# I was saved twice!



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

It was mentioned on another thread that some members felt like they had been saved or regenerated _again_ when they came under the knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace. The question posed is 'Can a man be saved without understanding justification by faith alone'. If you were saved under Arminian preaching and based your salvation on the altar call or prayers prayed, were you truly saved? Is it possible that you were regenerated and yet to be converted under sound preaching and sound theology?

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God. 


Rom 10:17 Then faith is of hearing, and hearing through the Word of God. 

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 3, 2004)

I told my mother that I wondered if I was ever truely saved before understanding the doctrine of grace.

She wasn't too happy with me.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 3, 2004)

The question raised is a good one and I don't presume to know the full answer. It raises the additional question of whether any Arminian may truly be considered born again. 

In my own case, having begun first as Arminian because that was all I knew, I believe that my conversion was grounded in the simple truth expressed in Romans 10:9-10:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 

For me personally (this is a very experiential post), the key verse in my conversion from the Baha'i Faith to Christianity was John 14:6. Once I was persuaded that through Jesus Christ alone one may come to the Father, I confessed Him to be my Lord. 

I believe God wrought a change in my heart at that time, but I was woefully ignorant of the doctrines of grace. 

When I first came into contact with the doctrines of election and predestination two years later, I embraced them whole-heartedly by the grace of God. 

I thank the Lord that He opened my heart not only to believe that Jesus is Lord, but also that being dead in my sins, it was He who quickened me (much as He raised Lazarus from the dead) and from whom I received the gift of salvation by grace through faith lest I should think that my coming to Him was a work generated by myself wherein I might have cause to boast of my own righteousness (Eph. 2).


----------



## turmeric (Nov 3, 2004)

in my opinion people who are truly saved believe in the doctrines of grace when they are saved, they may not know all the theological lingo but they know they are sinners, do not deserve mercy and that God has offered them salvation of His own will, it wasn't their idea. I frequently hear Arminians describe their experience of being pursued by God. It's later, sometimes not very much later, they get mixed up.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The question raised is a good one and I don't presume to know the full answer. It raises the additional question of whether any Arminian may truly be considered born again.



Can one be saved if one does not understand justification by faith alone?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



I think the short answer is yes. 

To clarify, God's saving grace does not necessarily translate into a person at that moment having a full theological understanding of all aspects of the gospel. Also, the Confession teaches that elect infants and others not capable of responding to the outward call may nevertheless be regenerated. For a normal person who has been taught nothing more than "Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life," I think it may be true that God has begun a good work in them that will show itself in time. If an Arminian resists the doctrines of grace to the end of his days, that may reflect a hardness of heart that belies his profession of faith. I am not prepared to say that all Arminians are unregenerate. I do believe that God will effectually call all of His children and that Romans 10:9-10 is the starting point of a credible profession of faith. I am prepared, however, to say that there are no Arminians in heaven.


----------



## openairboy (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> It was mentioned on another thread that some members felt like they had been saved or regenerated _again_ when they came under the knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace. The question posed is 'Can a man be saved without understanding justification by faith alone'. If you were saved under Arminian preaching and based your salvation on the altar call or prayers prayed, were you truly saved? Is it possible that you were regenerated and yet to be converted under sound preaching and sound theology?
> 
> Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.
> ...



Essentially, I think as long as one confesses with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead, then I think you should have assurance. Hopefully an Arminian is not putting their faith in walking down an aisle or a prayer anymore than a Calvinist puts his hope in his faith to believe that he is justified by faith. Christ alone saves and the message that Paul passed on as first importance is that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was burried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance to the Scriptures...

However, that doesn't negate the fact that we grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord, which includes experiences. 

openairboy


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



So, you have to confess with your mouth?



> Hopefully an Arminian is not putting their faith in walking down an aisle or a prayer anymore than a Calvinist puts his hope in his faith to believe that he is justified by faith.




This statement confuses me? Can you explain? I am putting my hope in this God given faith that I am justified accordingly.


