"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. 9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, `He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' " 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." (John 1:1-17 NASB)
Welcome to our second discussion where Matt and myself are discussing Calvinism. Matt has asked for this to be our next Scripture and topic discussion. We both will have 3 comments to give to one another addressing what we believe John 1:13 means in regards to reformed theology and non-reformed theology.
Common questions that we will both discuss:
Does regeneration precede belief in Jesus?
Does John 1:13 prove or disprove that we as humans have the responsibility to either accept or reject the message of Jesus Christ?
Can we as humans do anything to be saved or is it solely 100% the work of God and we have no choice in the matter?
Hope you enjoy the discussion and that you take time to research these things out for yourselves.
7 comments:
Does regeneration precede belief in Jesus? I would say "No." Can somebody be regenerated and not believe? That is impossible. If a person is regenerated then they possess the Holy Spirit. Can a person have the Holy Spirit and not believe in Jesus? Of course, not. Maybe Kelly might try to prove that people can have the Holy Spirit and not be a believer in the Messiah to come or Jesus. I would like to see that scripture to support that theological view. It would be extremely difficult to understand how a person may have the Holy Spirit and, at the same time, not have complete salvation or believe in the Messiah. Salvation, regeneration, receiving Jesus, and possessing the Holy Spirit all come together at the same time when people are born again. You cannot have one without the other.
So what does John 1:13 "not by…the will of man" or "not…by human decision" (NIV) mean?
Firstly, Kelly, do you agree with this dictionary definition of "free will"?
"free will" –noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. (Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006).
Please clarify this so I know how to approach your view. It seems crazy to believe that the unique supernatural events or experiences of the Acts 2, Saul or Tarsus, and others brought them to belief but without a violation of their "free will." Jonah refused to obey God and he was forced by God into preaching to Nineveh. I look back and I, too, was forced into preaching and teaching. Before I was born again, I never wanted to preach, teach or share the gospel message with anybody.
I like Evel Knievel's proclamation of his salvation. After 60 years of refusing to have any spiritual thing in his life, he confessed: "I don't know what in the world happened. I don't…if it was the power of the prayer or God himself. The power of God in Jesus just grabbed me. All of a sudden, I just believed in Jesus Christ. I did. I believed in him." I love his testimony of how God lovingly turned on the switch in his soul to believe. Salvation is a complete miracle of God.
John 1:13 is support for the idea that salvation is a miracle. Calvary Chapel Pastor Chuck Smith once said, "Salvation is a miracle…If a miracle is achieving something that is humanly impossible, then salvation is a miracle because it is humanly impossible for man to save himself. So to say that the days of miracles are over would be to deny that people can be saved today. Thank God that the days of miracles are not over; He is still in the business of working miracles." ("Living Water" by Chuck Smith, see http://www.calvarychapel.com/assets/doc/ebooks/livingwater.doc).
Now, Pastor Smith did not explain how salvation can be a miracle and still preserve the "free will." I am sure that he could do it but with great difficulty.
Kelly, how do you see miracles of God? Is this definition as you see it?
Miracle is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as:
1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: "Miracles are spontaneous; they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves" (Katherine Anne Porter).
2. One that excites admiring awe. See Synonyms at wonder.
3. A miracle play.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mīrāculum, from mīrārī, to wonder at, from mīrus, wonderful; see smei- in Indo-European roots.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Miracles are events "that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature." The miracle of salvation does not come to all who desire it. Ask anybody "Do you want to live forever?" and they will say yes. Are all these people saved? No. There are many who trust in religions, prophets and the good things that they have done, but they will not have this miracle of salvation.
The words "free will" are nowhere found in the Bible except for a the OT "free will" offering. Likewise the word Trinity is not in the Bible. However, we know that the concept is there in scripture. It is interesting that the words "not...by the will of man" are found in scripture, at John 1:13. In over 20 years of attending non-denominational church services this verse is rarely mentioned from the pulpit. As a new believer, I read it and I wondered how obtaining salvation and becoming a Son of God was without having my choice. The mystery was solved as I discovered the five biblical points of Calvinism.
Years ago, I held to the Arminian view of "free will." When approached by Calvinists on John 1:13 I tried to point the previous verse which says that people must "receive Christ." And then a Calvinist explained to me "You can receive a bump on the head and not ask for it." That statement is very true. I can receive something without asking for it. Man's free will is carnal and corrupt. It is enmity to God and it is contrary to every thing that is spiritually good. John 1:5 says, "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." How can people understand Jesus without divine intervention?
Surely, John 1:13 explains the miracle of salvation and becoming a part of God's adoptive family, i.e. "born of God," (v.13). An orphan cannot choose his parents. Likewise in salvation an orphaned lost soul cannot choose his own parents, nor can he receive Christ unless the Father draws him or her and gives him or her to Jesus.
Also, I would like a slight clarification on your view of being born again. You mentioned that you thought that people in the Old Testament were not born again. How do you know this? Were the OT saints not born of water and the Spirit? We know that the the OT saints had faith. Can a person have faith and not be born again?
Thanks for the clarification.
Matt
Greetings Matt. My comments below will be in response to the opening questions concerning John 1:13, and "Does regeneration precede belief in Jesus"? My reply will be with what John 1:13 is addressing in the context with the verses before and after. I then will reply briefly to your comments, though not all of them since some of them are not in John 1:13. That was our agreement and I will be sticking to it. You have already went outside once again the text in which we are addressing. (I am not amazed anymore but still disappointed)
John 1:11-13 state: 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Point 1 (verse 11) Notice that the Scriptures say Jesus came to His own. His own in this context would be in reference to Israel, the Jewish brethren. However, as a whole, the nation of Israel, the Jewish people rejected Jesus and did not receive Him as the One to come, the Messiah they have been waiting for.
Point 2 (verse 12) But "as many as received Him", very important point. His people are in regards to Israel and they did not receive Him, but to those who did, "as many as received Him", "to them He gave the right to become children of God". Those whom Jesus came to first did not receive Him but other did and they were given the right to BECOME children of God, those who believe on His name. They became children of God after they had received Jesus. To become a child of God is the same as being born again, a new creation in Christ, hence regenerated. So those who received Jesus were not first regenerated and then able to have faith in Jesus to receive Him.
Point 3 (verse 13) This verse again says: "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" This does not teach regeneration precedes belief/faith in Jesus, that is reading into the text something that is not there. To not be born of blood meant they were not children of God because of their blood or physical decent. To not be born by the will of the flesh means through physical efforts. No one can earn their salvation! To not be born by the will of man mean we cannot save our selves or make our selves children of God, it is given as a right by Jesus to those who receive and believe in Him. The right to become children of God is not in our power but only with God. This is clearly within context of what those verses are stating. I did not need to go to other Scriptures, quote such and such, but rather allowed the Scriptures speak clearly and believe them.
The questions that were asked again are:
Does regeneration precede belief in Jesus? According to the context of these verses the answer is clearly no.
Does John 1:13 prove or disprove that we as humans have the responsibility to either accept or reject the message of Jesus Christ? Neither, verse 13 is talking about God being the One who gives us new birth/born of God, and that is based upon verses 11-12. For those who teach verse 13 teaches we have to be first regenerated in order to believe in Jesus are misunderstanding the context of these verses.
Can we as humans do anything to be saved or is it solely 100% the work of God and we have no choice in the matter? From these verses the answer is a loud and clear yes, we are to receive Jesus and we do have a choice.
Matt said: Does regeneration precede belief in Jesus? I would say "No." Can somebody be regenerated and not believe? That is impossible. If a person is regenerated then they possess the Holy Spirit. Can a person have the Holy Spirit and not believe in Jesus? Of course, not. Maybe Kelly might try to prove that people can have the Holy Spirit and not be a believer in the Messiah to come or Jesus. I would like to see that scripture to support that theological view. It would be extremely difficult to understand how a person may have the Holy Spirit and, at the same time, not have complete salvation or believe in the Messiah. Salvation, regeneration, receiving Jesus, and possessing the Holy Spirit all come together at the same time when people are born again. You cannot have one without the other.
