Is Dispensationalism a Cult?
Forum category
In a book entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth Calvinst author John H. Gerstner accuses dispensationalism of departing from the truth in its doctrine of salvation. He then says, “To depart from the essential salvation pattern is inevitably to depart from Christianity. We define a cult as a religion which claims to be Christian while emptying Christianity of that which is essential to it” (John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, Second Edition, 2000: , 169).
This book is endorsed by many of the leading Calvinists of our day so they too must believe that Dispensationalism is a cult. One of the major disagreements is on the subject of “regeneration.”
Does Regeneration Precede Faith?
Here Gesrstner states the difference between Calvinists and Dispensationalists in regard to regeneration:
“The question is whether faith is ‘based’ on regeneration or regeneration is ‘based’ on faith. That is, is it ‘because’ a person is regenerated that he believes, or is it ‘because’ he believes that he is regenerated? There can be no question that the dispensationalists are saying that it is because a person believes that he is regenerated simultaneously” (Ibid., 159).
Of course the word “regeneration” means passing from spiritual death to spiritual life. Let us look at the following words of the Lord Jesus to see if it can be helpful in answering the question as what comes first, regeneration or faith?:
“He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (Jn.5:24).
Here the Lord Jesus speaks of passing “from death unto life.” From the following words of the Apostle John we can understand that what he wrote in his gospel was written so that those who believed would receive life as a result of believing:
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Jn.20:30-31).
It is a result of believing that the sinner is “passed from death unto life.” The Calvinist teach that a person is regenerated prior to believing. That idea is directly contradicted by the words of John which I quoted.
Since it is “believing” that results in passing from death unto life it is obvious that one must be dead spiritually before believing. Despite this the Calvinists say that one is “alive” spiritually before believing.
The Dispensationalist view on this subject is the correct view because it is based on what the Scriptures actually say. The Calvinist view is based on a denial of what John wrote. Dispensationalism is not a cult.
This book is endorsed by many of the leading Calvinists of our day so they too must believe that Dispensationalism is a cult. One of the major disagreements is on the subject of “regeneration.”
Does Regeneration Precede Faith?
Here Gesrstner states the difference between Calvinists and Dispensationalists in regard to regeneration:
“The question is whether faith is ‘based’ on regeneration or regeneration is ‘based’ on faith. That is, is it ‘because’ a person is regenerated that he believes, or is it ‘because’ he believes that he is regenerated? There can be no question that the dispensationalists are saying that it is because a person believes that he is regenerated simultaneously” (Ibid., 159).
Of course the word “regeneration” means passing from spiritual death to spiritual life. Let us look at the following words of the Lord Jesus to see if it can be helpful in answering the question as what comes first, regeneration or faith?:
“He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (Jn.5:24).
Here the Lord Jesus speaks of passing “from death unto life.” From the following words of the Apostle John we can understand that what he wrote in his gospel was written so that those who believed would receive life as a result of believing:
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Jn.20:30-31).
It is a result of believing that the sinner is “passed from death unto life.” The Calvinist teach that a person is regenerated prior to believing. That idea is directly contradicted by the words of John which I quoted.
Since it is “believing” that results in passing from death unto life it is obvious that one must be dead spiritually before believing. Despite this the Calvinists say that one is “alive” spiritually before believing.
The Dispensationalist view on this subject is the correct view because it is based on what the Scriptures actually say. The Calvinist view is based on a denial of what John wrote. Dispensationalism is not a cult.
- 10 views
Hmm - interestingly, I am one of the growing number of young fundamentalists who are dispensational and Calvinistic. I wonder which half of my brain is the cultic one? :O
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
@Jack,
The trouble with something like this is it fails to take in all points.
John 5:24 that you have in your post is a fine example. Its Bible, Its true, But was it ever offered to you ?
Maybe you would do well to take a deeper look at what was said in that verse.
Jhn 5:24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
The same Bible shows you that when a gentile woman came to Jesus asking for mercy.
Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
And the first part of the next verse
Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word.
A month of sermons could be preached from here. But I have yet to ever sit under anyone preaching it. Jesus Christ, God in the flesh answered her not a word.
Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.
The reason is there made very clear. This woman asked for something meant only for the Jews. And this is far far from being the only place that points this way.
Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers,
Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
I have had even some here try and tell me that this verse don’t mean what it clearly says.
That the Gentiles were at one time no part of the promise and did not have access to God……
God told Peter in Acts
Act 10:15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
Peter clarifies this later
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Before this time, We gentiles were ALL unclean.
Rom 10:19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says: “I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.”
Rom 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
I can’t speak for all dispensationalists, nor would I try. But of all those I have ever heard, All preach salvation through the finished work of the cross as preached by Paul.
Would you believe there is salvation for YOU outside of Jesus Christ taking your place and paying your sin debt?
http://www.lesfeldick.org/
Check out the link, Listen to his teaching, Read the doctrinal statement, or follow the link to the “Plan for Heaven”. (You will find nothing but Bible there.) But Les is only one Disp teacher. He and E.C. Moore are the only 2 I know. ( And I haven’t heard a great deal of E.C., The material just isn’t out there like it is from Les)
So I can not say that they do or do not teach like other dispensationalists.
But now you have the chance to see for yourself and THEN say what you think.
The trouble with something like this is it fails to take in all points.
John 5:24 that you have in your post is a fine example. Its Bible, Its true, But was it ever offered to you ?
Maybe you would do well to take a deeper look at what was said in that verse.
Jhn 5:24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
The same Bible shows you that when a gentile woman came to Jesus asking for mercy.
Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
And the first part of the next verse
Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word.
A month of sermons could be preached from here. But I have yet to ever sit under anyone preaching it. Jesus Christ, God in the flesh answered her not a word.
Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.
The reason is there made very clear. This woman asked for something meant only for the Jews. And this is far far from being the only place that points this way.
Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers,
Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
I have had even some here try and tell me that this verse don’t mean what it clearly says.
That the Gentiles were at one time no part of the promise and did not have access to God……
God told Peter in Acts
Act 10:15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
Peter clarifies this later
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Before this time, We gentiles were ALL unclean.
Rom 10:19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says: “I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.”