----------



## openairboy (Nov 3, 2004)

> So, you have to confess with your mouth?



Yup and believe. 



> > Hopefully an Arminian is not putting their faith in walking down an aisle or a prayer anymore than a Calvinist puts his hope in his faith to believe that he is justified by faith.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All the faith in justification by faith won't justify you.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> So, you have to confess with your mouth?
> 
> Yup and believe.



What of the infant, imbecile and mute? 

In regards to belief:

Jam 2:19 You believe that God is One. You do well; even the demons believe and shudder. 

~The demons believe; they are not saved.

Joh 2:23 And as He was in Jerusalem, at the Passover, at the Feast, many believed into His name, seeing the miracles which He did. 
Joh 2:24 But Jesus Himself did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all, 
Joh 2:25 and because He had no need that anyone should witness concerning man, for He knew what was in man. 

These guys believed, but to no avail. Christ did not commit to them........It is Christ whom commits, not men. You can believe till the cows come home, but if Jesus does not commit to you, bye bye.

Joh 8:30 As He spoke these things, many believed into Him. 
Joh 8:31 Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in Him, If you continue in My Word, you are truly My disciples. 
Joh 8:32 And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Qualifiers: 1) Believing disciples. 
2) Believing disciples whom continue
One are believing disciples whom continue, the others do not. One group is saved, the other not.





> This statement confuses me? Can you explain? I am putting my hope in this God given faith that I am justified accordingly.
> 
> All the faith in justification by faith won't justify you.



See above; I said 'hope'. That hope is in Jesus. Not something I say or do. Jesus will justify me.

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## tdowns (Nov 3, 2004)

*Great topic*

This conversation comes up freq. with my friends. Spreads to the topic of RC and many other "christian faiths" as well I would think. My question, always is, is not 'intellectual knowledge'--in that I mean understaning the workings of the doctrines of grace--in and of itself a work if we are saying that at some level that is required for salvation. God saves us, and hopefully by the end of the journey we have a good understanding of proper theology, but, I don't think one is "saved again" when one 'figures it out'. I think alot of people are still 'figuring it out'.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

Trevor,
There are certain things one must attain to be saved. Rom 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing. The concept of hearing is that the information is being stored, not just bouncing off the walls...........


----------



## openairboy (Nov 3, 2004)

> What of the infant, imbecile and mute?



In my original response I made a comment about mute, etc., but I really didn't think it would be necessary, so I deleted it, and I was wrong. Children of believers are holy. I know the Judge of all the earth will do right and the Scriptures, I don't believe, address this in a full manner and we can only try to deduce from statements that are directed at other topics. So I'll remain mute on it.

In regards to your faith comments, I will take God at His Word. I'm not left with endless speculation whether or not he has grasped me, etc., but know Him via covenant. He tells me to believe and promises anyone who believes will be saved. So I simply believe. God is faithful even when I am unfaithful and He cannot lie. If he tells me to believe and I believe, then he can't deny himself. And I too agree with James that man is justified by works and not by faith alone, so maybe our differences are semantic and not substantive. 

"Perseverance of the saints" goes w/o saying at a "reformed" board. John Frame once said, "You can't say everything at once."

So, back to the topic, no, belief in 5 points won't save you.

openairboy


----------



## tdowns (Nov 3, 2004)

*Understood*

but if it is faith Given by God that saves, and not intellectual understanding, then how do we judge who fully "understands the doctrines of grace." It seems someone could at the depths of their thinking understand, "No way I get to heaven without Christ, my entire being is tainted with sin...I could not have accepted him without him grabbing me...etc" but this is at a deep level that they may not be able to fully articulate, but they cast their trust on Christ through faith alone,
----but do to the amazing amount of confusing doctrines floating around, ------and the lack of exposure to sound doctrines --
---say or 'think' some stupid things.....
Like me for example. 
Now in my case, God continued the good work he started and over the years took me from Calvary Chapels, to Evangelical churches, (enter White Horse inn and RC Sproul) to reading through RC catechism, to a somewhat reformed church, and maybe soon to a fully functioning Reformed church. But I know I was saved when I first heard the gospel, because everything you and others here and elswhere have written --including the catechisms--in regards to how we are saved rang like the bells of heaven inside me when I read them, so I believe I knew them at some level thanks to God renewing my mind, but I may not have had a clear intellectual understanding of them all along the way.

