I was saved twice!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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.

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
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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]
 
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]
 
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.
 
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]
 
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

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

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]
 
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?
 
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.

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

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]
 
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?
 
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.
 
Chris,
You're spending too much time in the political forums. You're beginning to sound like BWB. Your're so politically correct.:lol:
 
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! :D)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top