Rom 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
I can’t speak for all dispensationalists, nor would I try. But of all those I have ever heard, All preach salvation through the finished work of the cross as preached by Paul.
Would you believe there is salvation for YOU outside of Jesus Christ taking your place and paying your sin debt?
http://www.lesfeldick.org/
Check out the link, Listen to his teaching, Read the doctrinal statement, or follow the link to the “Plan for Heaven”. (You will find nothing but Bible there.) But Les is only one Disp teacher. He and E.C. Moore are the only 2 I know. ( And I haven’t heard a great deal of E.C., The material just isn’t out there like it is from Les)
So I can not say that they do or do not teach like other dispensationalists.
But now you have the chance to see for yourself and THEN say what you think.
[Marty H] The trouble with something like this is it fails to take in all points.The words of John are true whether or not you think that they apply to Gentiles. And the verses teach that regeneration does not precede faith, as the Calvinists maintain:
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Jn.20:30-31).
This teaches that regeneration comes as a result of faith and regeneration does not precede faith, as the Calvinists teach.
I can’t speak for all dispensationalists, nor would I try. But of all those I have ever heard, All preach salvation through the finished work of the cross as preached by Paul.I myself am a Mid Acts Dispensationalist but the two Mid Acts dispensationalists that you mentioned—Les Feldick and E.C. Moore—both teach that in past dispensations faith alone was not enough for salvation. They teach that in order to demonstrate one’s faith one had to do works of one kind or another.
I have watched all of the tapes of Les Feldick and he has many good things to say and he is an excellent Bible teacher but he is wrong about that.
Would you believe there is salvation for YOU outside of Jesus Christ taking your place and paying your sin debt?No, and I do not know why you would even ask me that. Nothing I have said even hints that I believe that salvation can be obtained outside of the Lord Jesus.
This thread provides links to older SI articles on the subject of Regeneration Preceding Faith, as well as to my blog article and discussion on the topic.
http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] Regeneration Precedes Faith
http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] Regeneration Precedes Faith
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[JohnBrian] This thread provides links to older SI articles on the subject of Regeneration Preceding Faith, as well as to my blog article and discussion on the topic.Here is your chance to actually address a verse which demonstrates that regeneration does not precede faith:
http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] Regeneration Precedes Faith
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Jn.20:30-31).
You say that the giving of life precedes faith but John says that this life comes as a result of faith. And that is exactly what the Lord Jesus is saying in the following verses:
“He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (Jn.5:24).
John Calvin cetainly understood that the Lord Jesus’ words at John 5:24 are in regard to passing from death unto life as a result of believing, saying, “For it would not be sufficient to understand what he formerly taught, that he came ‘to raise the dead,’ unless we also knew the manner in which he restores us to life. Now he affirms that life is obtained by ‘hearing’ his word, and by the word ‘hearing’ he means ‘faith,’ as he immediately afterwards declares” [emphasis mine] (John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Volume Second, ed. William Pringle [Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library).
An anonymous commenter on my “Regeneration” blog article asked the same question. As a result of that question I am working on a 4 part series titled Monergism vs Synergism. The first part is subtitled Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism. I hope to post that article to my blog by the end of the month. In Part 2, I will be looking at all of the verses in John’s Gospel that address salvation, including 20:30-31.
p.s. This thread is about Dispensationalism, not Regeneration, so feel free to engage that discussion on the http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] Regeneration thread.
p.s. This thread is about Dispensationalism, not Regeneration, so feel free to engage that discussion on the http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] Regeneration thread.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[JohnBrian] An anonymous commenter on my “Regeneration” blog article asked the same question. As a result of that question I am working on a 4 part series titled Monergism vs Synergism. The first part is subtitled Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism. I hope to post that article to my blog by the end of the month. In Part 2, I will be looking at all of the verses in John’s Gospel that address salvation, including 20:30-31.I am curious, John.
Why did you even post on this thread since you have no interest in actually discussing verses which indicate that your ideas are in error?
Why do you still refuse to even attempt to address John 20:30-31?
Even though this post is about dispensationalism the Calvinist attempted to prove that dispensationalism is a cult based on the dispensationalist’s denial of the idea that regeneration precedes faith.
So in order to defend against this false charge it is necessary to discuss this very issue.
Even though this post is about dispensationalism the Calvinist attempted to prove that dispensationalism is a cult based on the dispensationalist’s denial of the idea that regeneration precedes faith.Dispensationalism does not deny that regeneration precedes faith because dispensationalism has no position on that matter.
http://dbts.edu/journals/2002/Snoeberger.pdf] Here is an article that addresses the issue that you are asking about. It is written by a dispensationalist who affirms the regeneration precedes faith and who interacts substantively with the issues you are asking about including verses such as John 20:31 (see p. 14, but read the whole article). This article may not be convincing to you (which is fine), but it will demonstrate that the questions you are asking have not been ignored either by Calvinists or dispensationalists.
Why did you even post on this thread since you have no interest in actually discussing verses which indicate that your ideas are in error?Well, because you raised the issue of regeneration and that discussion already exists on SI. I provided a link to it.
Why do you still refuse to even attempt to address John 20:30-31?You then asked me about a passage and I responded informing you that I will be discussing that passage in a future blog article. When I post a link on SI to that article on my blog then you can decide if I actually am avoiding discussing verses,
Maybe you should interact with the comments I have posted about John 5:24 before you indicate that I “have no interest in actually discussing verses.”
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Larry]No? In The Scofield Study Bible, which is edited by prominent dispensationalists, we read the following in regard to “regeneration”:Even though this post is about dispensationalism the Calvinist attempted to prove that dispensationalism is a cult based on the dispensationalist’s denial of the idea that regeneration precedes faith.Dispensationalism does not deny that regeneration precedes faith because dispensationalism has no position on that matter.
“The word ‘regeneration‘…occurs only one other time in the N.T., at Ti. 3:5. There it refers to the Christian’s new birth” (The Scofield Study Bible; note at Matthew 19:28).
Then we read: “The condition of the new birth is faith in Christ crucified” (Ibid., note at John 3:3).
It is written by a dispensationalist who affirms the regeneration precedes faith and who interacts substantively with the issues you are asking about including verses such as John 20:31Why don’t you quote the answer given for John 20:31?