I guess I wonder if it does not become a 'work' to some of the more informed and studied folks out there when discussing those that are less well versed in the doctrines of grace.

Praise God for this website and the references found here so we can find more elect and let the bells of heaven ring out for them, for, in my opinion, there are many elect confused in the churches of America today.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > What of the infant, imbecile and mute?
> ...



"Belief" is the 5 points...........

Men must come to certain conclusions to attain 'belief'. What would that be?

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Nov 3, 2004)

I was saved before I was a Calvinist. Salvation is not contingent upon Systematic Theology. Men are saved in spite of their theology sometimes.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

However, you both agree that this 'belief' one has that expresses itself salvifically must represent certain components required to be saved, i.e. that Jesus is Lord, that He rose from the dead, that He is God..........?

I am not saying that one must be a Calvinist. 



> I was saved before I was a Calvinist.



Craig,
But you did have a grasp of sin and the need for a savior no? Could one be saved without knowing their need?

I will also say that it is my belief that the Gospel compartmentalizes the D.O.G. You may not fully understand it, but generally they are there. I wouldn't call the Gospel systematic theology. Systematic theology is the Gospel laid out in view.

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > What of the infant, imbecile and mute?
> ...



I agree, you cannot say everything at once. I acknowledge perseverance of the saint; However, I also acknowledge all the warning passages in scripture.

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## openairboy (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> "Belief" is the 5 points...........



Is that in Book II of the _Institutes_?



> Men must come to certain conclusions to attain 'belief'. What would that be?



It revolves more around the confession of who Jesus is: "Who do you say that I am?" "Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead." And 1 Co. 15 lays out what is of first importance, which includes his death. So believing in total depravity is not necessary for salvation, unconditional election is not necessary for salvation, limited atonement is not necessary for salvation, irresistible grace is not necessary, nor is perseverance of the saints.

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I agree, you cannot say everything at once. I acknowledge perseverance of the saint; However, I also acknowledge all the warning passages in scripture.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 3, 2004)

> But you did have a grasp of sin and the need for a savior no?



THAT is the question!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I disagree that man does not need to know his condition and his need for a savior. He does need to know his predicament and that he is totally depraved. 

This guy knew his need and condition of total depravity:

Luke 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I suggest you look at the literal greek interpretation of Rom 10. The confession made there represents that which men have already taken hold of. Men that have been regenerated will assuredly confess with their mouths, that Jesus is Lord. Confession does not save, it is a result of being saved.

Denial of unconditional election is bordering on another gospel; Arminianism or semi Pelagianism. Do not men need to know that God saves, not men. Are Roman Catholics orthodox? Does their gospel save?

I would have to think about 'limited atonement'.........

All I am saying is that men need to have a certain level of certain components to be converted. Faith comes by hearing. This does not mean that men are not conciously processing the information and storing it. When I was saved, it was probably based upon mountains of spiritual information that I had heard throughout my life. 

Mat 13:23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.


*understandeth*!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > But you did have a grasp of sin and the need for a savior no?
> ...



Adam,
If a man did not have a need, did not see his sin and in light of that lean into Christ, how could he be saved?

Jesus himself said, unless ye repent, you will likewise perish. 

For it is godly sorrow that produceth repentance that leads to eternal life........Godly sorrow! Repentance that leads to....there is another type of repentance that leads right to hell. That which is not accompanied by godly sorrow lands you in hell with your butt on fire!