The real issue is, if a person has to be regenerated first, then the text of John 1:11-13 is seriously worded wrong. You said a person who is regenerated will believe, but is not the issue. Can a person believe in Jesus without being born again first? Is that possible? According to you and those of reformed theology the answer is no. However from these verses the answer is yes.
You said: Salvation, regeneration, receiving Jesus, and possessing the Holy Spirit all come together at the same time when people are born again Really, are you sure? Now John 1:11-13 does not indicate that. Are you familiar with Canons of Dordt? RC Sproul? Notice what is said by the following:
"And this is the regeneration so highly celebrated in Scripture, and denominated a new creation: a resurrection from the dead, a making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation, that after God has performed his part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted, or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation, or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner, are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. - Whereupon the will thus renewed, is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence, becomes itself active. Wherefore also, man is himself rightly said to believe and repent, by virtue of that grace received."(Canons of Dordt, Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, Article 12)
REGENERATION PRECEDES FAITH. This assertion that captures the heart of the distinctive theology of historic Augustinian and Reformed thought is the watershed assertion that distinguishes that theology from all forms of semi-Pelagianism...In the Augustinian and Reformation view, regeneration is seen first of all as a supernatural work of God. Regeneration is the divine work of God the Holy Spirit upon the minds and souls of fallen people, by which the Spirit quickens those who are spiritually dead and makes them spiritually alive. This supernatural work rescues that person from his bondage to sin and his moral inability to incline himself towards the things of God...That is, when the Holy Spirit regenerates a human soul, the purpose of that regeneration is to bring that person to saving faith in Jesus Christ. Regeneration is more than giving a person the possibility of having faith, it gives him the certainty of possessing that saving faith. The result of our regeneration is first of all faith, which then results in justification and adoption into the family of God. RC Sproul on The New Birth
Here are my thoughts. The Canons of Dordt and what RC Sproul have said make it clear that a person does not at the same time have faith/belief/receive Jesus when they are regenerated, those things happen after they are regenerated. And as what has presented verse by verse John 1:11-13 proves this otherwise.
These are given as resources for what reformed theology is and comparing what you have said.
Matt asked: Firstly, Kelly, do you agree with this dictionary definition of "free will" The definition you gave are a bit limited but within what you posted I agree with "voluntary decision", that meaning we are not forced to become Christians, Jesus came and those who receive Him voluntarily are given the right to become children of God. (key words in verse 12 again - He gave and to become) From dictionary.com free will is also said to mean: "The ability or discretion to choose" This is what is demonstrated in verses 11-12, to receive or reject Jesus, plain and simple.
In regards to Chuck Smith I only giving this for your information so you know. In the future you might not want to reference Chuck Smith in support of your views since he is far from what you were trying to say. Calvary Chapel Perspective on Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Word of God by Chuck Smith
However in reference to your question: Calvary Chapel Pastor Chuck Smith once said, "Salvation is a miracle…If a miracle is achieving something that is humanly impossible, then salvation is a miracle because it is humanly impossible for man to save himself. So to say that the days of miracles are over would be to deny that people can be saved today. Thank God that the days of miracles are not over; He is still in the business of working miracles." ("Living Water") This is not in reference to John 1:13 just for your information. The point of what Chuck Smith is addressing the gifts of the body of Christ and do miracles still happen. Chuck is pointing the miracle of salvation, the spiritual birth, in which we cannot do of ourselves and I agree. However, there is nothing from this or other writings of Chuck that indicate we don't have the responsibility to receive or reject Jesus Christ. Why you inserted this is beyond me, but you seem to find stuff that you think is valid but in the end continues to disprove your point.
Note the following from the same book "Living Waters":
Where Do You Stand?
Jesus Himself put it like this: "He who believes in Him [Jesus] is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18).
This is the issue. Do you believe in God's provision for your sin? Do you believe that God sent His only begotten Son to bear your sin, to die in your place? Have you accepted or rejected Jesus Christ? That's the only issue, an individual issue. What is your relationship with Jesus Christ? Did you accept Him and the redemption that He purchased, or did you reject it by rejecting Him?
When you stand before God at the final judgment, He will ask you but one question: "What did you do with My Son?" It all comes down to your personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
The testimony of the Holy Spirit to the world is that all of us need to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and let Him become the Lord of our life. The whole issue is believing in Jesus Christ. That makes the difference in being forgiven or being condemned. It's the only issue.
That answer to your question on what Chuck Smith believes about receiving Jesus and free will. Now I don't plan on discussing Chuck Smith in this discussion since he is not my basis for what I believe concerning John 1:13. You brought him up, not sure why?
Matt asked my definition of miracles: Is this definition as you see it? I would agree with, "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God". Salvation is not natural, it is from God. I wonder why you even ask that?
Matt said: Miracles are events "that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature." The miracle of salvation does not come to all who desire it. Ask anybody "Do you want to live forever?" and they will say yes. Are all these people saved? No. There are many who trust in religions, prophets and the good things that they have done, but they will not have this miracle of salvation. Not all want to live forever, you assume that. I have talked to people who really don't care at all. (sad) They will not have that miracle, meaning being saved because they did not receive Jesus Christ as John 1:11-13 states. Those who reject Jesus will not become children of God. Interesting observation of what you said. You said "salvation does not come to all who desire it. How can they desire salvation? You mean there are people who seek to know how to be saved but will be rejected because that is the way God preordained it to be? Does God reject people who desire to be saved? What kind of God is that? If they are desiring why doesn't God reveal the truth to them so they can be saved "if they are desiring to be saved?" According to reformed theology a person cannot seek or desire after God unless they have become regenerated. Interesting how you have inserted this but in reality it is not true. Secondly you said "the good things they have done". According to reformed theology no one does good unless they are of God, hmmm.
Matt said: The words "free will" are nowhere found in the Bible except for a the OT "free will" offering. Likewise the word Trinity is not in the Bible. However, we know that the concept is there in scripture. It is interesting that the words "not...by the will of man" are found in scripture, at John 1:13. In over 20 years of attending non-denominational church services this verse is rarely mentioned from the pulpit. As a new believer, I read it and I wondered how obtaining salvation and becoming a Son of God was without having my choice. The mystery was solved as I discovered the five biblical points of Calvinism. It is true that many pulpits don't teach the whole word of God, I agree. As to your conclusion from the 5 points answering the mystery to you, well, I fully disagree with your views and those of reformed theology. I guess you may of inserted Chuck Smith from finding something at my site or something I may of said in an audio. I used to attend Calvary Chapels, I truly appreciated their style of going through the Word of God book by book and verse by verse. And I can say that I have been through the Word of God many times and that verse was not missed. (smile) That does not mean that everything that was taught from the pulpits of Calvary Chapels I agreed with, but my point is they do not run from or avoid verses to fit their own interests, they tackle them straight on, and there are other churches that do the same.
Matt said Years ago, I held to the Arminian view of "free will." When approached by Calvinists on John 1:13 I tried to point the previous verse which says that people must "receive Christ." And then a Calvinist explained to me "You can receive a bump on the head and not ask for it." That statement is very true. I can receive something without asking for it. Man's free will is carnal and corrupt. It is enmity to God and it is contrary to every thing that is spiritually good. John 1:5 says, "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." How can people understand Jesus without divine intervention? The bump on your head analogy fails because God in the Word says to us, believe, receive, trust, hope, cleave, in Jesus, so we are asked and not smacked on the head to believe, God does not force us to believe. Who said people can understand without divine intervention? Name one Arminian that says that? Of course God is first to speak, reveal, operate, etc in ones life with the message of hope, and based upon that the person receives or rejects Jesus.
You mention John 1:5, but what about: 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. Notice John the baptist was sent to testify about the Light (Jesus) and that people would believe through his testimony, not first being regenerated!
What about: 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, `He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' " 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." Notice again John the baptist pointing to Jesus, and that Jesus came into this world representing the Father. Note it says in verse 17 through Jesus grace and truth were realized. How did that happen? Does it say they were first regenerated? It would of been through His teachings that this came to be known.