[JohnBrian]Maybe you should interact with the comments I have posted about John 5:24 before you indicate that I “have no interest in actually discussing verses.”You have shown no interest in discussing John 20:30-31. Now you want to talk about John 5:24. Why don’t you tell me why John Calvin was wrong when he said that the passing from “death unto life” is dependent on faith. Or perhaps you will say that the passing from “death unto life” has nothing to do with regeneration, that a person can be regenerated before believing but that even after being regenerated he can once again pass from “death unto life” when he believes the gospel?
That idea ignores the fact that before one can pass from “death unto life” one must first be dead.
No? In The Scofield Study Bible, which is edited by prominent dispensationalists, we read the following in regard to “regeneration”:Dispensationalism does not necessarily affect soteriology. Dispensationalism affects ecclesiology and eschatology. Dispensationalists have always held varying view of soteriology because no essential part of dispensationalism affects soteriology.
I am a dispensationalist Calvinist who believes that faith precedes regeneration. My friend Mark (whom I linked to) is a dispensationalist Calvinist who believes that regeneration precedes faith. Yet our views on dispensationalism are virtually identical.
Why don’t you quote the answer given for John 20:31?Because it is an argument, not a simple sentence, and because if you actually want answers rather than sound bytes, it is much more profitable to go and read it, study and interact with the arguments in their context rather than reacting to a sentence or two.
It’s a fairly short article, just 45 pages, and it deals with the whole matter of regeneration and faith.
You have shown no interest in discussing John 20:30-31.Actually, Jack, JohnBrian has shown interest and in fact said he will deal with it. He also pointed to a place where this discussion has already taken place so you can see what has already been said and perhaps interact there.
I wonder if perhaps a less combative approach might engender a more profitable exchange. I don’t think anyone here is afraid of you giving your positions on these matters and arguing for them. There is certainly room here at SI for your position on these matters. But some might not wish to participate in a combative and hostile exchange. They might be more inclined to interact with you if the conversation is more genteel.
Since you are new here, we will try to be patient with you, but there is a limit to our (my) patience.
I am not going to expend time and energy (which I have in short supply) to repeat arguments that I have already made or plan to make in future articles for my blog.
You must first interact with what is already written, and wait (or not) for more to be written.
Larry is correct when he states that “a less combative approach might engender a more profitable exchange.”
I am not going to expend time and energy (which I have in short supply) to repeat arguments that I have already made or plan to make in future articles for my blog.
You must first interact with what is already written, and wait (or not) for more to be written.
Larry is correct when he states that “a less combative approach might engender a more profitable exchange.”
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
To Jack H,
Regeneration and faith both take place in the same moment of time. There are some extreme Calvinists who might say that infants can be regenerated and then years later have faith.
When I say that regeneration precedes faith, I am speaking logically! The quickening of God the Spirit produces faith.
In my view the debate is somewhat esoteric because the gospel message is the same (whether one believes R before F or F before R).
Regeneration and faith both take place in the same moment of time. There are some extreme Calvinists who might say that infants can be regenerated and then years later have faith.
When I say that regeneration precedes faith, I am speaking logically! The quickening of God the Spirit produces faith.
In my view the debate is somewhat esoteric because the gospel message is the same (whether one believes R before F or F before R).
- Repent therefore and be converted (Acts 3:19)
- [God] now commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30)
- Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life. (Acts 11:18)
- And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)
[Chip Van Emmerik] Hmm - interestingly, I am one of the growing number of young fundamentalists who are dispensational and Calvinistic. I wonder which half of my brain is the cultic one? :OMy left brain is dispensational … my right brain is Calvinistic
Or is it … my right brain is dispensational … my left brain is Calvinistic
[Jim Peet]I like your explanation, Jim! Some of us are all middle-brain: confused![Chip Van Emmerik] Hmm - interestingly, I am one of the growing number of young fundamentalists who are dispensational and Calvinistic. I wonder which half of my brain is the cultic one? :OMy left brain is dispensational … my right brain is Calvinistic
Or is it … my right brain is dispensational … my left brain is Calvinistic
Seriously, to join in with the discussion above, I think one of the most inadequately explored area of hermeneutics is the Biblical use of correlation. Although the Bible has much cause and effect reasoning, we also see a lot of correlation: events that go together without one necessarily (but possibly) causing the other.
With regeneration, I believe that cause is God’s sovereign act, as unpredictable as the wind blowing (John 3:8). But the Scriptural authors are often not concerned about clarifying the cause/effect relationship and distinguishing it from the CORRELATION of events. This is true with works (or commandment keeping) in instances good works are correlated with salvation and could be misunderstood to teach that good works cause salvation (example: Matthew 19:17-19) or that baptism is necessary for salvation (Acts 2:38) as two obvious examples.
In my book, “The Midrash Key,” (a book I highly recommend!) I demonstrate that the Old Testament term for new birth/regeneration is “circumcision of the heart.” Man is held responsible but God is ultimately the one who is in control:
These Deuteronomy passages underscore the paradox between man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty, a paradox prominent in the New Testament. We can note two seemingly contradictory assertions: God is the one who must perform spiritual heart surgery because the human heart needs a supernatural touch (Deuteronomy 30:6); yet, in Deuteronomy 10:12-16, personal responsibility to circumcise one’s own heart stares us in the face. So which is it? The answer is “both of the above.”Regeneration and faith are correlated. Verses that tie them together do not necessarily imply cause and effect.
In theory, we can make the choice to awaken ourselves from spiritual hibernation and arise to spiritual life. The sovereign hand of God stealthily moves beyond our choices. We can honestly demand that the lost be born-again, but we are also free to announce John 6:44, “No one can come to me [Yeshua] unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day…” (NASB).
I consider myself a dispensationalist (although a progressive one), and I have sometimes found a certain arrogance and rudeness as well among those who are intolerant of a viewpoint that allows for God’s faithfulness to Israel, the heart of dispensationalism. These sorts of sacrcastic, cynical comments do not make for persuasion by reason, but intimidation. Setting up a straw-man (the more extreme dispensationalists) as the norm is an old trick. If your case is strong, you do not need to resort to tricks or manipulations, IMO. Fortunately, not all non-dispensationalists fall into this category. Yet, they are are often sadly quiet in condemning it.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Larry]Dispensationalism does not necessarily affect soteriology.I agree with you about that but nonetheless dispensationalism has been attacked and called a “cult” based on what many leaders in thde dispensationalist camp teaches. So therefore I do not see that there is anything wrong with defending the position held by many of those leaders as well as what is written in The Scofield Study Bible.