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

I want to add, regeneration does not necessarily imply conversion. The ordo has components. Some times the ordo is instantaneous, others times, not. (read: "A Treatise on Regeneration" by Peter Van Mastricht. J. Edwards said that this book was THE book to read on the subject of the ordo) Look what Jesus says to Nicodemus:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be regenerated from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

A man is regenerated, he hears the word and is ultimately converted. He must be able to SEE things of the kingdom before he is converted.

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 3, 2004)

I am new to the site. But if I may offer an answer because I've pondered that question much myself and in consideration of others.

If regeneration is secret, conversion is conscience awareness to the individual and the timing of regeneration is or is often secret as well, then justification exists though growth into a greater understanding of that justification and faith will occur later.

In John 3:14,15, "Christ gives the gospel in its essence, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life." Which is of course referring to Number 21:9.

A.W. Pink has a great commentary at length on this scripture and the subtle dangers of "things" that distract the simple "looking" of the eyes of faith onto Christ alone. What is so helpful is what Pink describes as what the "looking" is not. Personally, it helped me at times when I went down some of these subtle paths and NEVER found comfort or rest. Did I repent enough, is my faith enough, &etc...

Looking back to the Numbers 21: 4-9 is very instructive to Christ's comparison.

In *breif*, these militate so much against what we hear today, food for the soul of the sheep (I've never forgotten them):

1. Israel was not told to manufacture a cure for the serpant's killing bite. Contra today's faith healers.
2. Israel was not told to help each other first - contra some "good works/deeds" first teaching, necessary to be saved.
3. Israel was not told to make an offering to the bronze serpant. Contra many of today's evangelist who call on people to "give your hearts to Jesus" or "rededicate yourself" or similar "offering" to garner salvation.
4. Israel was not told to pray to the bronze serpant (I use to "pray the prayer" so many times I lost count). Contra evangelist who make or call their hearers to go somewhere and plead with God for pardoning and mercy.
5. Israel was not told to look at their wounds (another one, Luther recognized this deadly theology). Contra many who think that one must excessively examine their own wicked hearts in order to produce "enough repentance" or "need" as a necessary qualification for salvation. This is like peering into the darkness in order to produce light! THIS one was another huge help to a trap I've fallen into stealing my joy!
6. And the final help. Do I have enough faith or is my faith in the right degree or even 100% correct in every way? This one will tortue a Christian to death. Answer: Christ does not say "look to your looking" or "have faith in your faith", but to simply look (as they did to the bronze serpant) to Christ, weak or strong, and be healed/saved.

It is all in the looking (faith/trust) and the object being looked (trusted in) to. One's weary soul will only rest if looking to Christ alone.

Thanks for the opportunity to perhaps add to the discussion.

Larry


----------



## openairboy (Nov 3, 2004)

> I disagree that man does not need to know his condition and his need for a savior. He does need to know his predicament and that he is totally depraved.



I never said man didn't need to know that fact that he is sinful, but that is a far cry from someone understanding that the fall effected every aspect of man. I the apologetics forum a man mentioned that the intellect was not effected by the fall. I believe Chris did a fine job responding, but the fact that the gentleman does not believe this, the intellect was effected, doesn't mean he is lost. Well, maybe you think so, but...




> This guy knew his need and condition of total depravity:
> 
> Luke 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.



Sinful? Yes. Total depravity? Well, I think you brought that to the text, but...



> I suggest you look at the literal greek interpretation of Rom 10. The confession made there represents that which men have already taken hold of. Men that have been regenerated will assuredly confess with their mouths, that Jesus is Lord. Confession does not save, it is a result of being saved.



I looky, but no convincey. 



> Denial of unconditional election is bordering on another gospel; Arminianism or semi Pelagianism. Do not men need to know that God saves, not men. Are Roman Catholics orthodox? Does their gospel save?



Judge as you will. I'll go with Calvin, Luther, and Hodge and count a Roman Catholic baptism as valid. Anathematize me if you will, but...



> I would have to think about 'limited atonement'...



Keep thinking...

