And, “However, you have brought no Biblical evidence that would indicate that people were not regenerated before the cross.”

**Prior** to the events of Matthew 11:11 which came **after** the baptism of Jesus, John the Baptist said in John 1, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

**Subsequent** to this declaration by John, Jesus said, “…Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

If I am the very LEAST in the kingdom of heaven and yet I am “greater” than you, then YOU are NOT in the kingdom of heaven.

Also, Jesus mentions that John was the greatest of those “born of women”. What does born of women mean? It means those that are born through water – which includes (typically) every human being. However, Christ goes on to say what I mentioned above “(regarding John) the LEAST in the kingdom is greater than he.” Meaning (IMHO), whosoever has been born of the Spirit (REGENERATED) is greater than John who, up to that point, had merely been born of water.

The Calvinist view of total depravity says, in summation, that man has a complete inability to choose God, which is in contradiction to the example above. Pre-Resurrection, John was still DEAD spritually. Therefore, the Calvinist view of TD is incorrect, and if T is incorrect, then what about ULIP?

Additionally, in the Hall of Faith passage in Hebrews 11, it concludes with “And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did NOT receive the PROMISE…”

What do you think the promise was? I believe that the promise was Jesus, and if you don’t have Jesus, then you haven’t been regenerated – you’re still dead spiritually because your sins have NOT been pardoned. Remember, it wasn’t until John 20 that the disciples “received the Holy Spirit”

Bye for now.

Greg

I do not think you comments are fair.

As to Eph 2, I simply wished to have a rather complete discussion of Eph 2. If you know something that I do not, you should have said so. I do openly say that I do not understand the Greek of the Bible, as I have not yet undertaken to begin a comprehensive study of the language. I do however understand something of the Greek of this passage. If I have made a factual mistake, I have welcomed correction. I do however think that what I have said is factually correct.

I have spent so much time on this text because I do not wish for the text to be missed by me or anyone else. You claim that I am trying to take one text to interpret the entire Bible through, but I do not think you will not find where I have done this.

I have, in the case you have not seen it, given John 1:12-13 as another place to which one may go to study this issue.

Further, I do think that my last point to Dr. Brown on John 6 stands:
Dr. Brown said that the one who comes is the one who believes, and this is a very true claim that this passage makes. However, this does not negate verse 44 which says, “No *one* can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws *him*; and I will raise *him* up on the last day.” Will the Father teach all the children of Isa 54:13 which Jesus quotes? Yes, and “everyone who who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” Also, “all that the Father gives Me will come to Me” (v. 37).

All I ask is that you be honest in your objections and clear. Please do not discribe my actions as wrong, unless you have shown so. Please know that I believe what I do because I understand see it taught in the Bible ultimately, and am completely open to correction based on the Word.

“Although I appreciate the efforts of Calvinists to use Eph 2:8-9 to argue that faith itself is a gift,”

Actually it is ****one**** calvinist here, Harold, who is obsessed with establishing that God gives some the gift of salvation and is attempting to proof text from Ephesians 2:8 to “prove” his claim. The Greek grammar does not support this and in fact goes against his attempts. He himself admits he does not know Greek and yet he keeps trying to proof text from a text when he does not even understand the grammar involved.

The text does not say that God gives some a gift of faith. That is a **theological invention** first promulgated by Augustine and repeated by scores of calvinists. I could post what Greek scholars such as Daniel Wallace (who is himself a calvinist) say about this passage, and who argue clearly and cogently that it does not say that faith is given as the gift in Ephesians 2. But it is a waste of time. Harold has his mind made up and has written countless posts here attempting to proof text from this single passage.

“what cannot be denied in scores of others verses is that the Lord holds us responsible for believing and strongly rebukes us for not believing (I’m speaking of Israel, the Church, and even the world).”

Right, it does not make much sense to rebuke someone for not doing something they cannot do. Inherent in the rebuke is the assumption that they could do it but have not done so.

“It seems far wiser to take those verses at face value — especially since those truths were well established centuries before Ephesians was written — rather than to try to exegete the rest of the Bible based on a possible, but still unnecessary, reading of Eph 2.”

But Dr. Brown you don’t understand, this is the only passage that poor Harold can appeal to, to try and proof text from, that faith is given only to some. Take away this passage and he has nothing from which to support his claim. So he is fighting tenaciously and apparently this is a “hill to die on” for him!

His efforts again remind me of past dealings that I have had with non-Christian cultists who also get a verse in their minds that they have to “prove” supports their position. They will literally go around and around and around on the verse until you give in, or you move on realizing you are dealing with a made up mind, that is made up and firmly committed to an error.