Matt said Surely, John 1:13 explains the miracle of salvation and becoming a part of God's adoptive family, i.e. "born of God," (v.13). An orphan cannot choose his parents. Likewise in salvation an orphaned lost soul cannot choose his own parents, nor can he receive Christ unless the Father draws him or her and gives him or her to Jesus. Your reasoning is not Biblical. Number one, since Jesus came to the world (both Jews and Gentiles) for them to receive Him, and those who receive Him (notice they get to respond) are thereby given the right to become children of God as verse 11-12 states. Now you inserted "unless the Father draws him or her to Jesus", nice one. Are you planning to go somewhere else again? You already inserted other Scriptures which I did not reply for that very reason. Please stay to the text.
Matt said: Also, I would like a slight clarification on your view of being born again. You mentioned that you thought that people in the Old Testament were not born again. How do you know this? Were the OT saints not born of water and the Spirit? We know that the the OT saints had faith. Can a person have faith and not be born again? People in the OT had faith in God, that is clear. Being born again in the New Testament means becoming a new creation in Christ, which represents His death and resurrection. According to John 7:37-39 this did not happen until after Jesus was glorified and we see this in John 20:22 when the believers in Jesus after His resurrection were given the Holy Spirit by Jesus. People in the OT had faith in God and the Holy Spirit would of been working in their lives, but not a new creation, not an indwelling as we have today in the New Covenant. John 14:16-17 talks about the Holy Spirit being alongside the disciples but later was to be in them, hence not in them yet, not born again yet.
Very important...Our discussion is in John 1, not Acts, Not John 6, not other places, this is what we agreed on. Lets keep it with the text.
I have replied with answering the questions of this topic and replying to what you have said. I would suggest you do a bit of exegesis with the text instead of just giving various comments that are not in John 1. I am addressing this from the start. I should not have to say more...
KP
Thanks again for the opportunity to debate the theology of salvation. I hope and pray that you see in my theology how I exalt Christ above all things including my own personal will.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name…" (v.12).
Kelly said: "Point 2 (verse 12) But "as many as received Him", very important point. His people are in regards to Israel and they did not receive Him, but to those who did, "as many as received Him", "to them He gave the right to become children of God". Those whom Jesus came to first did not receive Him but others did and they were given the right to BECOME children of God, those who believe on His name. They became children of God after they had received Jesus."
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: I assume that "them" are those that warmly received Jesus by accepting his teachings during his ministry and before Pentecost. Is this assumption correct? I would agree that the Jews needed to receive Christ and become born again. Jesus told Nicodemus that regeneration was required to see the kingdom of God and that needed to happen before and after Pentecost. Am I correct? If so, then your assumption that being born again could not happen until after Pentecost is incorrect.
Kelly said, "Point 2 (verse 12)…They became children of God after they had received Jesus. To become a child of God is the same as being born again, a new creation in Christ, hence regenerated. So those who received Jesus were not first regenerated and then able to have faith in Jesus to receive Him."
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: Kelly, did you mean to say, "Those who received Jesus were not first regenerated and thus, they could not receive Christ"? I would agree that to become a child of God is the same thing as being born again.
I would clarify that the Apostle John's intent or purpose is not to explain the spiritual mechanics of how to receive Jesus. That is open to debate. The context of the verse 12 clearly states that it is a requirement to receive Jesus and believe in his name to become a part of the family of God. Receiving the real Christ of the Bible means not only to embrace his doctrine, but it means that you that you believe in Christ, have been regenerated, born again, a child of the king, and a partaker of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
What does it mean to believe in his name? The Greek word "onoma" can mean a proper name but also includes can mean the deeper aspects behind the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc. and the belief, confession and commemoration. The Christian belief for salvation is not believing in the Jesus of Mormonism, or the Watchtower. That Jesus will not save. Belief in Christ must be biblical and true.
I do underemphasize the importance of belief in Christ's name and the God-given RIGHT to become a child of God. These actions of belief and adoption cannot be separated. You cannot believe in or receive Jesus and not be adopted as a child of God. Conversely, if you are adopted by God then you cannot be a non-believer. Belief and spiritual adoption work together in salvation. You cannot have one without the other.
"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," John 1:13.
What does it mean to receive Jesus? How does that happen? Is God involved in that event? It is my belief that nobody can receive Christ without God's help. Adoption is a miracle as well as receiving Christ. These things are one spiritual event accomplished alone by God without man's decision. Some "free will" advocates might ask, "Don't people need to hold out their arms to receive something?" No. I can receive a bump on my head and not ask for it. Receiving Christ does not necessitate the willful acknowledgement or intellectual assent. That kind of receipt of Christ speaks of boasting and pride.
Kelly's objective will be to try to separate John 1:12 (receiving and belief) from John 1:13 (adoption). However, the verses are interconnected in one thought. The conditions of verse 13 reflect on the receiving and belief of verse 12. This means that the both adoption by God and receiving Christ are without the will of man or human decisions.
God alone gives the RIGHT to become his children to those that received Jesus. Receiving Jesus is a supernatural spiritual event. It cannot be done by unregenerated people apart from God. It is like getting a bump on the head. You can receive a bump and not ask for it. Likewise, people (the elect) receive Jesus and without asking him to come in.
Salvation or adoption into the family of God cannot be asked for or demanded. Nobody on Judgment Day can say "I said a sinner's prayer with Billy Graham so that means I am a child of God! You must give me eternal life!!!"
Kelly said, (Point 3) "This does not teach regeneration precedes belief/faith in Jesus, that is reading into the text something that is not there. To not be born of blood meant they were not children of God because of their blood or physical decent. To not be born by the will of the flesh means through physical efforts. No one can earn their salvation! To not be born by the will of man mean we cannot save our selves or make our selves children of God, it is given as a right by Jesus to those who receive and believe in Him.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: Can an unregenerate person receive Christ and make himself believe? I think not. Does regeneration precede faith? As I said before "No." Kelly does not like my view, but that is what I believe. I do not care about what the Reformers have said on the order of salvation. It is my view that God's regeneration of the human mind happens at the moment of belief. This means that one cannot happen without the other. Thus, the Apostle John is saying that this process cannot occur with the human will or decision of man.
Kelly said, (Point 3) The right to become children of God is not in our power but only with God. This is clearly within context of what those verses are stating. I did not need to go to other Scriptures, quote such and such, but rather allowed the Scriptures speak clearly and believe them.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: I do not need to go to other scriptures. John 1:12-13 says what it says. In order for Kelly to prove his view he must prove that receiving and believing in Christ is separate from adoption and "no human decisions." He has not proved this and he can't.
Kelly said, Does John 1:13 prove or disprove that we as humans have the responsibility to either accept or reject the message of Jesus Christ? Neither, verse 13 is talking about God being the One who gives us new birth/born of God, and that is based upon verses 11-12. For those who teach verse 13 teaches we have to be first regenerated in order to believe in Jesus are misunderstanding the context of these verses.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: As I said before regeneration does not precede belief, they are concurrent. Thus, Kelly is guilty of a straw man fallacy. He does not accurately represent my view of salvation and thus he is in total error.
Kelly said, Can we as humans do anything to be saved or is it solely 100% the work of God and we have no choice in the matter? From these verses the answer is a loud and clear yes, we are to receive Jesus and we do have a choice.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: Kelly has tried unsuccessfully to separate belief/receiving Christ and being born of God. Again, Kelly needs to prove that one can receive Jesus and not be part of the family of God. He has not done this because that task is impossible.
Kelly said: "The real issue is, if a person has to be regenerated first, then the text of John 1:11-13 is seriously worded wrong. You said a person who is regenerated will believe, but is not the issue. Can a person believe in Jesus without being born again first? Is that possible? According to you and those of reformed theology the answer is no. However from these verses the answer is yes."
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: The real issue is "How do ungenerated sinners get regenerated?" Is regeneration by a decision to receive Christ? Can a sinful person without the Holy Spirit say "I want to receive Jesus." John 1:13 and many other verses teach that this method of salvation is impossible.