[Jim Peet] When I say that regeneration precedes faith, I am speaking logically! The quickening of God the Spirit produces faith.The Lord Jesus certainly does n ot separate ‘faith” from the “spirit” in any way when it comes to receiving life:
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (Jn.6:63).
If the “words” of which He spoke could possibly be separated even logically then He would not have said that His words are spirit and they are life.
And John is speakiing specifically about how one receives life, and he says that it is by “believing”:
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Jn.20:31-32).
[Ed Vasicek] Regeneration and faith are correlated. Verses that tie them together do not necessarily imply cause and effect.In this verse we see a cause and effect relationship:
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Jn.20:30-31).
In both cases the Greek word hina is translated “that.” And in both cases the word can only denote “purpose and end: to the intent that, to the end that, in order that” (Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon).
Surely that is the case in the first usage of the word in verse 31 and it follows logically that the same meaning is being expressed the second time the same word is used.
[JohnBrian] Larry is correct when he states that “a less combative approach might engender a more profitable exchange.”I have a feeling that nothing could lead to a profitable exchange when it comes to the words at John 20:30-31.
In any case you Calvinists will not have to comment on anything I say because I will no longer post on this forum.
I have a feeling that nothing could lead to a profitable exchange when it comes to the words at John 20:30-31.Why is that? Why not address the arguments in the article?
In any case you Calvinists will not have to comment on anything I say because I will no longer post on this forum.That will admittedly make it different to have a profitable exchange. But no one here is asking you to do this. You are doing it of your own free will :D
…on Monergism vs Synergism in the Gospel of John, will attempt to show that if the bulk of John’s writing affirms the monergistic view, the single verse that purports to affirm the synergistic view, cannot actually do that. The only other option is that John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is affirming 2 opposite and contradictory views.
p.s. hope to post the first article by the end of this month, and then work hard on Part 2 - the John’s Gospel part.
p.s. hope to post the first article by the end of this month, and then work hard on Part 2 - the John’s Gospel part.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Larry] Why not address the arguments in the article?I will not be on this forum much longer but I will say that it is not me who needs to advance my argument. Please notice that no one has been able to answer the words at John 20:30-31.
Or do you believe that that verse has been answered because someone said that he would answer it later at another place?
Since no one has been able to answer the previous verses that I quoted let us lok at others that say exactly how those dead in sin receive life:
“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins…Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ…And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”
(Eph.2:1,5-6).
Here we see that those who are dead in sin are made alice “together with Christ.”
This certainly speaks of one’s union with Christ. Are we supposed to believe that a person can be made alive “together with Christ” and has been raised up together with Him and is sitting in heavenly places in Christ but at the same has not yet been saved by believing?
According the the Calvinists idea one is made alive (regenerated) “together with Christ” at a time before he has even believed the gospel and therefore been saved. That is ridiculous. Even Calvinist author John Gerstner, who calls dispensationalism a cult, recognizes that this being made alive in these verses is a result of “faith”:
“Eternal life is union with Jesus Christ. And the word for that union with Jesus Christ is faith” [emphasis mine] (Gerstner, Justification by Faith Alone: Affirming the Doctrine By Which the Church and the Individual Stands of Falls [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995] , Chapter 4).
Are the Calvinists so ill informed that they do not even understand that regeneration occurs when the sinner is baptized into the death of the Lord Jesus and is baptized into the Body of Christ?
Anyway, here are other verses which the Calvinist can ignore.
Jack, If I might briefly respond here …
Now, bottom line is that I agree with you. I think the “regeneration before faith” crowd has a hard time with John 20:30-31. I am of that rare breed of Calvinist who believes that faith precedes regeneration.
I think it would be unfortunate if you left before addressing the arguments that have been offered against your position.
Most Calvinists that I know affirm that regeneration and faith occur at the same time temporally. So no one is regenerated “before” they have faith. The issue of regeneration before faith is one of logical priority and causation, not time. There are some Calvinists who do see a temporal progression (i.e., time oriented).
It is easy to claim that those who disagree are “ill-informed.” But I know many people who disagree with me, especially scholars, are actually more informed than I am. Simply put, I am not sure the “ill-informed” card plays well in this case. For instance, I have cited an article by someone who is very well-informed on the topic.
Jack, this type of interaction that you are offering isn’t helpful to advancing a discussion. I have offered a free and easy-to-access resource where explanations are given and citations and footnotes abound so you can see other places where the arguments are found, and you won’t interact with it. It contains exactly what you say you are looking for, an explanation as to how Calvinists explain certain verses. So why not give us some reasons why this author is wrong?
I will not be on this forum much longer but I will say that it is not me who needs to advance my argument. Please notice that no one has been able to answer the words at John 20:30-31.Actually, this is not true. A number of people have suggested various answers to the problem. I posted one above, and you have yet to interact with it. I would encourage you to. There are also numerous other answers to it.
Now, bottom line is that I agree with you. I think the “regeneration before faith” crowd has a hard time with John 20:30-31. I am of that rare breed of Calvinist who believes that faith precedes regeneration.
I think it would be unfortunate if you left before addressing the arguments that have been offered against your position.
According the the Calvinists idea one is made alive (regenerated) “together with Christ” at a time before he has even believed the gospel and therefore been saved. That is ridiculous. Even Calvinist author John Gerstner, who calls dispensationalism a cult, recognizes that this being made alive in these verses is a result of “faith”So you say that the Calvinist idea is “ridiculous” and then cite a Calvinist author who doesn’t believe the Calvinists idea? I am a bit confused by that.
Most Calvinists that I know affirm that regeneration and faith occur at the same time temporally. So no one is regenerated “before” they have faith. The issue of regeneration before faith is one of logical priority and causation, not time. There are some Calvinists who do see a temporal progression (i.e., time oriented).