It's good to see that you might be headed "Outside the Camp". It's a nice place to visit, but you don't want to live their.

openairboy



[Edited on 4-11-2004 by openairboy]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > I disagree that man does not need to know his condition and his need for a savior. He does need to know his predicament and that he is totally depraved.
> ...



I will post the literal interpretation of Romans ch 10 for you. 

Mind you, I have a thick spine. Careful with the ad hom ('Heading outside the camp) as you could find yourself outside looking in this board. keep it clean. Also, you mention that "it is good" I am heading outside". Why would you relish in this if in fact this was true. This is akin to saying 'RACA" to your brother..........shame on you.

ps:

I didn't say a Roman Catholic baptism was not valid. I did state that Rome's gospel is not the Gospel of the scriptures. you threw a red herring in there about baptism.

I have a friend who is a JW; They baptize using the biblical formula also; what about them?



[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

Romns 10.

1) This is to the church; The apostle is addressing believers.

Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

He calls them 'saints'. he says, God is their father.

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

He calls them brethren.

Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

The word is in their hearts........They already have faith. Paul says that it is "the word of faith" which _they_ preach.



The living Bible translation expresses it best:

For if you tell others with your own mouth that Jesus Christ is your Lord, and believe in your own heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is by believing in his heart that a man becomes right with God; and with his mouth he tells others of his faith, confirming his salvation. 

Men whom proclaim or confess Christ are already saved. They would not be proclaiming him unless they were saved.


[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## openairboy (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I will post the literal interpretation of Romans ch 10 for you.
> 
> Mind you, I have a thick spine. Careful with the ad hom ('Heading outside the camp) as you could find yourself outside looking in this board. keep it clean. Also, you mention that "it is good" I am heading outside". Why would you relish in this if in fact this was true. This is akin to saying 'RACA" to your brother..........shame on you.
> ...



The tongue was firmly in the cheek; hence it being a place you don't want to live. They wouldn't let you stay anyway.

No, a JW's baptism is not valid, b/c they answer, "Who do you say I am?" wrong, wrong, wrong! I believe the heart of the Gospel is about Jesus, the announcement that YHWH reigns. The fruit of that is our justification ("accrediting of Christ's righteousness"), but I don't believe that fruit is the heart of the Gospel. 

JW's are not part of the visible Church. True church, as Hodge says, must include that which is necessary for salvation. No true Church=no valid baptism. Therefore, no JW baptism is valid. Valid baptism=true Church=that which is necessary for salvation.

openairboy

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by openairboy]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

Is Rome's gospel heretical? You're side stepping. You're picking and choosing what you are responding to. 

Also, did you review my last posts on page 1 Keith? I wish you would as they speak in terms of the Ordo...........


----------



## openairboy (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Romns 10.
> 
> 1) This is to the church; The apostle is addressing believers.
> ...



If I get some time, I will have to look this over more and spend more time with it. The basic flow seems rather missiological in nature and not the faith already possessed by a believer.

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Is Rome's gospel heretical? You're side stepping. You're picking and choosing what you are responding to.
> 
> Also, did you review my last posts on page 1 Keith? I wish you would as they speak in terms of the Ordo...........



Following Hodge, I would have to say no.

I don't think I have an issue with anything that you said in those posts. Anything particular?

openairboy


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

So, do you agree that the ordo does not necessarily have to be instantaneous?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

Rome's gospel is not heretical? The Christ of Rome is re-sacrificed week after week for the forgiveness of Rome's sins. Their gospel is Arminian to the core. Salvation is not of Christ alone, but by works and Mary and the host and.....priests and saints.........This is heresy. Where does Hodge say this?


----------



## openairboy (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> So, do you agree that the ordo does not necessarily have to be instantaneous?



I don't take issue, b/c I'm rather agnostic on the whole ordo.


----------



## openairboy (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rome's gospel is not heretical? The Christ of Rome is re-sacrificed week after week for the forgiveness of Rome's sins. Their gospel is Arminian to the core. Salvation is not of Christ alone, but by works and Mary and the host and.....priests and saints.........This is heresy. Where does Hodge say this?



http://www.reformed.org/misc/hodge_catholic.html


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 3, 2004)

I'll read it in the am...............

