openairboy
Puritan Board Freshman
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
I was saved twice!
- Thread starter Scott Bushey
- Start date
- Status
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
So, do you agree that the ordo does not necessarily have to be instantaneous?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
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
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't take issue, b/c I'm rather agnostic on the whole ordo.
openairboy
Puritan Board Freshman
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
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?
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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.
I guess I believed in the limited atonement without even knowing it.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
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?
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:
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:
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]
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?
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:
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:
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
I believe the thread speaks for itself..............
Thanks for the exchange.
Thanks for the exchange.
tdowns
Puritan Board Junior
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?
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
Regenerated individuals will be converted.
Time WILL allow; it must. No one can enter Heaven unless converted.
Yes.
What do you mean by this? Can you expound a bit?
[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]
tdowns
Puritan Board Junior
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?
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
Trevor,
Send it again; I will do it immediately.
Send it again; I will do it immediately.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
Chris,
You're spending too much time in the political forums. You're beginning to sound like BWB. Your're so politically correct.
You're spending too much time in the political forums. You're beginning to sound like BWB. Your're so politically correct.
Any reason not to shut this thread down?
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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! 
)
)- Status