The first chapter of John is not about the mechanics of salvation. It is about Jesus and what happens to people once they come to properly receive and believe in his name. Sure, it is wording is wrong if you think that hearing, calling, wooing, free will-believing, a sinner's prayers, etc. are essential parts of becoming a Christian. There is nothing in the context that says regeneration occurs apart from the first moment of belief.
Kelly said: Now John 1:11-13 does not indicate that. Are you familiar with Canons of Dordt? RC Sproul? Here are my thoughts. The Canons of Dordt and what RC Sproul have said make it clear that a person does not at the same time have faith/belief/receive Jesus when they are regenerated, those things happen after they are regenerated. And as what has presented verse by verse John 1:11-13 proves this otherwise.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: This debate is not about the Canons of Dordt or the writings of RC Sproul. Kelly, why are you saying that I must defend them? Again, this is a straw man fallacy committed by Kelly.
Kelly said: Chuck is pointing the miracle of salvation, the spiritual birth, in which we cannot do of ourselves and I agree. However, there is nothing from this or other writings of Chuck that indicate we don't have the responsibility to receive or reject Jesus Christ. Why you inserted this is beyond me, but you seem to find stuff that you think is valid but in the end continues to disprove your point.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: I understand perfectly that Chuck Smith believes in "free will." You know that I inserted the Chuck Smith because it is interesting and problematic. I was part of one of his churches for many years. My point that I agree with Pastor Smith when he says that salvation is a miracle. If making a decision is not part of that miracle then salvation is less of a miracle. In my view, the whole process is a miracle.
Kelly said: Not all want to live forever, you assume that. I have talked to people who really don't care at all. (sad)
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: Here a test. Throw anybody who said that they did not care about living forever into a deep lake with a 90lb bag of concrete tied to their legs. Then ask them if they would like to live for as long as eternity. They will tell you the truth that they do care at that point.
Kelly said: Does God reject people who desire to be saved? What kind of God is that?
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: The God of the Bible is a God of love. He made Adam and Eve perfect, yet they and their progenitors rejected him and his first covenant. God in his ever amazing grace and mercy decided to save a remnant, an elect few to be adopted into his family. You did not choose to be born the first time. Was it unloving for God not to give you that choice to be born? If not, then it is loving for God to make Christians to be born again a second time.
Kelly said: They will not have that miracle, meaning being saved because they did not receive Jesus Christ as John 1:11-13 states. Those who reject Jesus will not become children of God. Interesting observation of what you said. You said "salvation does not come to all who desire it. How can they desire salvation? You mean there are people who seek to know how to be saved but will be rejected because that is the way God preordained it to be?
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: I do not think that you have thought your words carefully. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other cults desire to have eternal life but God will not grant their wish. Why not? They did not reject Jesus and almost every cult agrees with you about "free will" and salvation. Why are these very religious people not saved? It is because they have a different Jesus.
Kelly said: If they are desiring why doesn't God reveal the truth to them so they can be saved "if they are desiring to be saved?" According to reformed theology a person cannot seek or desire after God unless they have become regenerated. Interesting how you have inserted this but in reality it is not true.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: God does reveal the truth to some people within his plan. Man's desire does not get him saved in Mormonism, Islam, or Judaism. You and I both know that God does not grade on a curve.
Kelly said: Those who reject Jesus will not become children of God. Interesting observation of what you said. You said "salvation does not come to all who desire it"…According to reformed theology a person cannot seek or desire after God unless they have become regenerated. Interesting how you have inserted this but in reality it is not true.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: Of course, I am not in error by saying "salvation does not come to all who desire it." Of course, all unregenerate people might desire to live on, but their choice to live on would not be by receiving, believing or coming to the Christ of the Bible. Their choice for gaining life might be by the teachings of Joseph Smith or the Watchtower.
Kelly said: Secondly you said "the good things they have done". According to reformed theology no one does good unless they are of God, hmmm.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: You meant to say, "According to the Bible" not "according to Reformed theology…" Your comment "cannot seek…after God…" comes from the OT and the book of Romans Chapter 3 but I think you already knew that. I actually said, "There are many who trust in religions, prophets and the good things that they have done, but they will not have this miracle of salvation." Now you are not thinking. The unsaved groups believe they "do good" and try to "do good" but it is in vain. Why do you make a comment at all? Do you not agree that religious people are trying to gain salvation by their efforts?
Kelly said In regards to Chuck Smith I only giving this for your information so you know. In the future you might not want to reference Chuck Smith in support of your views since he is far from what you were trying to say. Calvary Chapel Perspective on Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Word of God by Chuck Smith…"
I used to attend Calvary Chapels, I truly appreciated their style of going through the Word of God book by book and verse by verse. And I can say that I have been through the Word of God many times and that verse was not missed. (smile) That does not mean that everything that was taught from the pulpits of Calvary Chapels I agreed with, but my point is they do not run from or avoid verses to fit their own interests, they tackle them straight on, and there are other churches that do the same.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: Here are a few comments from John 1:13 and Chuck Smith. Notice that he threads lightly and avoids ALL the implications. Also, he does not quote any scholar on what the verse could mean.
not of the will of the flesh (Jhn 1:13)…It is not something that you can set your mind to and become. That is, "I am going to live this new dynamic life. I'm not going to walk in darkness any more; I'm going to live a generous, self-sacrificing life, the life that is the ideal that God has declared for man." You can't do it by the will of the flesh….nor is it by the will of man (Jhn 1:13),…It isn't by the force or coercion of others, or the encouragement of others. You cannot come into this new life because someone is pushing you or coercing you into it. This new birth can only come from God, born of God, as a child of God. So, I was born once by blood, by the will of the flesh and by the will of man, here I am. That was my physical birth. But my spiritual birth can't take place that way. The spiritual birth has to come from God. And so, I have been born again by the Spirit of God, the new life."
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: The new birth comes from God as any miracle. He does not elaborate on the relationship to verse 12 and receiving Christ. He wants people to believe that there is a separation between verse 12 and verses 13. There is not.
The Chuck Smith audio says this:
Our new birth…how did I become a son of God? By my new birth…the birth was not by the will of man but by the will of God,,,so, ah,,,not the will of the flesh, I'm born of the spirit by the will of God….Jesus must increase and I must decrease…
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: It is clear that Chuck Smith can accept adoption as a work of God. That seems to be a way to exalt Christ. However, he does not touch the idea that the receiving of Christ and belief is without a human decision.
Chuck Smith said, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so sin passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (5:12). The word "have" is added in the KJV; the original Greek reads, "...because all sinned." Paul is saying that when Adam sinned, he sinned for the whole human race. Just as Adam became a sinful creature, spiritually dead and separated from God, so did his children. Adam couldn't pass along any fellowship with God to his children, because he had lost it; and because he acted as our federal head, we came into this world separated from God." The Gospel According to Grace, Chuck Smith, pp 43.44.
Chuck Smith said, "It is important that the Spirit do the changing from within. When this happens, only God can receive the glory. Where is my boasting? It is excluded. There is no way I can boast, because what I was I still am. But thanks be to God for His grace: through the power of His Holy Spirit I am now a new creature in Christ Jesus. The old nature I count as dead." CHARISMA VS. CHARISMANIA by Chuck Smith
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: Boasting in one salvation can happen and it does if you hold to "free will."
John Piper says: We need to be born. We need to have spiritual life. That is what God does according to John 1:13 without any help from us—"not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God." We are born of God by a free act of sovereign grace. He chooses us before we choose him.
Augustine: "We must preach, we must reprove, we must pray, because they to whom grace is given will hear and act accordingly, though they to whom grace is not given will do neither."
Kelly, I lovingly suggest that you pray about changing your view about God's miracle of salvation.
In Jesus,
Matt Paulson
CARM
Hello out there. I am just posting this briefly so Matt and others know. I have been pretty busy lately and have emailed Matt letting him know this. I plan to soon reply on this blog.
KP
Greetings to Matt and others who read this discussion. As I shared previously I have been preoccupied and somewhat not focused on this discussion. My apologies. This will be my second reply to Matt, and I will point that out by saying, QUOTE: "Matt said". I will focus on main points. Ok with that being said let move on.
