The Spiritual and Physical Aspect of Salvation

[Robert Pate]

But this verse just says that those who received Peter's word [his preaching] were baptized, doesn't say anything about being spiritually awakened. Jn 1:9 suggests spiritual birth is to all.

I have to agree with the logic of my Calvinist brethren that the dead must first be vitalized before hearing and receiving God's word...unlike them, though, I see this granted to all men.

So, you believe that people get zapped with the Holy Spirit right out of a clear blue sky.

Try this.

"So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17. Which is the Gospel.

 

[Bociferous]

So, you believe that people get zapped with the Holy Spirit right out of a clear blue sky.

Yes, that's pretty much how Jesus put it in Jn 3:7-8:

"Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Try this.

"So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17. Which is the Gospel.

The sovereign grace and Arminian difference lies in the word "hearing". The former recognizes that the act of being made to hear describes movement on the part of God. Some of the more libertarian Arminians (I'm guessing you may be coming from here?) interpret the same term as intellectual movement from an innate more of less fully functioning moral ability within each person.

Some Arminians grant Jn 1:9 to describe antecedent movement by God to create that ability in all. Calvinist and prevenient grace Arminians are similar aside from the obvious elect/non-elect distinction of our Calvinist brethren.

I'm closer to the Arminian prevenient grace position, but with stronger emphasis on the necessity of God's movement to illuminate (regenerate; create moral ability). However, I don't believe we choose freely or make prescriptive judgements or decisions more or less evenly between good and evil as most do. Instead, I think we're spiritually born progressively and incrementally to lesser or greater ability to choose the true and good. In other words, we're agents who only have more or less ability to think/choose/act with respect to or measured against absolute good.

 

[Robert Pate]

Yes, that's pretty much how Jesus put it in Jn 3:7-8:

"Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."



The sovereign grace and Arminian difference lies in the word "hearing". The former recognizes that the act of being made to hear describes movement on the part of God. Some of the more libertarian Arminians (I'm guessing you may be coming from here?) interpret the same term as intellectual movement from an innate more of less fully functioning moral ability within each person.

Some Arminians grant Jn 1:9 to describe antecedent movement by God to create that ability in all. Calvinist and prevenient grace Arminians are similar aside from the obvious elect/non-elect distinction of our Calvinist brethren.

I'm closer to the Arminian prevenient grace position, but with stronger emphasis on the necessity of God's movement to illuminate (regenerate; create moral ability). However, I don't believe we choose freely or make prescriptive judgements or decisions more or less evenly between good and evil as most do. Instead, I think we're spiritually born progressively and incrementally to lesser or greater ability to choose the true and good. In other words, we're agents who only have more or less ability to think/choose/act with respect to or measured against absolute good.

I don't believe that we are MADE to hear anything. Hearing and believing is what we choose to do.

On the day of Pentecost thousands of Jews from all over Israel assembled in Jerusalem to hear and witness a new message from God. It was the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some of those that heard and believed that day had participated in the crucifixion of Christ, Acts 2:36.

They heard, they believed and they were converted to Christ. The number was about 8,000, Acts 2:41 also Acts 4:4. This event is what gave birth to the New Testament church. Which goes to prove "That faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17 Which is the Gospel.

 

[Bociferous]

I don't believe that we are MADE to hear anything. Hearing and believing is what we choose to do.

On the day of Pentecost thousands of Jews from all over Israel assembled in Jerusalem to hear and witness a new message from God. It was the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some of those that heard and believed that day had participated in the crucifixion of Christ, Acts 2:36.

They heard, they believed and they were converted to Christ. The number was about 8,000, Acts 2:41 also Acts 4:4. This event is what gave birth to the New Testament church. Which goes to prove "That faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17 Which is the Gospel.

Okay, I think let's press "pause" and take the above back to a previous point I made:

"The sovereign grace and Arminian difference lies in the word "hearing". The former recognizes that the act of being made to hear describes movement on the part of God. Some of the more libertarian Arminians...interpret the same term as intellectual movement from an innate more of less fully functioning moral ability within each person."

Some questions.
1. Is it safe to say that you'd agree with the latter of the two highlighted positions?
2. If you answer 'yes' to #1, do you believe,
A...that all people are born with this innate spiritual ability, and,
B...would it be correct to say that God designed this innate ability into humans?

The power to choose comes from somewhere. Everything comes from somewhere. Trying to figure out if there's really that much difference in your and my position on this.