Are the Calvinists so ill informed that they do not even understand that regeneration occurs when the sinner is baptized into the death of the Lord Jesus and is baptized into the Body of Christ?Are you sure that they are “ill-informed?” Perhaps they simply have a different explanation than you do that has nothing to do with being informed but rather with the priority of premises and the logical and theological connections drawn between things.
It is easy to claim that those who disagree are “ill-informed.” But I know many people who disagree with me, especially scholars, are actually more informed than I am. Simply put, I am not sure the “ill-informed” card plays well in this case. For instance, I have cited an article by someone who is very well-informed on the topic.
Anyway, here are other verses which the Calvinist can ignore.I imagine that just about every verse in the Bible has been dealt with by Calvinists somewhere. I doubt that there are any that are ignored. I wonder if you are not just ignoring their explanations like you are doing with the explanation offered on John 20:30-31.
Jack, this type of interaction that you are offering isn’t helpful to advancing a discussion. I have offered a free and easy-to-access resource where explanations are given and citations and footnotes abound so you can see other places where the arguments are found, and you won’t interact with it. It contains exactly what you say you are looking for, an explanation as to how Calvinists explain certain verses. So why not give us some reasons why this author is wrong?
[Jack Hampton] I will not be on this forum much longerSo where are you going?
[Larry] Actually, this is not true. A number of people have suggested various answers to the problem.Give me even one instance where anyone has specifically dealt with John 20:30-31 by giving a meaning that differs from the meaning which I gave. In fact, there is not even one instance where anyone actually gave any other interpreation of the verses than the one I gave.
I posted one above, and you have yet to interact with it. I would encourage you to.Here is what you said:
Here is an article that addresses the issue that you are asking about. It is written by a dispensationalist who affirms the regeneration precedes faith and who interacts substantively with the issues you are asking about including verses such as John 20:31 (see p. 14, but read the whole article).There is no Page 14 in the article. The pages run from 50-93.
I previously asked you to quote what he said about these verses but you refused.
Give me even one instance where anyone has specifically dealt with John 20:30-31 by giving a meaning that differs from the meaning which I gave. In fact, there is not even one instance where anyone actually gave any other interpreation of the verses than the one I gave.I linked one above. There are many others in various places.
There is no Page 14 in the article.When it pulls up as a PDF, type “14” in the page box in the top bar. It is page 14 in the PDF. It is pp. 50-93 in the print edition.
I previously asked you to quote what he said about these verses but you refused.Yes, and I explained why. It’s not a sentence or two that you can cite here. It is a lengthy argument. I count six pages just dealing with that argument.
Even the idea of skipping straight to p. 14 is problematic in that you miss part of the entire argument and end up reading only a small part of it. That type of approach won’t lead to profitable interaction. I don’t think you can understand the point and the support for it by the sentence or two I would cite here.
I guess I don’t understand the hesitance to think about what is being said and say why it is wrong. (BTW, I have expressed my reasons for disagreement. Mark and I have talked about it many times personally.)
[Larry]I linked one above. There are many others in various places.I found the place where Mark A. Snoeberger addresses the verses but he does not specifically deal with it. Here is what he says:According to him the word “life” at John 20:30-31 cannot be referring to “regeneration.” According to his pre-conceived ideas it cannot but the Scriptures tell another story. Let us look at the verses again:
With this in view, the “life” described in these passages cannot mean regeneration. What
is in view is the enjoyment of life in which the believer finally realizes
what it truly means to live as God intended, whether presently or in
the eschaton.
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Jn.20:30-31).
John is saying that these things were written for the purpose that men will believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
This is clearly speaking abnout regeneration or being born of God:
”Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 Jn.5:1-5).
According to Snoeberger the word “life” at John 20:31 cannot be referring to regeneration but John, who wrote the verses under discussion, states that those who belioeve these facts are “born of God.”
[Jack Hampton] Give me even one instance where anyone has specifically dealt with John 20:30-31 by giving a meaning that differs from the meaning which I gave. In fact, there is not even one instance where anyone actually gave any other interpreation of the verses than the one I gave.Since you will be leaving us in a few days, I will, for your benefit, attempt to deal specifically with John 20:30-31.
My first article explains and illustrates the difference between monergism and synergism. In doing so I even explain the pelagian view that you hold so dearly; the view that, according to one writer, “has been condemned by more church councils than any other heresy in history.” In Part 2, I will show that each view has presuppositions that cause different approaches to scripture passages. BUT, the views are not compatible - only 1 of them faithfully represents the text of scripture.
In John’s Gospel the writer cannot advocate for both positions. My argument will show that John affirms the monergistic view. So when I as a monergist come to 20:30-31, my monergistic presupposition requires me to understand it differently than your pelagian synergistic presupposition. Simply put, I do not believe that this passage presents an ordo salutis (which is what Snoeberger’s article shows). Your presupposition requires you to see an ordo salutis, because your pelagianism insists that man is born neutral, and is therefore capable of choosing God. I as a monergist deny that capability.
If you decide to stay with us (and are not banned for advocating pelagianism) you may interact with my articles as I post them.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[JohnBrian] Since you will be leaving us in a few days, I will, for your benefit, attempt to deal specifically with John 20:30-31.I searched and searched your post and I could not find even one reference to John 20:3-31. What you meant is the same old story—you will write an article that explains it later. So far you have come up empty.
Of course Calvinism teaches that a man’s mind is blind to the gospel at birth. That is why Calvinist teach that a man must be regenerated before he can believe the gospel—because his mind is blind to the gospel.
But no one has been able to explain how the god of this age can blind men’s mind to the gospel if they are already blind:
“In whom the god of this age hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Cor.4:4).
Common sense dicates that before the god of this age can blind the mind of sinners to the gospel they must first be capable of seeing the gospel. But according to your view we should throw our common sense to the wind and imagine that the god of this age can blind those who are already blind.
Of course you had an opportunity to respond to these verses on another thread but you did not even make an attempt!
Jack, I am a dispensationalist. I am a 4-point Calvinist (maybe 4.5ish) who does not believe the Bible clearly teaches limited atonement. I also do not believe Scripture is clear that regeneration logically precedes faith.