Dr. Brown in an earlier post I had suggested that you read my friend Bob Hamilton’s article on John 6. His article is the best one that I have seen on dealing with the Calvinist (and in this case James White) attempt to argue for Calvinism based upon John 6. Here it is again, if you have not yet read it:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Hamilton.%20The%20Order%20of%20Faith%20and%20Election%20in%20John's%20Gospel..pdf

I really believe that you should read this as part of your preparation with your upcoming discussions with James White. I am sure that you are quite ready for the other texts, , I just think this article really deals with the John 6 passage well.

Robert 777

By the way, I do not know why I said, “que dije usted.” I would have rather said que dijo usted, but again I’m not sure why I am typing in Spanish.
B)

When in (John 3:15 que dije usted) does it say that John was only born of “water?” In fact, Jesus implies that he was in the Kingdom in Matt 11:12, “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.”

You say,
“Thus, when John the Baptist said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” he was still spiritually dead (dead in sins and trespasses) and was NOT regenerate.”

I have to ask simply why does John the Baptist’s calling Jesus the Savior of the Word mean that he was spiritually dead? Would not the fact that he sees Jesus for who he is mean that he is not cut off from God, separated from him?

The only way I can make any sense out of what you are saying is if I understand that you are saying something like this:

1. Jesus had not yet died.

2. John calls Jesus the Lamb of God, taking away the sin of the World, showing Jesus had not yet died.

3. Therefore, John could not have been regenerate, since Jesus had not yet died.

If this is not your thinking, please make it clear.

If this is your line of thinking, then I do not understand why you are ignoring the fact that the Work of Jesus on the cross worked backwards. Therefore, it makes no difference whatsoever that God saves before the cross, regenerating people.

Now, regeneration is a relevant theme in the Old Testament. When Moses gave the Law he said, “Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach” (Deu 30:11). But he did not say this because of their inherent ability, but rather because he had already spoken about God’s regeneration in Deu 30:6, “The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.”

There are other pictures from the Old Testament that describe regeneration (such as God taking out of the heart of stone and putting in the heart of flesh), but this is one that Paul picks up to describe making alive (regeneration) in places such as Colossians 2:11-15, again as the Work of God,

“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.”

Again, according to Romans 3-4 and numerous other New Testament passages, people were regenerated by God to have “faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” They just looked forward to the promise of God as “afar off,” just as Heb 11:13 says.
However, you have brought no Biblical evidence that would indicate that people were not regenerated before the cross. You have only given a lot of logical conclusions drawn from your own presumptions about the way the cross saves.

Furthermore, while I am happy to discuss this issue, I still do not understand how it is relevant to Calvinism because, even if I grant you idea as true, it still would have no effect on how God saves since the cross.

Unless you have alternate and more textually based understandings of the Scriptures relevant to this subject, I must conclude that (1.) God has always saved and will always save in the same way and that (2.) it has always been and will always be that God’s salvation is based on the Work of Jesus on the Cross, alone.

Thanks.

You are correct. No one born again or regenerated until after
the resurrection

John the Baptist was born of women – he was born of “water,” but he wasn’t born of “Spirit” (a la John 3:5). If he was born of Spirit, he would have been in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Thus, when John the Baptist said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” he was still spiritually dead (dead in sins and trespasses) and was NOT regenerate. Thereby, clearly disproving the Calvinist position regarding “total depravity.”

I would just like to ask you a question about an issue that I didn’t think was relavent to Calvinism, but is being raised to deny some aspect of Calvinism.

It has been Said that the Calvinist understanding of regeneration is wrong because regeneration is caused by the cross and therefore did not happen before the cross.

I do not understand this objection because I would think that you would believe both that regeneration happened before the cross and that the cross was the basis of it. I’m not asking your view about the order of salvation but just if you think this issue relavent to Calvinism. I do not understand how it is. :/

Thank you.

I stand by the rest however!

I find it very interesting that you believe that this (quote above) occurred for NT people, such as John the Baptist & Martha, who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, before the Resurrection.

Regarding John the Baptist, Jesus said in Matthew 11:11, “I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

It seems if John, who said, “”Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” had “already” been regenerated, he would not have been, at that time, “outside” the Kingdom according to Matthew 11:11.

How can a person be “born again” and outside the Kingdom of God?

How can a person be “born again” before the atonement?

God does not have to regenerate you in order to believe in Jesus as demonstrated in the life of John the Baptist and many others.

The Gospels are full of people that believed in Him prior to His Resurrection. Christ is considered the “first fruits.”

If all of these others were Born Again before the Cross, why were they not considered the first-fruits?