Mike N.Y. wrote:what Scripture says?
"Regeneration is inseparable from its effects and one of its effects is faith. Without Regeneration it is morally and spiritually impossible for a person to believe in Christ."
"If Regeneration is the way of entrance (into the Kingdom of God) then those Regenerated have entered and having entered they see the Kingdom of God and are members of it. This is again the pointed lesson of Jesus in John 3.6 "that which is born of Spirit is spirit" that is to say the person born of the Holy Spirit is indwelt and directed by the Spirit. The regenerate person cannot live in sin and be unconverted."
"Regeneration is the beginning of all saving grace in us and all saving grace in exercise on our part proceeds from the fountain of Regeneration. We are not born again by faith or repentance or conversion - We repent and believe because we have been Regenerated."
"God's call since it is effectual carries with it the operative grace whereby the person called is enabled to answer the call and embrace Jesus...And that grace is the grace of regeneration"(From Redemption Accomplished and Applied)
Could I ask you to lok at page 308. If it is "When this passing world is done", please tell me the name of the tune used. I have been looking for this version for moths with no success.
#1 and #3 don't necessarily mean salvation has ocurred.
#5 sounds redundant. If one is truely saved, signs WILL follow.
I was always taught that "regeneration" meant that God gave you a new "heart" and a resurrected soul. Our bodies (those of the true believers) will not be regenerated until Christ's return.
John UK wrote:Well I would debate it with you HYH...but...#1 I'm pushed for time #2 I'm in agreement with what you say
#1. My post was addressed to Hailsham.#2. I had read your earlier posts and knew that you did not agree with Hailsham.
Good of you to chat all the same
HYH wrote:Don't make me laugh. The argument is not over whether there are any elect infants who die in infancy. It is about whether the children of believers are guaranteed to be elect. You and your ilk say yes, we say no, because one of the key lessons of the Bible, which seems to elude Presbys. like you, is that Christianity is not hereditary. It has nothing to do with who my parents were. It is a matter of pure grace.Your imagined covenant which makes the children and the spouse "elect" is just that viz. pure fiction and runs counter to all that we read of Salvation in the NT.Now if you want to debate this, fine, but at least be honest and don't attribute sentiments to others which they have not stated.
#1 I'm pushed for time
#2 I'm in agreement with what you say
Hailsham wrote:HYH and Guinness choose another path. They therefore imply by their posts that the children of the Elect are going to hell. They have even further implied that the spouse also goes to hell? Some covenant they have!!THIS is UNScriptural.Isaiah 44:1-8, 61:9, 65:23. A Promise of GOD! Amen!
Your imagined covenant which makes the children and the spouse "elect" is just that viz. pure fiction and runs counter to all that we read of Salvation in the NT.
Now if you want to debate this, fine, but at least be honest and don't attribute sentiments to others which they have not stated.
Mike wrote:And infant salvation is by God's grace, same source as grown-up salvation
17th century Europe was more greatly aware of the terrible tragedy of infant mortality than we are today.The article is written in a "Pastoral" way which does NOT make it wrong.How would you handle telling a young couple in your church what may happen to their dead child? A couple who have entered into the Covenant with God. Can you be more Biblically accurate by telling them that the child is in hell? They like any parents hope and pray for their children to be God's children. Clearly it is NOT sentimental to teach that the child is covenant elect.___
HYH and Guinness choose another path. They therefore imply by their posts that the children of the Elect are going to hell. They have even further implied that the spouse also goes to hell? Some covenant they have!!THIS is UNScriptural.
Isaiah 44:1-8, 61:9, 65:23. A Promise of GOD! Amen!
Guinness wrote:HYH,Let's deal with that if he begins to engage with his own fallacious argument.I don't think it will ever happen ....On a side note may I urge you to draw greater distinction between the actual Canons of Dordt and any ignorant reinterpretation, reconstruction and reinvention of them. It would be akin to judging the theology of the 39 Articles by J H Newman's fanciful and ludicrous Tract 90.