But I do believe the Bible teaches that people are born dead in sin and that Satan blinds them to the Gospel. Both are clear from Scripture. How exactly those work together is somewhat a mystery, although several individuals have given good explanations here on this thread.
And as someone who agrees with you in some respects (and disagrees with you in others), I would echo the sentiments of some of the others on here that your tone and approach are not helpful, especially as one who is new to the site.
But I do believe the Bible teaches that people are born dead in sin and that Satan blinds them to the Gospel. Both are clear from Scripture. How exactly those work together is somewhat a mystery, although several individuals have given good explanations here on this thread.
And as someone who agrees with you in some respects (and disagrees with you in others), I would echo the sentiments of some of the others on here that your tone and approach are not helpful, especially as one who is new to the site.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
John 20:30-31 is what it purports to be: a summary of why John wrote. The term “life” here is broad. We do have life in his name by believing, but this verse does not address WHY we believe and others do not. The verse does address why John wrote his Gospel. It is quite a simple statement.
Someone like myself who believes that regeneration comes first reason thusly: The spiritually dead cannot and will not believe because the Gospel is foolishness to them I Corinthians 1:18; I Corinthians 2:14, the natural man cannot perceive the things of the spirit, they that are in the flesh are hostile toward the true God Romans 8:7; and none seek after the true God, Romans 3:10-12 and Satan has blinded the minds of unbelievers, 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Just like Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, it takes a spiritual zap of life for one to believe. Paul makes it clear that God’s grace and the faith with which he believed was “poured out on him” I Timothy 1:14 and that his conversion was an EXAMPLE for us I Timothy 1:16.
Someone like myself who believes that regeneration comes first reason thusly: The spiritually dead cannot and will not believe because the Gospel is foolishness to them I Corinthians 1:18; I Corinthians 2:14, the natural man cannot perceive the things of the spirit, they that are in the flesh are hostile toward the true God Romans 8:7; and none seek after the true God, Romans 3:10-12 and Satan has blinded the minds of unbelievers, 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Just like Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, it takes a spiritual zap of life for one to believe. Paul makes it clear that God’s grace and the faith with which he believed was “poured out on him” I Timothy 1:14 and that his conversion was an EXAMPLE for us I Timothy 1:16.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Greg Long] And as someone who agrees with you in some respects (and disagrees with you in others), I would echo the sentiments of some of the others on here that your tone and approach are not helpful, especially as one who is new to the site.Greg, why am I criticized but those who call my beliefs heretical get a free pass? Go to my thread on the “Natural Man” and see who is acting in a mature manner and who is not.
Why do you not go on that thread and lecture others? Or is it just me who gets the lectures on political correctness?
Greg, why am I criticized but those who call my beliefs heretical get a free pass?Jack, the issue is that your position on original sin and total depravity appears to be Pelagianism which is a long recognized heresy in the church. It’s not really a parochial or political issue. People are saying your position is heretical because it is, at least as it appears you are expressing it. I am inclined to give you some room on this because I think all of us at times don’t realize what we are saying or the implications of it. That’s the point of the command to study and learn. Perhaps you could do a little research on Pelagianism and interact a bit with it, showing why you are not a Pelagian.
It has nothing to do with the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. There is plenty of room for differences on Calvinism vs. Arminianism and various related issues. Feel free to express your disagreement with Calvinism. It won’t bother most of us here, certainly not me. However, I would still encourage consideration of a more genteel approach to conversation and debate. It will make SI a better place for all of us.
I found the place where Mark A. Snoeberger addresses the verses but he does not specifically deal with it.He deals with a whole host of similar verses under one theme rather than dealing with all the verses individually.
According to him the word “life” at John 20:30-31 cannot be referring to “regeneration.” According to his pre-conceived ideas it cannot but the Scriptures tell another story. Let us look at the verses again:As an introductory note, I want to point out that you are not dealing with his argument. In fact, you didn’t even give his argument. This is simply dismissing it out of hand and asserting an alternate position.
Second, you bring 1 John 5 into the discussion, and are now discussing two passages. John 20 (your original discussion) does not mention “born again.” So to say that that is what John has in mind is not necessarily born out by the text itself.
Third, 1 John 5:1 does not address the relationship of “belief” and “born of God” other than to say that they exist together. If you press this to say that being “born of God” is the result of “belief,” than you cause problems in the verse because you have someone believing who has not been born of God (because they are not born until after they believe, unless you say it is simultaneous).
Fourth, “born of God” is a perfect passive verb, generally taken as describing a state of affairs. It does not intend to address how that state of affairs came to be. In other words, John is not saying that one is born of God because he believes. And I do not think that he is saying one believes because he is born of God. He is saying that those who believe are born of God, without necessarily addressing the causal relationship.
Fifth, compare your position with v. 5 where the one born of God overcomes the world. Both “overcomes” and “believes” are present tense, describing things that exist “in the present” as the author views it. If your reading of v. 1 is true, that the present tense “believes” results in the perfect tense “has been born,” then what about v. 5? Does the present tense “overcomes” also result in the perfect tense “has been born”? I think that causes at least some tension for you because I don’t imagine that you want to say that one “overcomes the world” with the result that they are “born of God.” Yet that is what you say in v. 1, that one “believes” with the result that they are “born of God.”
Now remember, on this point of the priority of regeneration vs. the priority of faith, I agree with you that faith precedes regeneration. But I think your dismissal of Mark’s argument without interaction is unwise, and I think your overall conclusion is faulty.
[Ed Vasicek] John 20:30-31 is what it purports to be: a summary of why John wrote. The term “life” here is broad. We do have life in his name by believing, but this verse does not address WHY we believe and others do not.The gospel comes in the power of the Holy Spirit but some people “resist the Spirit.” That is why they do not believe while others do.
Those who resist the Spirit will not come to the light of the gospel because of reasons other than that they are blinded at birth to the truths of the gospel:
“Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed” (Jn.3:19-20).
This does not say that men will not come to the light of the gospel because they are blind to it but instead it says that they will not because of their fear that their deeds will be exposed. If they do not resist the Spirit then they will indeed be convicted of their sinful condition:
“When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment” (Jn.16:8).