QUOTE: Kelly said: "Point 2 (verse 12) But "as many as received Him", very important point. His people are in regards to Israel and they did not receive Him, but to those who did, "as many as received Him", "to them He gave the right to become children of God". Those whom Jesus came to first did not receive Him but others did and they were given the right to BECOME children of God, those who believe on His name. They became children of God after they had received Jesus."
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: I assume that "them" are those that warmly received Jesus by accepting his teachings during his ministry and before Pentecost. Is this assumption correct? I would agree that the Jews needed to receive Christ and become born again. Jesus told Nicodemus that regeneration was required to see the kingdom of God and that needed to happen before and after Pentecost. Am I correct? If so, then your assumption that being born again could not happen until after Pentecost is incorrect. Here is a problem within Calvinism. Calvinism believes before the work of the cross and Jesus' resurrection people could of been born again as a new creation, but I believe Scripturally that is not sound doctrine. People did have some type of beliefs in Jesus prior to His crucifixion, however as we know from Scripture many (majority) of them did not keep following Jesus. The point is that it was not until after Jesus death and resurrection that someone could become a new creation in Christ with a new spiritual experience, hence born again. So to reply to what you have said, those who received Jesus and became children of God would be people after the resurrection of Jesus, not before. I am not sure what you are talking about before or after Pentecost, that was confusing. And I have not stated that people could not of been born again until after Pentecost. People think that is when the disciples received the Holy Spirit, but they did earlier, John 20:22. I only reference that to provide my reasoning behind that statement. At Pentecost they received the power of the Holy Spirit upon them to be witnesses. That is what Acts 1:4-8 states. Again only referencing to show where that comes from. So I don't know where you got the idea that I believed it was after Pentecost. Really does not matter. The main point in response has been stated.
QUOTE: Kelly said, "Point 2 (verse 12)…They became children of God after they had received Jesus. To become a child of God is the same as being born again, a new creation in Christ, hence regenerated. So those who received Jesus were not first regenerated and then able to have faith in Jesus to receive Him."
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: Kelly, did you mean to say, "Those who received Jesus were not first regenerated and thus, they could not receive Christ"? I would agree that to become a child of God is the same thing as being born again. What are you talking about, "they could not receive Christ"? I was clear. Calvinism (Matt) teaches that in order for a person to receive Christ they first have to be born again/regenerated. You said you agree that "to become a child of God is the same thing as being born again". Good! We are getting somewhere. Notice it says they believed, received, and they then "became sons of God". So they believed and received Jesus prior to becoming a child of God. How do you miss that?
QUOTE: What does it mean to receive Jesus? How does that happen? Is God involved in that event? It is my belief that nobody can receive Christ without God's help. Adoption is a miracle as well as receiving Christ. These things are one spiritual event accomplished alone by God without man's decision. Some "free will" advocates might ask, "Don't people need to hold out their arms to receive something?" No. I can receive a bump on my head and not ask for it. Receiving Christ does not necessitate the willful acknowledgement or intellectual assent. That kind of receipt of Christ speaks of boasting and pride. I would fully agree that nobody receives Christ without God's help, who says otherwise? Where you and I disagree is that a person has no choice in the matter to accept or reject Christ. If the person has been preordained (Calvinism understanding) to be saved and that they cannot resist (Irresistible Grace), of course they will believe, that have to. But if they have been preordained to eternal destruction/hell (Calvinism understanding) then they have no hope whatsoever to receive Christ, no matter what is said or who says it. That is plain SAD and un-Biblical! You bring up the bump on the head thing, lol, oh my goodness. That is really silly. Does that mean that when you got the bump you could not of ducked or moved out of the way? When you got the bump, did you become the thing that bumped you? When you got that bump on your head did it make you become someone else other than yourself? I mean really, that is silly analogy. The Bible is clear that God calls out to people to believe, follow, deny, ask, seek, knock, choose, confess, repent, have faith in, obey, in reference to people coming to God.
QUOTE: Salvation or adoption into the family of God cannot be asked for or demanded. Nobody on Judgment Day can say "I said a sinner's prayer with Billy Graham so that means I am a child of God! You must give me eternal life!!!" This is so silly, I had to give a comment. Or wait, I was predestined to. (smile) This comment has nothing to do really with John 1:12-13 directly so I am going to give a simple reply. Acts 16:30-31 the jailer asked Paul what he must do to be saved, remember? Paul said um, huh, that is a great question, glad you asked, there is nothing you can do sir. If you are chosen to believe you will, there is nothing you can say or do or respond to, if God has chosen you then you will be saved. If not, well then you have no hope at all and no matter how much you would like to be saved, well it is God's glory that you are not saved. Is that what it says? No, nothing close, but in reality that is how Calvinism understands a person coming to God, they can do nothing, nada, zilch. But Paul said, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". Why (not just here many places in Scripture) does Paul say to this guy to believe if he could not? If the guy could do nothing as Matt seems to continue to advocate, why does the Bible indicate that people have choices to make, and they can choose life or choose death?
QUOTE:Kelly said, (Point 3) "This does not teach regeneration precedes belief/faith in Jesus, that is reading into the text something that is not there. To not be born of blood meant they were not children of God because of their blood or physical decent. To not be born by the will of the flesh means through physical efforts. No one can earn their salvation! To not be born by the will of man mean we cannot save our selves or make our selves children of God, it is given as a right by Jesus to those who receive and believe in Him.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: Can an unregenerate person receive Christ and make himself believe? I think not. Does regeneration precede faith? As I said before "No." Kelly does not like my view, but that is what I believe. I do not care about what the Reformers have said on the order of salvation. It is my view that God's regeneration of the human mind happens at the moment of belief. This means that one cannot happen without the other. Thus, the Apostle John is saying that this process cannot occur with the human will or decision of man. Well you definitely are a minority if you don't agree with your reformers. According to Calvinism one is first regenerated and then believes. Interesting enough it seems you believe when a person believes they are instantly born again. So I take that very literal and examine that a bit more. For a slight micro second a person believes first and then is born again, since the emphasis is on believing. You theology is really confusing to be honest. At least talking to normal (smile) reformers/calvinists they are more clear on this.
QUOTE: Kelly said, (Point 3) The right to become children of God is not in our power but only with God. This is clearly within context of what those verses are stating. I did not need to go to other Scriptures, quote such and such, but rather allowed the Scriptures speak clearly and believe them.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: I do not need to go to other scriptures. John 1:12-13 says what it says. In order for Kelly to prove his view he must prove that receiving and believing in Christ is separate from adoption and "no human decisions." He has not proved this and he can't. It says they received and then they became, shows the two being distinct. They first received and believed, then they became children of God. Not that complicated. As to human decisions, I already addressed that.
QUOTE: Kelly said, Does John 1:13 prove or disprove that we as humans have the responsibility to either accept or reject the message of Jesus Christ? Neither, verse 13 is talking about God being the One who gives us new birth/born of God, and that is based upon verses 11-12. For those who teach verse 13 teaches we have to be first regenerated in order to believe in Jesus are misunderstanding the context of these verses.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: As I said before regeneration does not precede belief, they are concurrent. Thus, Kelly is guilty of a straw man fallacy. He does not accurately represent my view of salvation and thus he is in total error. Already addressed and pretty clear that one does receive prior to becoming a child of God, that is what the Word states. If you claim to be a Calvinist, of the reformed faith, they state that regeneration precedes faith in Jesus. Better come up with a new name to identify yourself. Hey I did it, though being somewhat silly. I call myself an arvinist since I believe that both Arminianism and Calvinism have truth.