The ordo is scriptural. Do you acknowledge the scripture in Romans?

Romans 8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Do you then believe that John the baptist was converted without hearing the word?

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## openairboy (Nov 3, 2004)

> The ordo is scriptural. Do you acknowledge the scripture in Romans?



Yes, but that doesn't give me tons to go on with respect to how much time occurs between one and the other, etc. So, yes, Romans suggests a basic ordo, but I'm basically agnostic, not willing to say too much.





> Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
> 
> Do you then believe that John the baptist was converted without hearing the word?



Well, I guess I would say he was converted without grasping total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. I would see a difference between a missiological setting, Romans 10, and covenantal succession, John's setting.

openairboy 

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by openairboy]


----------



## cih1355 (Nov 4, 2004)

God saved me when I was a young child. During my childhood, if someone would have asked me, "Did Jesus die for everyone or did He die for the elect only?", I would have said, "I do not know.". Looking back on my childhood, what I believed was consistent with the limited atonement. I believed that some people will go to heaven and some people will go to hell to be punished for their sins. I believed that when Jesus died for people, He was punished for all of their sins. I believed that Christ's atonement was a substitutionary atonement where He was punished in the place of other people. I believed that if Jesus died for a particular person, then the punishment for that particular person's sins has already been taken care of. I believed that Christ's work on the cross fully satisfied God's wrath. I believed that Christ's atonement guarantees a person's salvation. I denied that man's faith makes Christ's atonement effective. 

I guess I believed in the limited atonement without even knowing it.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 4, 2004)

Curt,
Thats my point. 

Keith,
We're really not dialoging here; you're not thinking about my posts. If you were, you would see that I have mentioned a few things that are significantly important to this discussion and interact with them.

For instance, for the sake of the conversation:

1) I have mentioned a few scriptures which show some knowledge is in fact required (to see the kingdom), i.e. John 3:3, Matt 13:23, Rom 10:17 Luke 23:39

The centurion knew that Jesus was God. He feared greatly. The thief next to Jesus knew. He called Christ Lord and mentioned His kingdom.

2) That biblical repentance is brought about by godly sorrow; godly sorrow is a recognition of certain dispositions. These dispositions are from the holy spirit and basic knowledge about certain things of God, else they would not be dispositions. And if they were not dispositions, how could men rightly repent? They would be repenting of nothing.

Luke 18:3, Matt 27:54

3) I've mentioned the ordo salutis and that since there are components, it is quite logical that the components can occur seperately. Rom 8:29 

I mentioned John the Baptist. John was **regenerated* in the womb. Without hearing the word, it would be contra-biblical to assume John was **converted* while in the womb. He lived to a ripe age, as he grew and sat under the word of God, it was then that he was *converted*. 
* Regeneration is not Conversion/Conversion is not regeneration

John 3:3 shows that God regenerates and _then_ men can see the kingdom and things thereof........

I previously asked:
Do you then believe that John the baptist was converted without hearing the word? 



> Well, I guess I would say he was converted without grasping total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. I would see a difference between a missiological setting, Romans 10, and covenantal succession, John's setting.



You response in erred here:

Without acknowledging the ordo above, your conclussion is skewed. The fact that men _must_ hear the word in order to be *converted*, which is supported by Rom 10:17, 8:29 and the ordo salutis, shows that John was regenerated in the womb, not converted. He was converted later after hearing the word (as described in Jesus' parable of the soils; "He that *understandeth* the word...." and Rom 10:17) So, you are correct in saying that John did not have the understanding at that time. He did however later, to some capacity.


You add:



> Yes, but that doesn't give me tons to go on with respect to how much time occurs between one and the other, etc. So, yes, Romans suggests a basic ordo, but I'm basically agnostic, not willing to say too much.