The Calvinists teach that a man’s mind is born blind to the gospel by ordinary generation. But the Scriptures declare that the god of this age can blind the mind of men to the gospel. The Calvinists have failed to answer how it is possible for anyone who is already blind to be blinded. After all, one must be able to be able to see before he can be blinded.
[Larry] Jack, the issue is that your position on original sin and total depravity appears to be Pelagianism which is a long recognized heresy in the church.Which church?
[Larry] In fact, you didn’t even give his argument. This is simply dismissing it out of hand and asserting an alternate position.I certainly did. I asked you to state his poisition and you refused. I then read the article and quoted the comments which he made after he quoted the verse. If you want to say that I am wrong about what he said about the specific verse in question then tell me! But don’t say that I am wrong about his conclusion about the specific verse and then refuse to say how I was wrong.
Second, you bring 1 John 5 into the discussion, and are now discussing two passages. John 20 (your original discussion) does not mention “born again.” So to say that that is what John has in mind is not necessarily born out by the text itself.First of all, the author himself says that regeneration means “born again.” Do you deny that? And John 20:30-31 speaks specifically about believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and by believing they may have life as a result of that belief. Then I quoted verses that say that those who believe these truths are born of God. So these truths can indeed be in regard to regeneration. That is the point which I made.
Third, 1 John 5:1 does not address the relationship of “belief” and “born of God” other than to say that they exist together. If you press this to say that being “born of God” is the result of “belief,” than you cause problems in the verse because you have someone believing who has not been born of God (because they are not born until after they believe, unless you say it is simultaneous).The heart and soul of the gospel which was preached to the unsaved Jews during the Acts period is the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. It was belief in that message that resulted in sinners being “born of God.” After Paul was converted on the Damascus road he preached the same gospel in the synagogues:
“Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God…proving that this is very Christ” (Acts 9:19-20,22).
That is the gospel which Paul continued to preach to the Jews:
“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ” (Acts 17:1-3).
This is the same gospel which Apollos preached to the Jews:
“For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:28).
When the eunuch wanted to be baptized with water he was told that he first must believe. Here is his answer:
“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 9:37).
It is evident that the main message being preached to unbelievers is the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And those who believed in His name were born of God:
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn.1:12-13).
Here it is said that it was by believing in His name that resulted in them becoming the “children of God.” And they became the children of God when they were “regenerated”—being “born of God.” And again, that regeneration was a result of them believing in His name.
Are you willing to argue that the unbelievers who believed the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, were not regenerated when they believed that truth?
With that said it is rather obvious that John is here speaking of the same exact message and that the “life” of which he speaks is regeneration:
“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn.20:30-31).
If you want to say that I am wrong about what he said about the specific verse in question then tell me! But don’t say that I am wrong about his conclusion about the specific verse and then refuse to say how I was wrong.I didn’t say you were wrong about what he said. I said you didn’t deal with his argument. You cited his position, and then asserted it was wrong. You didn’t interact with the six or so pages of argument he gives in support of his position. And that is where the crux lies. Anyone can say, “He’s wrong.” But I think you have to show why he is wrong. Show why his arguments fail to win the case.
And John 20:30-31 speaks specifically about believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and by believing they may have life as a result of that belief. Then I quoted verses that say that those who believe these truths are born of God. So these truths can indeed be in regard to regeneration. That is the point which I made.I understand (and I agree). But my point is that the verse says that “those who believe these truths are born of God.” It doesn’t say what relationship those two things bear to each other. In John 20:31, you have precisely, “believe so that they may have life.” You have no such “so that” in 1 John 5:1. That verse only asserts that two things exist together. If you lean on the perfect tense, it says that those who believe “have been born of God.”
Here it is said that it was by believing in His name that resulted in them becoming the “children of God.”I don’t see that there. I see that those who believe “were born.” That is typically taken as a past tense translation, which is used to argue that they believe because they “were born,” not they believe and then are born.
And they became the children of God when they were “regenerated”—being “born of God.” And again, that regeneration was a result of them believing in His name.Again, I don’t think that is what the verse says.
[Larry]I didn’t say you were wrong about what he said. I said you didn’t deal with his argument.Let us look more closely at his argument and see if it stands up to the scrutiny of the Scriptures. One of the verses that he puts in the same category as John 20:31 is 1 Tim.1:14. Here is the verse and his comments that also apply to John 20:31:1 Timothy 1:16—“…for those who would believe in Him for eternalHe also says that the words “made alive” at Ephesians 2:5 are speaking of regeneration:
life.”
It is impossible to deal with each of these texts individually, nor, in
fact, is the list exhaustive. However, a detailed exegetical study for each
is unnecessary for two reasons: (1) the “life” described in these verses is
not a strict synonym for regeneration…This is especially true of the phrase ‘eternal life’ .”“Since Scripture only once refers to individual salvation with theHere is the verse:
term “regeneration”… we must rely on
synonyms of regeneration in the course of this study. Some of these
include being “made alive”…(Eph 2:5; Col 2:13). p.53
“Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ” (Eph.2:5).
This verse is saying that those who were dead in sins are quickened or regenerated “together with Christ.” This speaks of a “union” with Him. That is evident by the words which follow:
“And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus” (Eph.2:6).
John Calvin states these verses are in regard to a “union”:
”And hath raised us up together. The resurrection and sitting in heaven, which are here mentioned, are not yet seen by mortal eyes…in Christ we already possess a blessed immortality and glory; and therefore, he adds, in Christ Jesus. Hitherto it does not appear in the members, but only in the head; yet, in consequence of the secret union, it belongs truly to the members” [emphasis mine] (John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Volume Second, ed. William Pringle [Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library).
Not only does this speak of a “union” with Him, but as Calvin says, this also speaks of possessing a blessed immortality. That immortality cannot be in regard to anything other tan the salvation of the soul, and that is a result of “faith” (1 Pet.1:9).
The sinner’s regeneration is accomplised when one is quicked together with Christ and receives a life in Him. And here John is describing the very life into whuch one is regenerated:
“And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (1 Jn.5:11).
This life that is a result of “union” with Christ (“Life is in His Son”) is described as being “eternal.”
So it is an error to argue that the following verse is not in regard to regeneration:
“Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life” (1 Tim.1:16).