The Synod, as august a company as it was, got many things wrong. But hey they were only men after all!
HYH wrote:How would you answer if he affirmed that the unbelieving spouse is also elect by virtue of the Covt. of Grace?
Let's deal with that if he begins to engage with his own fallacious argument.I don't think it will ever happen ....
On a side note may I urge you to draw greater distinction between the actual Canons of Dordt and any ignorant reinterpretation, reconstruction and reinvention of them. It would be akin to judging the theology of the 39 Articles by J H Newman's fanciful and ludicrous Tract 90.
Hailsham wrote:Nota Bene Michael and the DIY brigade on site.
No were in Scripture do I find God giving us this type of reasoning. I do however find.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."
Wow! I simply don't need a doctorate in theology to be saved, just Jesus.
Guinness wrote:Well, now you've reverted back to your previous postings
Guinness wrote:Well, now you've reverted back to your previous postings how about you actually interact with the logical fallacy.A believer's children and unbelieving spouse have the SAME standing in the source proof text - i.e. in this case holy/sanctified. So what you argue for children, you have to argue for unbelieving spouses.By your reasoning therefore from the same text YOU also "have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of" unbelieving spouses.If you were consistent you would "judge of the will of God from his Word" for the election of all unbelieving spouses as well as all children. It seems Hailsham is all knotted up with Marlow Ropes!
Hailsham wrote:"Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the *COVENANT* of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." (Canons of Dort 1:17)
A believer's children and unbelieving spouse have the SAME standing in the source proof text - i.e. in this case holy/sanctified.
So what you argue for children, you have to argue for unbelieving spouses.By your reasoning therefore from the same text YOU also "have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of" unbelieving spouses.
If you were consistent you would "judge of the will of God from his Word" for the election of all unbelieving spouses as well as all children.
It seems Hailsham is all knotted up with Marlow Ropes!
Mike wrote:1] but I recognize your accent. Long way from Eastbourne, lad 2] And infant salvation is by God's grace, same source as grown-up salvation, not man-invented ideas about Godly parents.
2] And infant salvation is by God's grace, same source as grown-up salvation, not man-invented ideas about Godly parents.
2] Do me a wee favour here Mike, and read this Canon article again slowly. "Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the *COVENANT* of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." (Canons of Dort 1:17)
Guinness wrote:I'd be more interested if you could provide support for your previous illogical arguments about your unusual perspective on the scope of election rather than changing the subject to infant baptism.
Hailsham wrote:Here is some good teaching to hopefully absorb your interest folks.
Hailsham wrote:--And your buddies speculations?No nowhere near Eastbourne or England - wherever that is. Dont you recognise my accent? _____________Here is some good teaching to hopefully absorb your interest folks."The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance, or good works, whether actual or foreseen. It does not, however, find a logical place in Arminianism or any other system. Furthermore, it would seem that a system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy must either be given another period of probation after death, in order that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated." (Boettner)Nota Bene Michael and the DIY brigade on site.
Dear Hailsham, you know very well the "suspension" or loss of salvation is both impossible and illogical. And infant salvation is by God's grace, same source as grown-up salvation, not man-invented ideas about Godly parents.
John UK wrote:Is there any truth in the rumour that the Canons of Dordt are the protestant equivalent of the papal bulls?
As for "Eastbourne"And your buddies speculations?
No nowhere near Eastbourne or England - wherever that is. Dont you recognise my accent? _____________
Here is some good teaching to hopefully absorb your interest folks.
"The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance, or good works, whether actual or foreseen. It does not, however, find a logical place in Arminianism or any other system. Furthermore, it would seem that a system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy must either be given another period of probation after death, in order that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated." (Boettner)
Nota Bene Michael and the DIY brigade on site.
Mike wrote:Quite imaginative for one addicted to the Canons.