You don't need to have 'tons to go on'. All you need to know is that there are segments. Segments represent time. Time has seperation. Hence, conversion is seperated from regeneration. Here I will quote you from earlier in the thread:



> In regards to your faith comments, I will take God at His Word. I'm not left with endless speculation whether or not he has grasped me, etc., but know Him via covenant. He tells me to believe and promises anyone who believes will be saved. So I simply believe.





4) Whether or not, Hodge agree's, Rome is hgeretical; they are possibly the whore of Babylon. Please refer to their cathechism for validation. They do not believe in the same gospel of the orthodox body of Christ; hence, they are anathema.



[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## openairboy (Nov 4, 2004)

> For instance, for the sake of the conversation:
> 
> 1) I have mentioned a few scriptures which show some knowledge is in fact required (to see the kingdom), i.e. John 3:3, Matt 13:23, Rom 10:17 Luke 23:39



And I've centered my response around knowledge of who Jesus is. Of course that is going to include ideas of sin, but I don't think total depravity is necessary.



> The centurion knew that Jesus was God. He feared greatly. The thief next to Jesus knew. He called Christ Lord and mentioned His kingdom.



Yes, this is consistent with the fact that I believe the Gospel centers around who Jesus is. No, I don't believe the thief understand limited atonement, especially if he heard Jesus say, "Forgive them, they know not what they do." Yes, we must confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord.



> 2) That biblical repentance is brought about by godly sorrow; godly sorrow is a recognition of certain dispositions. These dispositions are from the holy spirit and basic knowledge about certain things of God, else they would not be dispositions. And if they were not dispositions, how could men rightly repent? They would be repenting of nothing.
> 
> Luke 18:3, Matt 27:54



See above. Have I said anything to the contrary, namely knowledge of sin isn't necessary? I've pointed to 1 Co 15 as what passed on as first importance and he notes: "died for our sins".



> 3) I've mentioned the ordo salutis and that since there are components, it is quite logical that the components can occur seperately. Rom 8:29
> 
> I mentioned John the Baptist. John was **regenerated* in the womb. Without hearing the word, it would be contra-biblical to assume John was **converted* while in the womb. He lived to a ripe age, as he grew and sat under the word of God, it was then that he was *converted*.
> * Regeneration is not Conversion/Conversion is not regeneration
> ...



I honestly don't see Jesus running around preaching or being concerned with an ordo salutis, or much of Church history concerned with that, so I'll let others discuss it, but I'm pleading agnostic. Yes, I'm sure there is an historical progression, but it is pure speculation to say that 13 yrs. can pass between regeneration and conversion, etc. I think it is a fun theological discussion, but leads to a lot of needless and endless bickering. I realize the "truly reformed" won't see it this way, but I do. I'm not going to quarrel over the length of time someone can be regenerated. We draw these things up, b/c we have systematic concerns to defend, which I don't believe the Scriptures are concerned with. We will have to agree to disagree. 

[qoute]I previously asked:
Do you then believe that John the baptist was converted without hearing the word?[/quote]

It's a hermeneutical issue, but we are going to see a difference between covenant succession and a missiological setting, which I previously mentioned. Dr. Rayburn has a wonderful piece on his web site about covenant succession, and I would largely agree with him.



> You response in erred here:
> 
> Without acknowledging the ordo above, your conclussion is skewed. The fact that men _must_ hear the word in order to be *converted*, which is supported by Rom 10:17, 8:29 and the ordo salutis, shows that John was regenerated in the womb, not converted. He was converted later after hearing the word (as described in Jesus' parable of the soils; "He that *understandeth* the word...." and Rom 10:17) So, you are correct in saying that John did not have the understanding at that time. He did however later, to some capacity.



I think the Scriptures are silent on what you are trying to draw out here. Again, I notice a difference between covenantal succession and missiological settings. As Dort says (paraphrasing), "Parents of believing children should have assurance that their children are saved." So, I see a difference between a covenantal setting and missiological, which I don't believe you are taking into consideration.