It is ridiculous to argue that one can be quickened together with Christ and raised up together with Him and is sitting together with Him in heavenly places but yet logically that person has not yet believed and therefore had his sins taken away:
“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses” (Col.2:12-13).
One does not receive a forgiveness of sins before he believes but instead when he believes:
“All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:43; NIV).
Jack,
I am curious. Could you share why you think this is such an important issue? Do you see it as a distortion of the Gospel or in some way presenting another false Gospel? I am not trying to put words in your mouth, just giving you some idea what I am asking.
So far, it has seemed to me to be more of an academic issue with no real significance eternally. The majority of folks on both sides present the Gospel the same way in evangelism, don’t they? What am I missing in the discussion?
I am curious. Could you share why you think this is such an important issue? Do you see it as a distortion of the Gospel or in some way presenting another false Gospel? I am not trying to put words in your mouth, just giving you some idea what I am asking.
So far, it has seemed to me to be more of an academic issue with no real significance eternally. The majority of folks on both sides present the Gospel the same way in evangelism, don’t they? What am I missing in the discussion?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] Jack,This has nothing to do with any false gospel. Instead, a well known Calvinist has unfairly accused dispensationalism as being a cult. He bases his opinion on the fact that some dispensationalist’s teaching on salvation issues differ from his ideas.
I am curious. Could you share why you think this is such an important issue?
I am merely attempting to defend against the charge that dispensationalism is a cult. And I do believe that this is an important issue.
The Calvinist accuses dispensationalism of denying the idea of a “Limited Atonement” and many dispensationalis do indeed deny that idea. However, the Calvinist fails to address the words written here:
“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb.2:9).
Jack,
Thanks for answering. Regarding Heb. 2:9. I have seen nothing in what you have written here on SI to indicate you hold a universalist position - that all will eventually end up in heaven. So how do understand Jesus to taste death for every man; I am particularly thinking of those who never receive Christ?
Thanks for answering. Regarding Heb. 2:9. I have seen nothing in what you have written here on SI to indicate you hold a universalist position - that all will eventually end up in heaven. So how do understand Jesus to taste death for every man; I am particularly thinking of those who never receive Christ?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] Jack,Chip,
Thanks for answering. Regarding Heb. 2:9. I have seen nothing in what you have written here on SI to indicate you hold a universalist position - that all will eventually end up in heaven. So how do understand Jesus to taste death for every man; I am particularly thinking of those who never receive Christ?
I do not hold to a “univeralist position.” Let us look at the verse in question:
“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for (hyper) every man” (Heb.2:9).
One of the meanings of the Greek word hyper is “on behalf of,” and here is a verse that illustrates that meaning:
“Ye also helping together by prayer for (hyper) us, that for the gift bestowed upon us by the means of many persons thanks may be given by many on our behalf” (2 Cor.1:11).
To paraphrase, Paul is saying that the “prayers of the believers in the churches at Corinth are said ‘on behalf of” Paul and his co-workers.”
If the author of Hebrews wished to express the idea that Christ died in the stead or in the place of all men then instead of hyper he would have used the word anti:
The Greek word anti can mean “instead of.” The following verse is a good example that illustrates that usage:
“If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for (anti) a fish give him a serpent?” (Lk.11:11).
To paraphrase, “…if he ask for a fish, will he, instead of a fish, give him a serpent?”
We can also see the same meaning in the Greek version of the Old Testament:
“And Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God’s stead (anti), who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?” (Gen.30:2; LXX).
“Now therefore, I pray thee, let thy servant abide instead of (anti) the lad a bondman to my lord; and let the lad go up with his brethren” (Gen.44:33; LXX).
So the author of the book of Hebrews is saying that the Lord Jesus tasted death on behalf of all men and not that He tasted death in the place of all men.
Do you berlieve that the Lord Jesus tasted death on the behalf of all men?
[Jack Hampton] I do not hold to a “univeralist position.”I assumed from what you have written on this site we were in agreement on this point.
[Jack Hampton] Do you berlieve that the Lord Jesus tasted death on the behalf of all men?That is exactly what the verse says; absolutely I believe it is true. What I was wondering is how you understand Jesus to have died on behalf of those who never receive Him as Savior - taste death for every man? IOW, what does the verse mean when it says that Jesus tasted death on behalf of every man, particularly in relation to those who never get saved?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] What I was wondering is how you understand Jesus to have died on behalf of those who never receive Him as Savior - taste death for every man? IOW, what does the verse mean when it says that Jesus tasted death on behalf of every man, particularly in relation to those who never get saved?The events in Egypt when the passover lambs were killed provides the answer.
The passover lamb was killed on behalf of all those in a family. But until the blood of that passover lamb was sprinkled on the doorposts of their home through faith no one received any benefit from that death. The Lord Jesus tasted death on behalf of every men but it is not until a person believes the gospel that he receives the benefits of that death.
Is this really such a big deal? Gerstner has been dead since 1996 and no longer believes covenant theology. Can’t we just accept the fact that he believes correctly now?
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[James K] Is this really such a big deal? Gerstner has been dead since 1996 and no longer believes covenant theology. Can’t we just accept the fact that he believes correctly now?Sorry that I started a thread on a subject that really isn’t a big deal.
James K, why don’t you start a thread about something that really is a big deal?
under consideration in this thread is not the CT\DT debate. “Is DT a cult” is the question. Considering the acceptance of DT by many, the later is a proper topic for discussion. When an otherwise reasonable man designates my basic hermeneutical position as a cult, I want to know about it.
Also is having the wrong the order of salvation (sorry I’m a Baptist I don’t do Latin) a mark of a cult? The debate of what it the correct order is one matter to declare disagreement over it a mark of a cult is another.
Just because the author who made the original charge of cultism is no longer with us, does not mean his position is not worthy of discussion. After all we are still slicing and dicing John Calvin’s positions to this day.
Also is having the wrong the order of salvation (sorry I’m a Baptist I don’t do Latin) a mark of a cult? The debate of what it the correct order is one matter to declare disagreement over it a mark of a cult is another.
Just because the author who made the original charge of cultism is no longer with us, does not mean his position is not worthy of discussion. After all we are still slicing and dicing John Calvin’s positions to this day.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Discussion