an election to service

And again you are not going to argue Israel was elected to salvation correct

so you must affirm there is an election to other than salvation

<sigh>
Please stop wasting my time.
I've read Malachi 1.
I've read the ENTIRE Bible, MANY times.

It simply doesn't teach what you falsely claim.

Really ?

what did i claim ?

How is it false ?

would you deny Jacobs descendants were Israel

Edom Esau's

again you will not claim all Israel was saved ?

all Edom lost ?

 

[Theo1689]

I never stated what it must mean

I did point out there was an election to service

And you haven't DEMONSTRATED any "election to service" in the Bible.
But I have an open mind, and will still be open to the possibility that you will demonstrate it from SCRIPTURE (not from "rationalization", like you always do).

And again you are not going to argue Israel was elected to salvation correct

That depends on what the verse says, and what the verse means.
Oh, that's right... You REFUSE TO QUOTE any verse.
You like to play stupid games, instead.

so you must affirm there is an election to other than salvation

Nope.
I'm still waiting for YOU to show SCRIPTURE that says, "election to service".
And so far, you have FAILED to do so.

would you deny Jacobs descendants were Israel

Edom Esau's

again you will not claim all Israel was saved ?

all Edom lost ?

Sorry, I'm not willing to waste my time playing "20 questions" with you.
Either provide Scripture, or don't, and admit you were wrong.

 

[TomFL]

And you haven't DEMONSTRATED any "election to service" in the Bible.
But I have an open mind, and will still be open to the possibility that you will demonstrate it from SCRIPTURE (not from "rationalization", like you always do).

You are being absurd

its a concept

Israel was to serve God and the nations

Call it what you will but it is a service for which Israel was elected

 

[Theo1689]

You are being absurd

its a concept

Israel was to serve God and the nations

Call it what you will but it is a service for which Israel was elected

Show me the words "elected" and "service" in ANY verse.

And I find it incredibly amusing that you think it "absurd" for someone to hold others to SCRIPTURE for their beliefs. That certainly explains why you hold so many false doctrines, if you think holding to Scripture is "absurd".

 

[TomFL]

Show me the words "elected" and "service" in ANY verse.

And I find it incredibly amusing that you think it "absurd" for someone to hold others to SCRIPTURE for their beliefs. That certainly explains why you hold so many false doctrines, if you think holding to Scripture is "absurd".

Already gave you

Isaiah 42:1 (KJV 1900)

Behold my servant, whom I uphold;
Mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth;
I have put my spirit upon him:
He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

referencing Christ


Israel was God's servant

Ex. 32:13 —KJV
“Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.”

Lev. 25:55 —KJV
“For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”

an elect or a chosen nation





but as noted you are being absurd looking for words rather than a concept

 

[Theo1689]

Already gave you

Isaiah 42:1 (KJV 1900)

Behold my servant, whom I uphold;
Mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth;
I have put my spirit upon him:
He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Here Christ is elected to service

Nope.
It doesn't say "elected to service".
That is merely your ASSUMPTION.

 

[Theo1689]

Already gave you

Isaiah 42:1 (KJV 1900)

Behold my servant, whom I uphold;
Mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth;
I have put my spirit upon him:
He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Here Christ is elected to service


but as noted you are being absurd looking for words rather than a concept

Why is it that you hold to such a double standard?
When we speak of "unconditional election", you "look for words rather than a concept".

 

[TomFL]

Why is it that you hold to such a double standard?
When we speak of "unconditional election", you "look for words rather than a concept".

First

Do you admit there is a concept which may be called election to service

Which really indicate God's choice of a servant ?

can you deny

Second i did not ask for exact words

If you think otherwise show me where I asked for exact words

 

[TomFL]

Nope.
It doesn't say "elected to service".
That is merely your ASSUMPTION.

Again you are being absurd

The concept that God choses men/nations to serve him is clearly a biblical concept

Can you deny that ?

 

[Theo1689]

First

Do you admit there is a concept which may be called election to service

Of course not.
It's not Biblical.

Do YOU "admit" to unconditional election?
Do YOU "admit" to limited atonement?

Which really indicate God's choice of a servant ?

can you deny

Second i did not ask for exact words

If you think otherwise show me where I asked for exact words

Then you have no reason to deny them, when we have shown you the "concept" HUNDREDS of times.

But that's your game, isn't it?
You try to spew your false doctrines on us, and claim the "concept" is there, when it really isn't. That's your excuse for having unBiblical doctrines.

But when we do it, you simply DENY DENY DENY the "concept" is there.
So you get to affirm falsehood, and deny truth, whenever you want.
That's your "game".