> You don't need to have 'tons to go on'. All you need to know is that there are segments. Segments represent time. Time has seperation. Hence, conversion is seperated from regeneration. Here I will quote you from earlier in the thread:
> 
> 
> 
> > In regards to your faith comments, I will take God at His Word. I'm not left with endless speculation whether or not he has grasped me, etc., but know Him via covenant. He tells me to believe and promises anyone who believes will be saved. So I simply believe.



My comments were in regard to someone believing the Gospel, but God not taking hold of them, which I think is a needless and unbiblical distinction. So I wouldn't take those those verses to imply that John the baptist wasn't converted as a baby.



> 4) Whether or not, Hodge agree's, Rome is hgeretical; they are possibly the whore of Babylon. Please refer to their cathechism for validation. They do not believe in the same gospel of the orthodox body of Christ; hence, they are anathema.



You have the right to believe that. If Hodge never said those words I'm sure quite a few around here would love to denounce me as an heretic, anathematize me, and say I'm not Reformed. I don't mind people making judgments, but I just hope they use the same measure with their favorite saints and theologians as they do on discussion boards and with their friends. Just use the same measure, because the measure you use you will be judged.

This will be my last post on the subject, b/c I don't think we are going to progress too much. So my final word is: the "doctrines of grace", popularly understood as Calvinism, I don't believe are necessary for salvation. 

openairboy

P.S. I hope you are able to follow with me messing up the "quotes" set off. I went back and tried to correct it, but have in too many quotes.

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by openairboy]

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by openairboy]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 4, 2004)

I believe the thread speaks for itself..............

Thanks for the exchange.


----------



## tdowns (Nov 4, 2004)

*Great discussion...*

This debate is always thought provoking and helpfull to those new to the doctrines, thanks for the discussion.

After reading over two days, maybe I missed these points. So I'll ask.

Scott,
Is it concluded then, that one regenerated but not converted will still be saved? Still in womb, etc.

so therefore

anyone who has been regenerated will be converted if time allows.

so that

there is a sequence and a seperation in time, but no seperation in timeless eternity.

Is this right?

Or is conversion a requirement?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> This debate is always thought provoking and helpfull to those new to the doctrines, thanks for the discussion.
> 
> After reading over two days, maybe I missed these points. So I'll ask.
> ...



Regenerated individuals will be converted.





> so therefore
> 
> anyone who has been regenerated will be converted if time allows..


 
Time WILL _allow_; it must. No one can enter Heaven unless converted.



> so that
> 
> there is a sequence and a seperation in time, but no seperation in timeless eternity.



Yes.



> Or is conversion a requirement?



What do you mean by this? Can you expound a bit?

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## tdowns (Nov 4, 2004)

*You answered it.*

The "Is conversion a requirement?" question was in the context of the baby in the womb, mentally impaired, etc. scenarios. You answered that with your other replies. 
I find it interesting that people (myself included at times) struggle with the fact that the same God that controls our eternal destiny (not to mention everything else) can't control the specifics (where we are born, who's family, what time period, who we come in contact with, when we die, etc.) that may be required to receive that conversion.

As you said, if we are regenerate, time will allow for conversion, whatever time that may be. 

Thanks again. This site is really a blessing.
P.S.
any luck on the avatar sent you?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 4, 2004)

Trevor,
Send it again; I will do it immediately.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 4, 2004)

Perhaps a good, though not perfect, analogy would be that all Christians unconsciously know the doctrines of grace in their heart (since they are the heart of the Gospel), but those who don't intellectually hold to them inconsistently suppress that knowledge, just like all unbelievers unconsciously know God in their heart (since they are made in His image and have common grace), but those who don't intellectually acknowledge Him inconsistently suppress that knowledge.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 4, 2004)

Chris,
You're spending too much time in the political forums. You're beginning to sound like BWB. Your're so politically correct.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 4, 2004)

Any reason not to shut this thread down?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 4, 2004)

I'm guessing you meant "GWB." And actually the universal knowledge of God thing is 'cause I'm probably spending too much time studying presuppositionalism! (Like that's possible! )


----------