QUOTE: Kelly said: Now John 1:11-13 does not indicate that. Are you familiar with Canons of Dordt? RC Sproul? Here are my thoughts. The Canons of Dordt and what RC Sproul have said make it clear that a person does not at the same time have faith/belief/receive Jesus when they are regenerated, those things happen after they are regenerated. And as what has presented verse by verse John 1:11-13 proves this otherwise.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: This debate is not about the Canons of Dordt or the writings of RC Sproul. Kelly, why are you saying that I must defend them? Again, this is a straw man fallacy committed by Kelly. You are funny with the straw man statements. I find those who are of the Calvinist camp using that statement funny, I really do, as if that makes what you said right. You have said you are a Calvinist, a reformer, and one who holds to the TULIP. I have provided Canons of Dorbt and RC Sproul as examples for what is believed concerning a person being regenerated and which comes first. As I said before, you need to re-identify yourself. Do call yourself a Calvinist or reformer anymore since you really don't believe what they do.
QUOTE: Kelly said: They will not have that miracle, meaning being saved because they did not receive Jesus Christ as John 1:11-13 states. Those who reject Jesus will not become children of God. Interesting observation of what you said. You said "salvation does not come to all who desire it. How can they desire salvation? You mean there are people who seek to know how to be saved but will be rejected because that is the way God preordained it to be?
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: I do not think that you have thought your words carefully. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other cults desire to have eternal life but God will not grant their wish. Why not? They did not reject Jesus and almost every cult agrees with you about "free will" and salvation. Why are these very religious people not saved? It is because they have a different Jesus. I again restate my statement to you. How can people desire salvation? Are you saying the God of the Bible will purposely reject people if they are truly seeking Him? Of course JWs and LDS have another Jesus. But they are seeking God, truth, Jesus, Salvation, are they not? If you say no man you are really out there. You know full well they are seeking, they have just have not accepted the true Jesus and true gospel. Why is that Matt? Is it because that is the way God made them to be? Or is it because of sin? Or is it because they choose to be that way? According to Calvinism all that happens is God's Sovereign plan and purposes, hence they are lost because that is the way God preordained them to be, and you know that is right according to Calvinism.
QUOTE: Kelly said: Those who reject Jesus will not become children of God. Interesting observation of what you said. You said "salvation does not come to all who desire it"…According to reformed theology a person cannot seek or desire after God unless they have become regenerated. Interesting how you have inserted this but in reality it is not true.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/6: Of course, I am not in error by saying "salvation does not come to all who desire it." Of course, all unregenerate people might desire to live on, but their choice to live on would not be by receiving, believing or coming to the Christ of the Bible. Their choice for gaining life might be by the teachings of Joseph Smith or the Watchtower. That is silly. There are many within various religious beliefs that desire to be saved, you just won't admit it. The point is, they are desiring it, which shows people do seek or want to be saved, hence the T in the TULIP is not flawless in what it claims to be.
I have chosen not to reply to every little detail, as I noticed you did not reply to the things I stated either. So I replied to certain specific things that I believed needed a reply or could use a reply. It is obvious you are not allowing the text of John 1:12-13 be clear and you have to read into the verses what you wish them to say on a person not being able to respond and receive Jesus prior to being born again or becoming a child of God, but the text states otherwise.
We both have one last reply to give on this discussion. I really hope you talk more about John 1:12-13 and not all the silly comments, additional people. Just for the record you brought up Chuck Smith in your first comment. I replied to it the first time and said I would not the next. You brought up John Piper and Augustine and yet criticized me on referencing RC Sproul and the Canons of Dorbt, that is very funny. (I did so to establish reformed theology on regeneration) So if I would reference John Piper or Augustine concerning regeneration preceding receiving Jesus, what would they say? I don't plan to post them but I bet they would say regeneration precedes belief in Jesus.
Ok this is my second reply. I apologize for not doing this sooner. I will reply with my third much sooner than I did with the second.
KP
Greetings Kelly! This is my final reply. I hope and pray that you enjoy it.
Matt said 8/30: "Does regeneration precede belief in Jesus? I would say "No." Can somebody be regenerated and not believe? That is impossible.
MATTS RESPONSE 9/6: This debate is not about the Canons of Dordt or the writings of RC Sproul. Kelly, why are you saying that I must defend them? Again, this is a straw man fallacy committed by Kelly.
Kelly said 10/2: You are funny with the straw man statements. I find those who are of the Calvinist camp using that statement funny, I really do, as if that makes what you said right. You have said you are a Calvinist, a reformer, and one who holds to the TULIP. I have provided Canons of Dordt and RC Sproul as examples for what is believed concerning a person being regenerated and which comes first. As I said before, you need to re-identify yourself. Do call yourself a Calvinist or reformer anymore since you really don't believe what they do.
Kelly said 10/2: The real issue is, if a person has to be regenerated first, then the text of John 1:11-13 is seriously worded wrong. You said a person who is regenerated will believe, but is not the issue. Can a person believe in Jesus without being born again first? Is that possible? [September 3, 2007 4:26 PM According to you and those of reformed theology the answer is no. However from these verses the answer is yes.
Kelly's reply 10/2: Well you definitely are a minority if you don't agree with your reformers. According to Calvinism one is first regenerated and then believes. Interesting enough it seems you believe when a person believes they are instantly born again. So I take that very literal and examine that a bit more. For a slight micro second a person believes first and then is born again, since the emphasis is on believing. You theology is really confusing to be honest. At least talking to normal (smile) reformers/calvinists they are more clear on this.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/8: Kelly, you are off by more than a "microsecond" on this one. I am not an expert on Calvinism, but I do know that you are misrepresenting that view (i.e. a strawman argument). Actually, I am perfectly "normal" with the Reformers on this topic. It is you who are incorrect about me holding a the minority position. Apparently you are misunderstanding Reformed theology. RC Sproul and I agree in principle about salvation. In the following paragraph he contrasts theologian Zane Hodges' view that faith precedes regeneration and the Reformed view. Sproul comments come from his book "What is Reformed Theology?" pages 194-195:
There is no mistaking that Hodges sees regeneration as a consequence or result of faith. Regeneration occurs because of faith. For Hodges faith clearly precedes regeneration, which not only distances him for the I of TULIP but also from the T. Since his has the unregenerate person responding in faith to the gospel, he cannot possibly affirm the doctrine of moral responsibility that is essential to the Reformed view of radical corruption or total depravity. For this reason Hodges and others who define themselves as Dispensationalists are said by Gerstner to embrace a "spurious" form of Calvinism. When speaking of the order of salvation (ordo salutis), Reformed theology always and everywhere insists that regeneration precedes faith. Regeneration precedes faith because it is a necessary condition for faith. Indeed, it is the sine qua non of faith. It is important to understand, however, that that order of salvation refers to a logical order, not necessarily a temporal order. For example, when we say that justification is by faith, we do not mean that faith occurs first, and then we are justified at some time later. We believe that at the very moment faith is present, justification occurs. There is no time lapse between faith and justification. They occur simultaneously. Why do we say that faith precedes justification? Faith precedes justification is a logical sense, not in a temporal sense.
MATT'S COMMENTS ON RC SPROUL 10/8: Again we are not debating RC Sproul, the Westminster Confession, John Calvin, Augustine or the Councils of Dordt. You must deal with me on the issue of John 1:12-13. So far, you have failed in demonstrating that faith precedes a regeneration (without human decision). Also, we both agree salvation is a miracle. However, we do not agree of the limitations of that miracle. To all who received Jesus and to those who believed, he gave the right to become children of God-children born...without human decisions. Notice every action is God's doing. Ultimately, John 1:12 says "receiving" Jesus which makes a child of God (verse 13)without any human decision.
TOPIC: Can receiving Christ be a "bump" on the head?
Matt said Years ago, I held to the Arminian view of "free will." When approached by Calvinists on John 1:13 I tried to point the previous verse which says that people must "receive Christ." And then a Calvinist explained to me "You can receive a bump on the head and not ask for it." That statement is very true. I can receive something without asking for it. Man's free will is carnal and corrupt. It is enmity to God and it is contrary to every thing that is spiritually good. John 1:5 says, "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." How can people understand Jesus without divine intervention?
Kelly said 10/2: The bump on your head analogy fails because God in the Word says to us, believe, receive, trust, hope, cleave, in Jesus, so we are asked and not smacked on the head to believe, God does not force us to believe. Who said people can understand without divine intervention? Name one Arminian that says that? Of course God is first to speak, reveal, operate, etc in ones life with the message of hope, and based upon that the person receives or rejects Jesus.