 

[Robert Pate]

Okay, I think let's press "pause" and take the above back to a previous point I made:

"The sovereign grace and Arminian difference lies in the word "hearing". The former recognizes that the act of being made to hear describes movement on the part of God. Some of the more libertarian Arminians...interpret the same term as intellectual movement from an innate more of less fully functioning moral ability within each person."

Some questions.
1. Is it safe to say that you'd agree with the latter of the two highlighted positions?
2. If you answer 'yes' to #1, do you believe,
A...that all people are born with this innate spiritual ability, and,
B...would it be correct to say that God designed this innate ability into humans?

The power to choose comes from somewhere. Everything comes from somewhere. Trying to figure out if there's really that much difference in your and my position on this.

Imagine this. On the day of Pentecost 8000 Jews, some that had participated in the crucifixion of Christ, Acts 2:36, heard the Gospel for the very first time and were converted to Christ.

There is great power in the preaching of the Gospel. This is why Paul said, "The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation" Romans 1:16.

 

[Bociferous]

Imagine this. On the day of Pentecost 8000 Jews, some that had participated in the crucifixion of Christ, Acts 2:36, heard the Gospel for the very first time and were converted to Christ.

There is great power in the preaching of the Gospel. This is why Paul said, "The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation" Romans 1:16.

If you'd rather not answer the questions asked of you that's fine RP but I tire of repetitive passage posting and one-sided discussion after a while. That one or 100,000 hear the gospel and believe on a given day begs the question of whether they believed from an innate ability or were spiritually prepared prior to hearing. And Rom 1:16, like the other passages you use to prove your doctrine, can be interpreted in different ways.

Doctrine chirping consists in posting passages with the assumption one's interpretation is correct and obvious to everyone else because it seems obvious to the poster.

Discussion is taking the time to discuss the various aspects of how we arrive at those interpretations in order to find how well they actually pass truth criteria.

 

[Epoisses]

Jamie was using the Jonah example as a metaphor. The metaphor coheres with an aspect of spiritual reality.

Jesus used the metaphor of Jonah not the other way around.

 

[Epoisses]

That one or 100,000 hear the gospel and believe on a given day begs the question of whether they believed from an innate ability or were spiritually prepared prior to hearing. And Rom 1:16, like the other passages you use to prove your doctrine, can be interpreted in different ways.

They were spiritually prepared prior to hearing. I'm sure many saw the miracles of Christ but never confessed him until Pentecost.

 

[Bociferous]

Jesus used the metaphor of Jonah not the other way around.

What is this supposed to mean? It appears to be an attempt to discredit the notion that Jamie's use of the Jonah story provides an insight but your meaning is ambiguous. Please elaborate.

 

[Epoisses]

What is this supposed to mean? It appears to be an attempt to discredit the notion that Jamie's use of the Jonah story provides an insight but your meaning is ambiguous. Please elaborate.

I had to go back and re-read what she said. I thought she was implying that Jonah died and was resurrected and then did God's will.

 

[Robert Pate]

If you'd rather not answer the questions asked of you that's fine RP but I tire of repetitive passage posting and one-sided discussion after a while. That one or 100,000 hear the gospel and believe on a given day begs the question of whether they believed from an innate ability or were spiritually prepared prior to hearing. And Rom 1:16, like the other passages you use to prove your doctrine, can be interpreted in different ways.

Doctrine chirping consists in posting passages with the assumption one's interpretation is correct and obvious to everyone else because it seems obvious to the poster.

Discussion is taking the time to discuss the various aspects of how we arrive at those interpretations in order to find how well they actually pass truth criteria.

All through the Old Testament men are making choices by their own free will. They are even making choices to sin like King David and Abraham and many others.

Man is an independent agent that can make choices, some bad, some good. God does not interfere.

 

[jamie]

I had to go back and re-read what she said. I thought she was implying that Johan died and was resurrected and then did God's will.

Exactly. Jesus was buried for three days and three nights the same as Jonah.

 

[Bociferous]

I had to go back and re-read what she said. I thought she was implying that Johan died and was resurrected and then did God's will.

Okay. I think she just saw the way the Jonah story could be used to suggest a metaphor about salvation. At least that's the way I understood her.

 

[Robert Pate]

Okay. I think she just saw the way the Jonah story could be used to suggest a metaphor about salvation. At least that's the way I understood her.

Jonah was a Calvinist. He was saved and wanted everybody else to go to hell.