MATTS REPLY 10/8: Where does John 1:12-13 say "trust, hope, cleave"? Can the Greek word "Lambano" (translated "receive") be a non-cognitive action such as a bump on the head? YES! Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
A1. Receive, Receiving [Verb]
lambano denotes either "to take" or "to receive,"
(I) literally,
(a) without an object, in contrast to asking, e.g., Matt_7:8; Mark_11:24, RV, "have received" (the original has no object);
(b) in contrast to giving, e.g., Matt_10:8; Acts_20:35;
(c) with objects, whether things, e.g., Mark_10:30; Luke_18:30, in the best mss. (some have apolambano); John_13:30; Acts_9:19, RV, "took" (AV, "received"); 1_Cor_9:25, RV, "receive" (AV, "obtain"); or persons, e.g., John_6:21; John_13:20; John_16:14, RV, "take;" 2_John_1:10; in Mark_14:65, RV, "received (Him with BLOWS of their hands);" this has been styled a vulgarism;
Yes. According to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words "receiving" Christ can be interpreted as receiving something that you did not ask for such as in a beating. Do you now admit that the bump on the head is biblical?
Kelly said, 10:2 You mention John 1:5, but what about: 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. Notice John the baptist was sent to testify about the Light (Jesus) and that people would believe through his testimony, not first being regenerated! What about: 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, `He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' " 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." Notice again John the baptist pointing to Jesus, and that Jesus came into this world representing the Father. Note it says in verse 17 through Jesus grace and truth were realized. How did that happen? Does it say they were first regenerated? It would of been through His teachings that this came to be known.
MATTS REPLY: Of course in the life of Jesus Christ grace and truth were realized and the the darkness did not comprehend it. How did that happen? ANSWER: It was 100% by the Holy Spirit, a miracle.
Kelly's question: Does it say they were first regenerated?
MATTS REPLY: Does scripture need to give an exact formulae for salvation? You asked "How did (grace and truth were realized) happen with John the Baptism proclaiming it?" Of course, the gospel is the method that God has ordained to bring salvation to his elect. How else will people come to believe? They must believe and the gospel message needs to get conveyed to the elect one way or another.
Matt said Surely, John 1:13 explains the miracle of salvation and becoming a part of God's adoptive family, i.e. "born of God," (v.13). An orphan cannot choose his parents. Likewise in salvation an orphaned cannot choose his own parents, nor can he receive Christ unless the Father draws him or her and gives him or her to Jesus.
Kelly's reply 10/2: Your reasoning is not Biblical. Number one, since Jesus came to the world (both Jews and Gentiles) for them to receive Him, and those who receive Him (notice they get to respond) are thereby given the right to become children of God as verse 11-12 states.
MATTS REPLY: My reasoning is very biblical. The term orphan fits the very biblical idea of adoption by God. Again, you cannot understand how this analogy of adoption fits with your "free will" position. So, actually, it seems your reasoning is unbiblical. John 1:12-13 is not a sinner's prayer, nor is it a invitation to accept Jesus It says to receive and believe in Jesus Christ and this is the miracle part of salvation.
Matt said: Also, I would like a slight clarification on your view of being born again. You mentioned that you thought that people in the Old Testament were not born again. How do you know this? Were the OT saints not born of water and the Spirit? We know that the the OT saints had faith. Can a person have faith and not be born again? People in the OT had faith in God, that is clear. Being born again in the New Testament means becoming a new creation in Christ, which represents His death and resurrection. According to John 7:37-39 this did not happen until after Jesus was glorified and we see this in John 20:22 when the believers in Jesus after His resurrection were given the Holy Spirit by Jesus.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/8: Actually, in John 3 Jesus answered Nicodemus, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." 9 "How can this be?" Nicodemus asked. 10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?"
QUESTION FOR KELLY: Did Jesus say that the Pharisees were supposed to know about being "born again"? Of course! There are dozens of scriptures of the born again conversion in the Old Testament. We can leave that subject for another time.
People in the OT had faith in God and the Holy Spirit would of been working in their lives, but not a new creation, not an indwelling as we have today in the New Covenant. John 14:16-17 talks about the Holy Spirit being alongside the disciples but later was to be in them, hence not in them yet, not born again yet.
MATTS RESPONSE 10/8: There is nothing in the book of John that indicates that the eleven disciples were not born again and 100% elect when Jesus first called them. The eleven left everything and followed Jesus. Judas is the exception chosen as a betrayer to fulfill the scriptures (John 17:11). Jesus did not say that being born again was a new conversion method for mankind in the New Covenant. Being born from above has always been the way that God saves.
Kelly said 10:2: Just for the record you brought up Chuck Smith in your first comment. I replied to it the first time and said I would not the next. You brought up John Piper and Augustine and yet criticized me on referencing RC Sproul and the Canons of Dorbt, that is very funny. (I did so to establish reformed theology on regeneration) So if I would reference John Piper or Augustine concerning regeneration preceding receiving Jesus, what would they say? I don't plan to post them but I bet they would say regeneration precedes belief in Jesus.
MATTS REPLY: Please do if you can. My thought was that Chuck Smith was your Pastor and he gave you some of your theology. Why not quote him? Also, I attended a Calvary Chapel. So, I like to quote him when he agrees with me. What is wrong with that? If he has no authority with you then you are welcome to ignore him. Augustine holds authority because he is a very early theologian. Please quote him if you can find a quote that agrees with your theology and the order of salvation.
While attending Calvary Chapel, I never heard John 1:13 explained from the pulpit. However, many times John 1:12 was mentioned. I showed John 1:13 to a couple to Calvary pastors and asked them what it meant. None of them could explain this verse.
Kelly, I do admire your efforts, for trying to arrive at a interpretation that fits with your theology and I do look forward to your final reply.
In Jesus,
Matt Paulson
CARM
Greetings Matt, thank you for your reply. This is my final reply to you on this discussion, of which this topic here is done. I will address the main points of discussion.
QUOTE: MATTS RESPONSE 10/8: Kelly, you are off by more than a "microsecond" on this one. I am not an expert on Calvinism, but I do know that you are misrepresenting that view (i.e. a strawman argument). Actually, I am perfectly "normal" with the Reformers on this topic. It is you who are incorrect about me holding a the minority position. Apparently you are misunderstanding Reformed theology. RC Sproul and I agree in principle about salvation. In the following paragraph he contrasts theologian Zane Hodges' view that faith precedes regeneration and the Reformed view. Sproul comments come from his book "What is Reformed Theology?" pages 194-195:
MY REPLY: I am very familiar with the doctrines of the TULIP, particularly the T. I read what you quoted on Sproul and find it interesting you say you two are in agreement. As I shared before Sproul teaches that a person must be regenerated first in order for a person to have faith to believe in Jesus Christ. You have said they are at the same exact time, not regeneration preceding faith. Sproul does not agree with you and you even quoted him which shows you are missing it.
Here is what you quoted: There is no mistaking that Hodges sees regeneration as a consequence or result of faith. Regeneration occurs because of faith. For Hodges faith clearly precedes regeneration, which not only distances him for the I of TULIP but also from the T. Since his has the unregenerate person responding in faith to the gospel, he cannot possibly affirm the doctrine of moral responsibility that is essential to the Reformed view of radical corruption or total depravity. For this reason Hodges and others who define themselves as Dispensationalists are said by Gerstner to embrace a "spurious" form of Calvinism. When speaking of the order of salvation (ordo salutis), Reformed theology always and everywhere insists that regeneration precedes faith. Regeneration precedes faith because it is a necessary condition for faith. Indeed, it is the sine qua non of faith. It is important to understand, however, that that order of salvation refers to a logical order, not necessarily a temporal order. For example, when we say that justification is by faith, we do not mean that faith occurs first, and then we are justified at some time later. We believe that at the very moment faith is present, justification occurs. There is no time lapse between faith and justification. They occur simultaneously. Why do we say that faith precedes justification? Faith precedes justification is a logical sense, not in a temporal sense. The bold lettering is where Sproul states regeneration is before faith.
QUOTE: MATT'S COMMENTS ON RC SPROUL 10/8: Again we are not debating RC Sproul, the Westminster Confession, John Calvin, Augustine or the Councils of Dordt. You must deal with me on the issue of John 1:12-13. So far, you have failed in demonstrating that faith precedes a regeneration (without human decision). Also, we both agree salvation is a miracle. However, we do not agree of the limitations of that miracle. To all who received Jesus and to those who believed, he gave the right to become children of God-children born...without human decisions. Notice every action is God's doing. Ultimately, John 1:12 says "receiving" Jesus which makes a child of God (verse 13)without any human decision.
MY REPLY: Matt you just don't get it. What you believe about the TULIP comes from those people you mentioned and creeds. So when you say you believe the TULIP and reformed theology but then you don't say it the way others do, it is you who needs to rethink what you are saying. I brought up Sproul as an example to show that regeneration is taught (by many by the way) to happen before one has faith in Jesus, and your statements of regeneration and faith at the same time makes no sense. (still doesn't) I have made a biblical case within the context of John 1 addressing that a person first received Jesus and then they were "given the right to become", to become, to become, to become, "children of God". That means they did something first and became something after which they were not previously. That is just basic stuff. I have addressed point by point verse 13 previously on those who were not born by flesh, the will, or human decision, but of God, and that is in reference to being born from above supernaturally. Meaning that they cannot make themselves spiritually clean or alive, that comes from God based on them responding to what God has told them to do. That is the basic Bible facts.
QUOTE: MATTS REPLY 10/8: Where does John 1:12-13 say "trust, hope, cleave"? Can the Greek word "Lambano" (translated "receive") be a non-cognitive action such as a bump on the head? YES! Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
A1. Receive, Receiving [Verb]
lambano denotes either "to take" or "to receive,"
(I) literally,
(a) without an object, in contrast to asking, e.g., Matt_7:8; Mark_11:24, RV, "have received" (the original has no object);
(b) in contrast to giving, e.g., Matt_10:8; Acts_20:35;
(c) with objects, whether things, e.g., Mark_10:30; Luke_18:30, in the best mss. (some have apolambano); John_13:30; Acts_9:19, RV, "took" (AV, "received"); 1_Cor_9:25, RV, "receive" (AV, "obtain"); or persons, e.g., John_6:21; John_13:20; John_16:14, RV, "take;" 2_John_1:10; in Mark_14:65, RV, "received (Him with BLOWS of their hands);" this has been styled a vulgarism;
Yes. According to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words "receiving" Christ can be interpreted as receiving something that you did not ask for such as in a beating. Do you now admit that the bump on the head is biblical?
MY REPLY: First off I read nothing on Vines that states what you said, nada, just not there. Here is what VINES states from his commentary on that verse, lets see if what you think matches how Vines addresses what it meant to receive Jesus.
Men in general did not recognize Him, but the Jews, to whom He was especially sent, did not receive Him (paralambanoµ, a strong word, “did not give Him a welcome”). “But as many as received Him [lambanoµ, a simple but spontaneous acceptance from individuals, whether Jews or Gentiles, and so a simpler verb than that used before of the Jewish nation], to them gave He the right to become children of God,”—not dunamis, power, but exousia, a right (dunamis expresses the faculty, the capacity, but the right is bestowed to those who receive Him), “even to them that believe on His Name” (Vines Commentary on John 1:12)
Here is what Vines indicates on receiving Jesus. Firstly, they welcomed Jesus and accepted Him. Secondly, those who accepted (received) Jesus then became children of God. They became children of God by their accepting Jesus and they were given the right to become children, what an amazing love of God for all those who will accept Jesus and not reject Him, praise the Lord...
You said, "Yes. According to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words "receiving" Christ can be interpreted as receiving something that you did not ask for such as in a beating. Do you now admit that the bump on the head is biblical?". No, because that is not what Vines nor receiving Jesus means. You are trying to force that interpretation into it, but it just is not accurate.
QUOTE: MATTS RESPONSE 10/8: There is nothing in the book of John that indicates that the eleven disciples were not born again and 100% elect when Jesus first called them. The eleven left everything and followed Jesus. Judas is the exception chosen as a betrayer to fulfill the scriptures (John 17:11). Jesus did not say that being born again was a new conversion method for mankind in the New Covenant. Being born from above has always been the way that God saves.
MY REPLY: I have made it clear from my previous two replies that people were not born again/ a new creation in Christ, regenerated and made alive, until Jesus was crucified and raised the third day. As I have stated from John the apostle in John 7:37-39, John 14:16-17, John 16:7-15, and they received the this experience after Jesus was raised in John 20:22. They later received the Holy Spirit coming upon them in Acts 2. Again you have been shown this yet you continue to hold on to your traditions rather than Scripture in clarity.
QUOTE: While attending Calvary Chapel, I never heard John 1:13 explained from the pulpit. However, many times John 1:12 was mentioned. I showed John 1:13 to a couple to Calvary pastors and asked them what it meant. None of them could explain this verse.
Kelly, I do admire your efforts, for trying to arrive at a interpretation that fits with your theology and I do look forward to your final reply.
MY REPLY: First off if you went to Calvary Chapel as you said you know that they go through the whole Bible, and that can take some 5 years going verse by verse. So your statement that you never hear them explain John 1:13 from the pulpit is not a fair nor accurate statement. If you were there with them going through the whole Bible and they so how forgot verse 13, that would be a bit silly. Anyone with a basic knowing of Calvary Chapel knows they all go through the whole Word of God. Now maybe they did not fully explain it in detail or maybe you missed that day, who knows, but they do cover every verse in the Bible, and that is a huge point of credibility for Calvary Chapel pastors.
You said you showed this verse to Calvary Chapel pastors they could not explain it, hmmmm. I just cannot by into that, not for a moment. I am not saying that Calvary Chapel pastors are without fault or make mistakes, but to say what you said is just down right wrong! Now what you said is your testimony and my experience and ministry within CC proves that otherwise. Here is how I know that is flat out wrong. Calvary Chapel pastors are discipled and normally will learn various studies from Chuck Smith, not that they are Smithites but that they come to be familiar with Chuck Smith understandings. Here is what Chuck teaches on John 1:13, you will find this very interesting and all Calvary Chapel pastors would be familiar with this reference as a source.
Which were born, not of blood (Jhn 1:13),
You cannot become a son of God through physical genealogy. I am not a son of God because my parents were Christians. My children are not Christians because I am a Christian. It's not of blood, it's not something that you can inherit from your parents or pass on to your children. This dynamic life as a child of God is
not of the will of the flesh (Jhn 1:13),
It is not something that you can set your mind to and become. That is, "I am going to live this new dynamic life. I'm not going to walk in darkness any more; I'm going to live a generous, self-sacrificing life, the life that is the ideal that God has declared for man." You can't do it by the will of the flesh.
nor is it by the will of man (Jhn 1:13),
It isn't by the force or coercion of others, or the encouragement of others. You cannot come into this new life because someone is pushing you or coercing you into it. This new birth can only come from God, born of God, as a child of God.
So, I was born once by blood, by the will of the flesh and by the will of man, here I am. That was my physical birth. But my spiritual birth can't take place that way. The spiritual birth has to come from God. And so, I have been born again by the Spirit of God, the new life. (Commentary from Chuck Smith, John 1:13)
So there you go, from Chuck Smith, a familiar source for pastors within Calvary Chapel. As to, "I do admire your efforts, for trying to arrive at a interpretation that fits with your theology and I do look forward to your final reply." comments here is what I have to say. I appreciated you taking the time to share your views here in this forum. I have stayed with the text that were to be addressed; I addressed the context of the text; I have agreed with the text and not made it say something it does not. I know you believe what you have shared is right but I honestly don't believe you are going with the text and I believe you are highly influenced by many reformed teachers. Thanks to sharing in this discussion and my prayer is that those who read this here will take the time to read carefully and prayerfully what has been shared by both of us, and examine this more for themselves.
Sincerely,
Kelly Powers
Post a Comment